Loose Change turns opponents of the Bush government into "gibbering idiots."

[Ian David]

Short Changing 9/11: Popular Documentary Takes Us Nowhere
By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted February 17, 2007.
The English author charges that infatuation with the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change turns opponents of the Bush government into "gibbering idiots."

There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men which airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11 2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy films, Loose Change is sharp and swift, with a thumping soundtrack, slick graphics and a calm and authoritative voiceover. Its makers claim that it has now been watched by 100 million people.

The Pentagon, the film maintains, was not hit by a commercial airliner. There was "no discernable trace" of a plane found in the wreckage, and the entrance and exit holes in the building were far too small. It was hit by a Cruise missile. The twin towers were brought down by means of "a carefully planned controlled demolition." You can see the small puffs of smoke caused by explosives just below the cascading sections. All other hypotheses are implausible: the fire was not hot enough to melt steel and the towers fell too quickly. Building 7 was destroyed by the same means a few hours later.

Flight 93 did not crash, but was redirected to Cleveland Airport, where the passengers were taken into a NASA building and never seen again. Their voices had been cloned by the Los Alamos laboratories and used to make fake calls to their relatives. The footage of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the attacks, was faked. The US government carried out this great crime for four reasons: to help Larry Silverstein, who leased the towers, to collect his insurance money; to assist insider traders betting on falling airline stocks; to steal the gold in the basement; and to grant George Bush new executive powers, so that he could carry out his plans for world domination.

Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has not yet been liquidized, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the complete absence of scientific advice. At one point the presenter asks "So what brought down the Twin Towers? Let's ask the experts." But they don't ask the experts. The film makers take some old quotes, edit them to remove any contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as further evidence of conspiracy.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/story/47986/

In the spirit in which the 9/11 Forum , I thought about posting this in General Discussion, and then trying to see how many Recs it would get before being "banished to the dungeon."

But then I realized, I'm BETTER than the Konspiracy Kooks, and wouldn't do that.

[LARED]

1. I prefer babbling idiots,

gibbering idiots sounds so harsh.

[MervinFerd]

13. "blithering fools"; "braying jackasses"; "bombastic fools; ...

The British can be so colorful, in their stuffy way.

[BeFree]

56. You have reminded me of..

Team OTC.

Blithering that bushco told the truth;
Brayin that everyone else are fools
And being bombastic all the while.

It really is sickening.

[BeFree]

2. So, you believe?

A theory that says an airplane became shredded into unidentifiable pieces and that black boxes were never discovered and the greatest air force in the world couldn't do a damn thing and a low-skilled pilot could make an airliner perform impossible moves and the secret service left their object completely exposed for the longest time before he ran scared and the man in charge at the white house gave orders that were never carried out and tall buildings defied physics while falling and those same buildings were the first steel framed to ever fall because of fire and all the warnings from all over the world were ignored and the people who were claimed to have done the deed were found to have addresses from US military bases and had contacts with the FBI, CIA, and foreign governments and whose multi-million dollar finances were deemed to have been of no use to investigate.

I know, I know, it all seems like sheer madness to claim such things, but that pretty much sums up the Official Conspiracy Theory, as offered up by bushco.

[MervinFerd]

18. Your claims have been refuted so many times and so many ways, ....

it's really sad.

Why do you keep repeating claims that have no merit?

Is this supposed to lead to "The Truth"?

[Bryan Sacks]

23. Taking up one point: the black boxes at WTC

Two Ground Zero first responders claimed they saw the black boxes, and an NIST insider has stated that they exist. This has been refuted, Merv? Or do you care to correct yourself?

[MervinFerd]

33. Yes, the Black Box story has been refuted many times.

See 911 Myths. I do not have time to do this again.

But, FWIW, what do you suppose the Black Boxes would have proved and why would "The Government" keep them hidden away? If the hijackings were faked, wouldn't the Black Boxes be faked, too? Or just turn out to be unreadable?

This story is just a "Sinister Insinuation". It --sounds-- like it means something, but really does not.

[BeFree]

34. You do know, Merv

That such talk makes bushco supporters look like gibbering idiots?

"...what do you suppose the black boxes would have proved...."?

Anyone with any sense of airplane crashes and having the capability of rational reasoning, knows the black boxes can detail much of the last few minutes of flight of downed aircraft. So your question is just plain BS, presuming you have a sense of what black boxes are designed for. But just for the heck of it let us presume you don't have a clue. In that regard, then, your comments are not BS and do not make you seem like a gibbering idiot, bushco supporter.

[AZCat]

35. Except none of us are actually "busco supporters".

Not that you haven't been aware of that for some time.

[MervinFerd]

36. I am NOT a "Bushco supporter" and What do -you- think the FDR would prove?

"...what do you suppose the black boxes would have proved...."?

The claim is that some official agency spirited the thing away to some secret location for secret nefarious purposes.

----WHY?----

The path of the planes is well-documented by radar and eye-witnesses; the cause of the crash is hardly in question. And, if you are supporting one of the numb-nuts remote controlled, Pod-Plane delusions, why wouldn't the Superhuman Conspiracy just fake the FDRs, too?

This is a story that makes no sense. It's a Sinister Insinuation; it sounds sinister, especially if paired with sinister music, but there is no substance.

People of weak intellect ("Bushco supports" or not) will find it persuasive or -something- or other; but, they will lack the mental skills to actually say what that is.


Edit: "There is no reasoning with this madness."

[BeFree]

43. Madness

Is making excuses for the lack of a real and complete investigation. Yet, that is what it appears you just did: make an excuse for not getting the black boxes and stopping a complete investigation.

It is not a pretty picture - this mosaic you are painting. Not pretty at all. People of weak intellect paint ugly pictures. Yet, it appears that is what you are doing.

[MervinFerd]

45. -22 points: Obtuseness. I am making no excuses whatever.

The Black Boxes were, almost certainly, crushed, burned, melted and buried somewhere within several hundred thousand tons of debris. They were never recovered; they could never be recovered; nobody reasonably expected them to be recovered. Further, Ground Zero was an extremely busy, public place. If some worker -did- happen on one of those boxes, slipping it out secretly would be nigh impossible.

My -point- was that the cited story makes no sense. There is no motive for the NWO or Secret Government, or whatever you believe in, to hide the Black Boxes. They would show that the plane flew in a path that intersected one of the towers.

This is a claim that is:
a) Not True
b) Doesn't mean shit, even if it were true.

[BeFree]

47. The claim is that the black boxes...

...were never found, opened and investigated as is usually done in all previous aircraft destructions. So you are the one who is spreading a falsehood. And then you make up a circus story to explain away the lack of an investigation. Sad.

All I see is obfuscation and denial of a real and complete investigation.

[MervinFerd]

49. -34 Points: Confused, incoherent answer.

There is no mystery why these Black Boxes were never "found, opened and investigated"--they were squashed, burned, melted and buried under 100 tons of building. There is no obfuscation or denial--just reality. It is entirely irrelevant that the Black Boxes were not available "as is usually done in all previous aircraft destructions". This hasn't happened before. The Boxes are tough, but not indestructible.

The "firemen saw the Black Boxes carried away" story is spread by con-men who insinuate some sinister goings-on (without having to be specific). That is the obfuscation and the falsehood.

What "Circus story"? You make no sense.

[BeFree]

52. Again

You are speaking circus talk. It's all just a show. A clown show.

The boxes are built to withstand airliner crashes. And found in the buildings were many of the remains - bits and pieces, really - of hundreds of people, so the search was quite thorough. I have no doubt the boxes were found. But were never properly examined. If there were any boxes to begin with.

As to the circus: the OCT is a like a three ring circus story and the OCTers are circus clowns, eh?

[MervinFerd]

55. -50 points: Utter obtuseness.

"You have no doubt the boxes were found." What a ridiculous statement!


The boxes are built to withstand crashes, yes. Ordinary crashes, not the circumstances we are talking about. --Nothing-- is indestructible.

Bits and pieces of people and many other things were found, yes. But, few -whole- things were found. And, --many-- bits and pieces of people and things were -not- found.

Your certainty is completely without rational basis.
"

"There is no argument with this madness."

[BeFree]

57. That stupid...

-50 bullshit, again. Have you no self respect?

The search through the rubble was quite thorough and if there were any black boxes they would have been found as they are built to survive crashes. Or are you saying they were shredded like the airplane that hit the pentagon? You know, the theory proposed by Team OCT that the metal of the plane turned to dust?

[MervinFerd]

58. D- : Obtuse and irrational. Passing grade so you will be out of my class.

Your response is irrational.

1. The search was extensive, but there 1000s of tons of the stuff. They used heavy machinery at some point.
2. The boxes are "built to survive crashes", but not hours of fire and being crushed under tons of debris. They weren't built out of Kryptonite.
3. Nobody ever said the airplane that hit the Pentagon was "turned to dust". It was smashed into small bits, as one would expect after hitting a concrete wall at 500 mph. But, pieces were found.


So, you are Pentagon No Planer? --- Just trying to assess the situation.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

64. "I do not have time to do this again."

you post 24/7 ..obviously, you have all the time in the world.

are you a robot?

or did you mean that your time is better spent harassing and calling ppl names?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

67. I would say paid bot B B R. His diatribe is tiring and stale.

[MervinFerd]

68. Actually, the automated Disinformation Avatars are quite original.

Sometimes a bit cryptic. But always entertaining.

[Twist_U_Up]

3. The Real Kooks

The person who goes about an investigation in a logical, objective manner and pays attention to evidence is not a kook. The real kook is one who thinks that governmental treason is impossible and ignores evidence that is right in front of their face.

Skeptics will use delusional rationalizations to explain away all of the 911 evidence. For them, it does not matter what evidence is presented, because their ultimate goal is to hold onto their existing worldview at any cost (rather than to be open-minded and seek the truth). It is a worldview that is practical, sensible, popular, sane, and rational....but not true.

[The Lone Groover]

6. "governmental treason is impossible"

Governmental treason is a proven fact.

And the founding Fathers of America knew it and tried their best to protect the people against tyranny.

That's why the Constitution has to be (and is being) dismantled in exchange for "greater security".

Where are today's Thomas Jeffersons?

[MervinFerd]

12. "Evidence is ignored". Would you be so kind as to state:

1. The hypothesis which this evidence supports. (Please be clear; the hypothesis should be testable or refutable.)
2. The evidence. (Again, please be clear).

I will not hold my breath waiting.

[Twist_U_Up]

48. Overwhelming evidence; you're just not looking at it.

70 facts+ of US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks:

These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dor_070215_no_george_monbiot_2c_t.htm

You cannot read that article in its entirety and remain ignorant.

[MervinFerd]

62. Overwhelming stench of Bullshit: -34 Points.

1. You have not stated a clear hypothesis. "Government Complicity" is too vague to be testable.

2. The "evidence" is the usual Infinite List of Common Knowledge, Half Truths, Lies, Ambiguous Statements and irrelevant facts. This is NOT evidence. Evidence would be: Testimony from participants, planning documents with explicit information---IOW explicit information, the kind you would present at a murder trial.

Can you do either?

[SidDithers]

4. Thanks for posting...

and for posting in the correct place. Good read.

Sid

[The Lone Groover]

5. Loose Change...

..in spite of all its shortcomings, and the fact there are much better 9/11 documentaries out there... has the OCT supporters in a bit of a dither - hence the full out attack on it.

Why?

Because it has made people doubt what they were offically told.

We can't have that now can we.

They don't seem to want to deal with "Press for Truth" though in the same way.

I wonder why.

Government obstruction of 9/11 investigation - surely not.

[hack89]

7. You can't get to the truth through lies

which is the basic premise of loose change. They deliberately put mistruths in it with the rationalization that it is OK as long as it get people asking questions.

[MervinFerd]

8. Why confront Loose Change?

Because lies are corrosive.
Because rational thought matters.
Because hate is corrosive.
Because association with Far Right vendors of lies and hate is not a Progressive ideal.
Because it is a commercial con-job, making money and fame from lies and hate.

Is that enough?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. Or...

...maybe because it made stuff up and made substantial use of anti-Semitic sources?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Take a look at what you have written here.

Loose Change...
Posted by The Lone Groover

..in spite of all its shortcomings, and the fact there are much better 9/11 documentaries out there... has the OCT supporters in a bit of a dither - hence the full out attack on it.

Why?

Because it has made people doubt what they were offically told.

We can't have that now can we.

They don't seem to want to deal with "Press for Truth" though in the same way.

I wonder why.

Government obstruction of 9/11 investigation - surely not.

How exactly does "Press for Truth" not make people doubt what they were officially told? You say that's the reason that "OCT supporters" are in a "dither" about Loose Change.

The implication is that "Press for Truth" doesn't make people doubt what they were officially told. Have you seen "Press for Truth"?

What you're going to come back and say is that "Press for Truth"'s arguments can't be answered by the "OCT supporters", whatever group that wacked-out label is supposed to describe. Well, for the most part, that's correct - the focus of "Press for Truth" is on real questions by real people and the stonewalling they got from the 9/11 Commission. There's not that much to dispute, because "Press for Truth" is careful to stick to this narrative. Any CTs brought up are brought up in the context of individual opinions. Even the part about WTC 7 that made me grimace, I ultimately accepted in the film because of the treatment of the subject. The person that asked the questions about WTC 7 seemed reasonable, and seemed like someone who could consider the facts rationally if the facts were laid before him. The 9/11 Commission didn't do that.

The physical questions of how the buildings fell was not part of what the 9/11 Commission was investigating, though. That should be clear enough. But the stonewalling tactics of the 9/11 Commission was an aggravating factor in letting simple questions like this one get far more play than they should have. The 9/11 Commission should have been a lot more forthcoming and open with the Jersey Girls. Any whiff of a coverup emboldens any silly idea about what's being covered up. So I ultimately accepted the use of WTC 7 questions in the context of what the film was saying, even though I knew the answers to those questions, and knew that the man's questions could be easily explained to him.

But all of that points to a different reason that people are naturally in a "dither" over Loose Change.

The damned thing is packed tighter with lies, innuendos, and faulty reasoning than a Klan meeting. Maybe that's why your despised "OCT defenders" are hacked off about Loose Change and give Press for Truth a pass.

[The Lone Groover]

24. "They" are OCTers... but you knew that. n/t

The damned thing is packed tighter with lies, innuendos, and faulty reasoning than a Klan meeting.

I see what you did there with the Klan thing... you're clever you.

Now Loose Change... you may think its totally debuked, some think it isn't - anyway whatever, it started the ball rolling in a big way and that's what OCTer's don't like. Many people who watched Loose Change have moved on from it - but not the way the OCTer's would like.

People have done there own digging and worked out that False Flag is not only a possibility but a reality of which the USA is historically guilty - and people are realising it. American Goverment has very dirty hands - even towards its own people.

Loose Change opened people's eyes to the nature of truth.

Its a whole new world since 9/11.

Or is it the same old world but more people are finding out how it really works?

I'm glad you like "Press for Truth". Just what where those questions that the 9/11 commission ignored - they wouldn't be about some of the same issues raised in Loose Change?

and give Press for Truth a pass.

..."a pass"... that's a nice way of saying avoid like the plague.

[Ian David]

26. You're welcome.

I don't have the sort of vicious intellectual dishonesty required to post Konspiracies in forums where they don't belong, or to believe that Invisible Jewish Elves(TM) imploded the towers.

[CJCRANE]

28. The sensible middle-ground of 9/11 truthers

accept that arabs and muslims were involved.

Some of those very same muslims were the paymasters of 9/11 and close allies of Bushco. That ackonwledgement is about as far from being anti-Semitic (in the sense of being anti-Jewish) as is possible.

[Ian David]

29. I'm firmly in the LIHOP camp myself, and don't believe in the magical thinking crap. n/t

[MervinFerd]

30. To both: Why has 911 Truth become dominated by wild-ass nonsense...

in a way that no other Conspiracy movement has?

Nobody ever claimed JFK was abducted by space aliens.

[Ian David]

31. I think JFK's skull was imploded from the inside by VERY SMALL Israeli art students hiding in it.n/t

edited to add (just in case):

:sarcasm:

[MervinFerd]

9. I have borrowed "beyond madness". I like it.

[Bushwick Bill]

14. So.

What do 9/11 Press For Truth, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, Sibel Edmonds, war games, Able Danger, General Ahmad, Colleen Rowley, David Schippers, Indira Singh, and PNAC do to opponents of the Bush government?

[MervinFerd]

15. What does "Loose Change" do to the Bush Government?

Except to make its critics look like "Gibbering Idiots"?

[Bushwick Bill]

17. Who the hell cares?

Wait for Final Cut.

[MervinFerd]

19. Ok. My breath is bated.

[The Lone Groover]

25. Well I know what it does to OCTer's

...it makes them invisible.

[Bushwick Bill]

16. 9/11 movie re-set.

Choke on this Monbiot. Stick to global warming.

9/11 Press For Truth.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=9%2F11+Press+For+Truth&hl=en
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8372366181300641663&q=Everybody%27s+Gotta+Learn+Sometime&hl=en
Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=Terrorstorm
9/11 Mysteries.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+Mysteries&hl=en
Improbable Collapse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782
Who Killed John O'Neill?
http://www.wkjo.com/
What's The Truth - How Indeed Did the Towers Collapse?
http://tinyurl.com/y53u7q
9/11 Revisited.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11+Revisited
9/11: The Myth and the Reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413
Painful Deceptions.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=Painful+Deceptions
9/11 Eyewitness.
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=0&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=17&epi=0&typ=0
Martial Law 911: Rise of the Police State.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=Martial+Law+911

[MervinFerd]

20. LC "sucks their brains out through their eyes "..

Those Brits have a way with words.

[MervinFerd]

21. " There is no reasoning with this madness."

Those Brits again.

[MervinFerd]

22. "The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. "

"The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change."

[Ian David]

27. It's called "throwing up chaff."

Bush: I really fucked-up september the eleventh.

Rove: Let's put some really stupid conspiracy theories out there, so that when people talk about how you fucked-up, they're associated with the morons who believe the stupid stuff.

Bush: I'm gonna go ride my bike.

Rove: Wear your fucking helmet this time, you moron.

[MervinFerd]

32. Yes.

If a person were prone to Conspiracy Theories, he might suspect some active effort.

Might not one?

(Is this good British grammar?)

[CJCRANE]

37. You know what...

I just watched the latest version of Loose Change and I thought it was pretty interesting. I'm more and more amused/bemused by the shrieks of righteous indignation coming from the debunkers which is sort of mirrored in the footage of Sean Hannity talking over his interviewee.

Monbiot also make charges in his article which he assumes sound ridiculous but which are self-evident "The US government carried out this great crime...to grant George Bush new executive powers, so that he could carry out his plans for world domination" (although of course he overstates in both the beginning and end of his accusation: firstly, it doesn't have to involve the entire Us govt and secondly B*sh doesn't need to dominate the world - he just needs to dominate America to get what he wants. And in fact he had been dominating America until about the time of Katrina, where all the worst qualities he displayed on 9/11 were displayed again but stretched out over a week instead of one day and not even the MSM could cover them up).

[MervinFerd]

38. So, how does it feel....

to have your brains sucked out through your eyes?

"Just asking questions."

Seriously, what about this film do you consider interesting? The use of RW sources as authorities? The absurd claims that are "beyond madness"?

What?

[CJCRANE]

39. What's wrong with asking questions?

As if a guy on a messageboard like me is going to come up with all the answers.

For instance, I think OJ Simpson is guilty of murdering his wife, but what do I know I wasn't at the trial. I also think Bushco is guilty of at least LIHOP but I'm not a lawyer/politician/journalist so there's not much I can do about it except post comments now and then.

[MervinFerd]

40. Nothing wrong with questions; if they are really questions.

Conspiracy theorists constantly "ask questions" as a means of asserting some sinister thing without having to make an actual accusation. The unstated accusation being so preposterous that it would not be taken seriously if actually spelled out. This is not intellectually honest.

But, I am intrigued by your response to LC.

You agreed above that the wild-assed theories -prevented- the consideration of middle-ground theories. How then do you find acceptable a film like LC, which packages wild-assed theories in attractive, but misleading garb and ---more importantly---uses the dishonest sources and invalid logic that allow the wild-ass theories to flourish? Isn't there a contradiction here?

[CJCRANE]

41. The basic premise of LC -

that Ground Zero is a crime scene with all the evidence destroyed and removed - is correct. Without analysing the evidence how can we come to a conclusion? So, I wouldn't rule out the conclusions that LC ptovides, although some of them seem unlikely.

Without a proper legal procedure in the end all we are left with are hunches based on the evidence we've seen. My hunch, based on Bush-Cheney's lack of accountability, scandals, lies, implicated atrocities and crimes is that they are complicit in 9/11, to what degree we'll have to wait and see. That's where my instincts, investigations and prejudices lead me.

You may have other instincts and prejudices that tell you that deep-down Bush-Cheney are merely incompetant or (un)lucky; that's not something I can counter with a few posts on a message-board.

[MervinFerd]

42. You continue to confuse me.

First, to most observers, the "basic premise" of LC is not WTC, but the Pentagon No Plane Theory.

Second, there is just no credible evidence that anything happened to the WTC that cannot be explained by two jetliners hitting the towers. There just is not. If there -were- some argument for CD (or whatever) it will never be heard because of the fog of horseshit thrown up by LC.

Have you been through the "ScrewLooseChange" second-by-second debunking? Or, read the 911myths debunkings of these issues? If not, I urge you to do so.


Truth is -never- served by lies. And political causes are not advanced by lunatics and con-men professing adherence to them.

[BeFree]

46. Ain't that the truth?

"...political causes are not advanced by lunatics and con-men professing adherence to them."

Those professing to adhere to the Official Conspiracy Theory do not serve the truth. There are so many holes in the OCT that it simply can't be the truth. Yet, we have people here adhering and even propagating that Theory.

It really is quite sad to see so many people with that shit on their hands. If they really wanted the truth, they would stop their support and clean themselves up by devoting themselves to a real and complete investigation.

They would, if this were a sane world, eh?

[MervinFerd]

50. I recommend you read "THE JOURNEY TO IXTLAN", Carlos Castaneda.

Separate realities can be really fun, can't they?

[BeFree]

51. No

Your perception and most of America's through it's consequences has lead to the deaths of many innocent people. Your reality sucks.

[MervinFerd]

53. My reality may suck, but it -is- the consensus of a whole bunch of people.

Like pretty much the entire world except the fringe of Conspiracy Theorists.

So, either about 6 billion of us are wrong, or---you are wrong.

Which is more probable?

[BeFree]

54. We are all wrong

But especially anyone who believes the bushco theory. Definitely.

Hell, at one time everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. So your argument is shit.

[MervinFerd]

59. Judy Wood and Dr. Jones are not Copernicus and Galileo. nt

[LARED]

60. I think BeFree prescribes to a saying I saw on a bathroom stall.

Eat shit 400 trillion flies can't be wrong.

[wildbilln864]

44. I noticed Monbiot has also signed the petition....

#8661. I hope everyone here will join him! :hi:

[TheBaldyMan]

61. DemocracyNow had a debate between LC & Popular Mechanics

Loose Change were shown to have a very shaky case.

The evidence they were presenting as irrefutable proof for their hypothesis could be interpreted in several ways. Their version of events required a far more tortuous causal root than several simpler possibilities.

I think you can order the video of the debate on CD so you can judge for yourself, also available in RealPlayer streaming audio format and mp3 video as a download.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203&mode=thread&tid=25">EXCLUSIVE...9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"

I'm afraid that the debate was a bit heated as both sides flatly derided the other's position. Makes for an entertaining 1/2 hour at least.

[MervinFerd]

63. I suspect it is counterproductive to debate these Pecker Heads.

They obviously have great skill at slinging the BS. For them, any publicity is good.

[TheBaldyMan]

65. well the link is there so people can judge for themselves

personally I didn't think either side came out smelling of roses. The debate was bad-tempered by the end resulting teddies were thrown out of all their prams.

I'd like to see a debate where everybody kept their head and discussed issues critically rather than resort to an adversarial contest of egos.

[MervinFerd]

66. My point. You can't debate BS artists and come out smelling like a rose.

"This stuff is beyond rational debate."

It's a lose/lose situation. The LC boys are just throwing up lies and nonsense. You debate them calmly, their BS gains credibility; denounce them as con-men and liars, you look as bad as them.

[MervinFerd]

69. A bump in the night. Because this one is -so- true.