Loose Change - Final Cut: Now on google video

[nosos]

... and debunking things like this is so fucking tedious because almost without fail, its core claims are supported by 'facts' stripped of context so 'disproving' the hypothesis invovles trawling through and recontextualising them, inevitably responded to by CT's with questions about the authority of the tesimony you're using, almost always holding far higher standards of proof for contrary claims than they use in assessing their own sources.

 

[Augie March]

Some number crunching

Posts on thread: 51

Approx. % of posts which are broadly derisory towards film: 70 to 80

Number of posts answering original simple request to point out substantial errors of fact in film: Zero.

Not wasting 2 hours of my life watching crappy internet conspiracy films: Priceless

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Really, why are people even bothering to waste oxygen and bandwidth with this shit?

 

[8den]

Really, why are people even bothering to waste oxygen and bandwidth with this shit?

I'm a factual mascohist.

Also a friend of mind's brother was in the south tower, and she loathe's these conspiracy theorists but cannot bring up the subject.

Theres a small army of tour guides, military types, structural engineers, , actors, architects (like urban75's own Architect) visual effects experts and just well bright souls who enjoy debunking conspiracy theores. One only needs to look back to when Jazzz lost his cool in the face of Architect's rigourous facts.

Standing up to ignorance and nonsense is a valid and honourable career. There are men and women who have embolded and emigged society standing up to conspiracy theories

 

[Barking_Mad]

Lol

 

[teuchter]

I see they quote from a review by Time Magazine there. As Time magazine says elsewhere in that review:

But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

 

[editor]

I see they quote from a review by Time Magazine there. As Time magazine says elsewhere in that review:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

Imagine! Troofers playing fast and loose with the truth! Whoda thunk it!

 

[8den]

You can listen to George Monbiot debate David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avary
here

best bit is about 25 minutes in;

Monbiot: But what infuriates me about Tim (Sparke, Loose Change executive producer) and about David and these other people is that when their first story collapses, they don't acknowledge that fact, they just pass on to the next crazy story, without recognizing that the first story has been swept away from under their feet, and that to me is the mark of a fraud and a charlatan.

Whale: Are you accusing the moviemakers of being frauds and charlatans?

Monbiot: Yes.

win!

 

[xenon]

The film makes the claim that Satam Al Suqami's passport was in his pocket, but of course he has no way of knowing that.

It repeats the claim about the ISI connection and the wire transfer, it ignores the fact that that claim has never been verified came in the weeks of the attack.

They also show an Air Force officer saying "We fought many phantoms that day," without mentioning that he's not referring to their supposed "insertions" but to phantom Flight 11, which the military believed was still airborne long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center, and to other flights which were believed to have possibly been hijacked like Delta 1989.

Also it says that Hani Hanjour came to the US to become a pilot but failed to complete any courses, but did not finish them it neglects to mention he already had a license before he came.

It rattles on and on about the fucking wargames, but as I have linked to it before, actually helped to increase response time.

They also, once again, mention that free fall from the top of the towers would be 9.2 seconds. Then they show a tower collapse with a timer. The collapses started from the impact zones below the roof, so they can not be compared to the collapse times from the top of the towers. And still the collapses took longer than 9.2 seconds. But they still like to use that "suspicious" time.

It repeats the lie about the pentagon missile defenses, the pentagon had no missile defenses on Sept 11th 2001.

They mention the loss of financial information in the Pentagon impact, and then say "Rumsfeld publicly made this announcement" about the untracked $2.3 trillion.

Between September 2000 and June 2001, the FAA scrambled jets to intercept 67 times. Intercepts are routine and usually happen within 10 minutes. Even shit for brains Jazzz, has been forced to drop this one.

However they provide no evidence to say that loss of financial information had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion. Also the use of the word "announcement" might lead people to think this was new information, when in fact he and others had mentioned it before, and the issue first came up in March 2000.

How's those for a start taffy? The film is a crook of shit dressing up conjecture and speculation and pretending it's proof.

This is good stuff. And worth posting BTW. Speaking as someone who was subjected to a mate talking about this film the other night. I couldn't denounce him with facts as it's not something I've studied. But I know scientific, factual verifiable testomony when I don't see it.