Yeah I agree with you on that, thinking about it. They could have done a special on it for either a few issues or just one whole magazine of PM. But of course writing a book on it is far more profitable.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
And they still made money off of it (9-11). Its not like Pop Mechanics did this as closure for the people.CC-Marley wrote:
The book was not on them. It was debunking many Conspiracy theories.
At this point Pop mechanics is no better than Alex Jones. They should have kept thier focus on Popular Mechanics. Not on "conspiracy theorists". It makes them look ridiculous in the science community and gives said conspiracy theorist the exposure they crave.
The guy in the middle (Jason) should learn a few things about debate before making a jackass of himself.
Composure and assertiveness.
Composure and assertiveness.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
They both could. They also speak too fast.Kmarion wrote:
The guy in the middle (Jason) should learn a few things about debate before making a jackass of himself.
Composure and assertiveness.
Well at one point even Dylan told him to calm down..lolghettoperson wrote:
They both could. They also speak too fast.Kmarion wrote:
The guy in the middle (Jason) should learn a few things about debate before making a jackass of himself.
Composure and assertiveness.
Edit: Actually it was "Relax for a sec".
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, all I'm saying is that we don't really care if it was a plane or a missile or my granny's wheelchair. What we do care about is who benefits from this attack. What did the government do or not do prior and during the attack, and what they did afterwards.Cougar wrote:
The big deal is that, after 2 million views on the internet and talks of a Hollywood movie deal, a documentary that claims a plane never hit the pentagon, a plane never crashed in Shanksville and that the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives, needs to have some proof or at least be able to back up the facts they give.
For example, the guy they had on the documentary claiming that steel wouldn't weaken and was later fired......was actually a water testing expert.
ƒ³
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.oug wrote:
Well, all I'm saying is that we don't really care if it was a plane or a missile or my granny's wheelchair. What we do care about is who benefits from this attack. What did the government do or not do prior and during the attack, and what they did afterwards.
Which is why I really lean towards the idea that these Loose Change folks are being encouraged and enabled to spread their crankery far and wide, it dilutes and obscures the important questions and makes those asking them look like fucking loons to the average person.
Emergency workers made money off of 9-11, so what's your point? These guys get paid to write.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
And they still made money off of it (9-11). Its not like Pop Mechanics did this as closure for the people.CC-Marley wrote:
The book was not on them. It was debunking many Conspiracy theories.
At this point Pop mechanics is no better than Alex Jones. They should have kept thier focus on Popular Mechanics. Not on "conspiracy theorists". It makes them look ridiculous in the science community and gives said conspiracy theorist the exposure they crave.
I was suprised. I am now completley convinced that these guys are a bit crazy.
"I think that it's telling that every time you disagree with something that you call the people a liar."
"I am not calling anybody a liar sir. I am calling you a liar. Because you are a liar."
"I think that it's telling that every time you disagree with something that you call the people a liar."
"I am not calling anybody a liar sir. I am calling you a liar. Because you are a liar."
I couldn't even bother watching half of the first video. Those guys who made loose change are a bunch of idiots (usually all conspiracy theorists are). They should've started off the show by saying the credentials of each member in the debate. The two LC guys were probably high school drop outs whereas the PM guys probably have several degrees.
In fact, just a few weeks ago in my materials science lecture the professor talked about 9/11 and saying that steel doesn't have to melt to yield. Every material has a certain yield stress and maximum tensile strength, and so the massive temperatures of the fire caused the steel to become weaker and thus the building collapsed.
And also in the short clip I watched the LC guy mentioned that there were no plane parts in the field like there were in an example where a plane crashed into an ocean.... THE OCEAN IS DIFFERENT THAN A FIELD!!!
Seeing people actually believe in a 9/11 conspiracy really makes me want to go on a rampage and just kill every living being that believes that... either that or kill myself because I can't put up with this.
In fact, just a few weeks ago in my materials science lecture the professor talked about 9/11 and saying that steel doesn't have to melt to yield. Every material has a certain yield stress and maximum tensile strength, and so the massive temperatures of the fire caused the steel to become weaker and thus the building collapsed.
And also in the short clip I watched the LC guy mentioned that there were no plane parts in the field like there were in an example where a plane crashed into an ocean.... THE OCEAN IS DIFFERENT THAN A FIELD!!!
Seeing people actually believe in a 9/11 conspiracy really makes me want to go on a rampage and just kill every living being that believes that... either that or kill myself because I can't put up with this.
I've tried to explain that to them using real-world examples where steel-reinforced concrete or mostly steel constructs have collapsed due to prolonged application of heat. Best example, an accident on the Long Island Expressway some years back where a collision involving a gasoline tanker caused a fire that weakened an overpass so badly that it warped under its own weight and the concrete became brittle enough that you could break fist-sized pieces off it with your bare hands. The steel didn't even come close to melting, it just lost its tensile strength. But, it didn't matter, just got the same old "Well why were there pools of molten metal at the WTC?" even though the metal they refer to is clearly red-hot, not actually molten, since you typically don't scoop up molten metal with a payloader. It's pointless to argue with them except to keep other people from taking them seriously.mtb0minime wrote:
In fact, just a few weeks ago in my materials science lecture the professor talked about 9/11 and saying that steel doesn't have to melt to yield. Every material has a certain yield stress and maximum tensile strength, and so the massive temperatures of the fire caused the steel to become weaker and thus the building collapsed.
Well, I am saying that you cannot accuse someone of treason/murder/conspiracy/theft/whatever unless you have some sort of substantial evidence to back up your accusation. Asking a question is one thing, but saying something is fact without being able to prove it, is stupidity in it's purest form. These guys got phony and flimsy evidence at best and pieced it in between legitimate facts and came up with a grand conspiracy that cannot be proven one way or the other and because of that people with feeble minds buy into it whole-heartedly.oug wrote:
Well, all I'm saying is that we don't really care if it was a plane or a missile or my granny's wheelchair. What we do care about is who benefits from this attack. What did the government do or not do prior and during the attack, and what they did afterwards.Cougar wrote:
The big deal is that, after 2 million views on the internet and talks of a Hollywood movie deal, a documentary that claims a plane never hit the pentagon, a plane never crashed in Shanksville and that the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives, needs to have some proof or at least be able to back up the facts they give.
For example, the guy they had on the documentary claiming that steel wouldn't weaken and was later fired......was actually a water testing expert.
It's one thing to ask, but try to do research for yourself instead of taking a documentary made by two 20 year old high school drop-outs as the be-all-end-all fact of it. The only good thing about Loose Change that I can say is that it made a few people ask questions, research for themselves and come up with their own conclusions. Sadly though, most people are just too dumb or lazy to look for themselves. I bought into Loose Change as well when I first saw it but then after I had looked deeper into, I found they were full of shit. Not to say something shady wasn't going on, but not per say of their little program.
In my defence, it's 4:55 in the morning over here, so forgive me for not posting any links with the approach I would go for on this matter. I promise to do so tomorrow.Cougar wrote:
Well, I am saying that you cannot accuse someone of treason/murder/conspiracy/theft/whatever unless you have some sort of substantial evidence to back up your accusation. Asking a question is one thing, but saying something is fact without being able to prove it, is stupidity in it's purest form. These guys got phony and flimsy evidence at best and pieced it in between legitimate facts and came up with a grand conspiracy that cannot be proven one way or the other and because of that people with feeble minds buy into it whole-heartedly.
It's one thing to ask, but try to do research for yourself instead of taking a documentary made by two 20 year old high school drop-outs as the be-all-end-all fact of it. The only good thing about Loose Change that I can say is that it made a few people ask questions, research for themselves and come up with their own conclusions. Sadly though, most people are just too dumb or lazy to look for themselves. I bought into Loose Change as well when I first saw it but then after I had looked deeper into, I found they were full of shit. Not to say something shady wasn't going on, but not per say of their little program.
Until then, all I have to say about Loose Change is this: the only reason I give it some credit is because it was the first video I saw battling the truly ridiculous explanation the US government gave. Other than that, I can't say I ever bought into everything these guys said. Moreover, on closer inspection of this case, I found out that I didn't really care whether or not their claims were true or not. So bottom line, Loose Change makes those who do not settle for the idiotic government explanation look stupid. And I'm guessing that's why it wasn't buried right away.
Were they commercial airliners or military planes? Did cellphones work at 6000 feet? Were there explosions in the Towers? Does steel melt by burning kerosene? I don't give a fuck.
Here's what I do give a fuck about: Who does Bin Laden work for? Who planned this? Who allowed it to happen? What did the government do next? Why did they invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Why didn't they invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Why if the US gov. is so concerned with the safety of its people, do they not secure their boarders? What purpose does the Patriot Act serve? Why are they flashing my fucking liberties down the drain? Who is using my fear?
Last edited by oug (2007-05-15 19:17:32)
ƒ³
I look forward to you doing so!oug wrote:
In my defence, it's 4:55 in the morning over here, so forgive me for not posting any links with the approach I would go for on this matter. I promise to do so tomorrow.
So basically there could have been a black screen with white text flashing the words "THE GOVERNMENT FUCKING LIES!" and thats all the proof/reason you need?oug wrote:
Until then, all I have to say about Loose Change is this: the only reason I give it some credit is because it was the first video I saw battling the truly ridiculous explanation the US government gave. Other than that, I can't say I ever bought into everything these guys said.
Well, it's hard for me to believe that you care whether or not the government told the truth or not. It's kind of like walking around saying that Communism is a viable economic system while failing to show any countries that use true communism and prosper. But you believe anyways.oug wrote:
Moreover, on closer inspection of this case, I found out that I didn't really care whether or not their claims were true or not.
Loose Change wasn't buried right away because they twisted the facts and had a play on words so slick that it took time for experts to get a hold of the video and debunk it using actual facts instead of here-say and random quotes from people who may or may not be experts in the fields they claim to be in. Also the fact that they deliberately leave out evidence and facts that can render a previous statement or thought line useless, it seems intriguing and possibly true.oug wrote:
So bottom line, Loose Change makes those who do not settle for the idiotic government explanation look stupid. And I'm guessing that's why it wasn't buried right away.
You should. Every little piece adds up to one big picture. The big picture doesn't just materialize itself if you think about it long enough.oug wrote:
Were they commercial airliners or military planes? Did cellphones work at 6000 feet? Were there explosions in the Towers? Does steel melt by burning kerosene? I don't give a fuck.
Those reasons are precisely why you need to look at the menial and boring parts of the research so you can find the little tale-tale hints and clues that will eventually prove an answer.oug wrote:
Here's what I do give a fuck about: Who does Bin Laden work for? Who planned this? Who allowed it to happen? What did the government do next? Why did they invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Why didn't they invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Why if the US gov. is so concerned with the safety of its people, do they not secure their boarders? What purpose does the Patriot Act serve? Why are they flashing my fucking liberties down the drain? Who is using my fear?
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Take the time to check this site out if you believe LC.
Take the time to check this site out if you believe LC.
I have never understood for the life of me people's obsession with Loose Change.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
i'll have to check this out after work
Dammit, I've been looking for this documentary all day and I can't seem to find it. It's a former FBI agent giving a lecture somewhere. Don't remember his name or the name of the movie. But it's been posted here as well I think. If anyone can help... please.Cougar wrote:
I look forward to you doing so!
Proof and reason? wtf you talking about? I said I don't believe their claims!Cougar wrote:
So basically there could have been a black screen with white text flashing the words "THE GOVERNMENT FUCKING LIES!" and thats all the proof/reason you need?
Again, I never claimed they were right.Cougar wrote:
Well, it's hard for me to believe that you care whether or not the government told the truth or not. It's kind of like walking around saying that Communism is a viable economic system while failing to show any countries that use true communism and prosper. But you believe anyways.
Others, like the one I was looking for were buried though, considering the publicity LC got. And for no apparent reason.Cougar wrote:
Loose Change wasn't buried right away because they twisted the facts and had a play on words so slick that it took time for experts to get a hold of the video and debunk it using actual facts instead of here-say and random quotes from people who may or may not be experts in the fields they claim to be in. Also the fact that they deliberately leave out evidence and facts that can render a previous statement or thought line useless, it seems intriguing and possibly true.
Here's what I did find though. It seems Mr. Chomsky has the same opinion as me on this one:Cougar wrote:
You should. Every little piece adds up to one big picture. The big picture doesn't just materialize itself if you think about it long enough.
Those reasons are precisely why you need to look at the menial and boring parts of the research so you can find the little tale-tale hints and clues that will eventually prove an answer.
Hope this clarifies why we shouldn't care about the execution of the plan, but rather what follows the attacks.
ƒ³
Agreed. Being a complete dick to your opponent in a debate just makes you look like a complete asshole. It's good to see a credible outlet taking the claims seriously and applying criticism to them with actual experts.ghettoperson wrote:
The fact they have to act very unprofessionally like complete assholes doesn't really help their case much...
Last edited by Grey Fox (2007-06-12 23:40:30)
I used to believe in this conspiracy stuff.
I stopped.
I stopped.
I hate loose change. It's heavy and stretches my wallet out. If I leave it in my pocket, it scratches things left in there and jingles, telling people they'll get a benefit for mugging me or bugging me for change.
And if I stash it at home in a box, it just builds up until it has to be transported in bags to the bank.
And if I stash it at home in a box, it just builds up until it has to be transported in bags to the bank.