Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and is also assembling a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement (PDF file).

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

posted by Pat @ 12:39 PM

Church Sign Wars

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Church Sign Wars

Designed by Reality Bites from JREF.

Messages from Osama bin Laden

While I unfortunately missed the actual broadcast, I was interested in Kevin Barrett's interview, discussed here, with Bruce Lawrence, described by Barrett as "America's top bin Laden expert". So I decided to look into this professor, and see if he is really who Barrett claims he is, and if he really backs up Barrett's claims.

First of all, he is a professor of religious studies at Duke University, although for whatever reason, he is not teaching currently. Looking up his university webpage bizarrely forces you to his personal website, without allowing you to stay at the original. His personal website appears designed to sell books more than anything.

Unlike most of the Scholars for 9/11 "Truth" (Lawrence doesn't appear to belong to any of the 3 splinter groups) he appears qualified in a relevant filed. Although his rather out-of-date C.V. shows degrees in religious studies, rather than language or history, he does appear to have a fair amount of experience, some abroad, in the study of Islam, and even the Arabic language. Claiming that he is America's top expert on Osama bin Laden might be a bit of an exaggeration though, as far as I can tell Dr. Lawrence has not actually written a single book on Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. The closest he has come is a 1989 book on Islamic fundamentalism titled "Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age". Perhaps this just speaks to the lack of academic work in this area by American scholars?

What Lawrence has worked on, however, is as the editor of a book titled Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden. Aside from the 21 page introduction though, he did not write the book, it is just a compilation of bin Laden speeches. In fact he didn't even translate it, that was done by a man named James Howarth. It is still a work worth further research though, so I endeavored to search the dusty leather-bound tomes of Suzallo Library for a copy.

What I found was rather interesting. In this book, Dr. Lawrence does not question the authenticity of any of bin Laden's speeches, in fact the only mention of this issue is by Howarth, who wrote the following in the translator's notes:

Nevertheless, although the question of authenticity inevitably arises when ever a message is released in bin Laden's name, the 24 statements in this collection, issued over a 10 year period, have all been accepted by a majority of the experts who have examined them.

Additionally, not a single one of the 24 statements published in this work include any denial by bin Laden of complicity in 9/11. The two incidences where Barrett claims that bin Laden denied involvement, are completely absent from the book. In fact at least 4 of the statements included, explicitly state that the attack was carried out by Arabs. Starting with an October 21st 2001 interview (page 112):

These repercussions cannot be calculated by anyone, due to their very large - and no less than $1 trillion by the lowest estimate, due to these succesful and blessed attacks. We implore God to accept those brothers within the ranks of the martyrs, and to admit them to the highest levels of Paradise.

Continuing in the same interview, from page 119:

As for the World Trade Center, the ones who were attacked and who died in it were part of a financial power. It wasn't a children's school! Neither was it a residence. And the general consensus is that most of the people who were in the towers were men that backed the biggest financial force in the world, which spreads mischief throughout the world. And those individuals should stand before God and rethink and redo their calculations. We treat others like they treat us. Those who kill our women and our innocent, we kill their women and innocent, until they stop doing so.

Later, from a December 26th, 2001 statement titled, "Nineteen Students" (from page 149):

It was not nineteen Arab states that did this deed [9/11]. It was not Arab armies or ministries who humbled the oppressor who harms us in Palestine and elsewhere. It was nineteen post-secondary students - I beg God Almighty to accept them - who shook America's throne, struck its economy right in the heart, and dealt the biggest military power a mighty blow, by the grace of God Almighty.

From a February 14th, 2003 statement (page 194):

One of the most important positive effects of our attacks on New York and Washington was to expose the reality of the struggle between the Crusaders and the Muslims, and to demonstrate the enormous hostility that the Crusader feels toward us.

From an October 29th, 2004 statement (page 242):

For example, al-Qaeda spent $500,000 on the September 11 attacks, while America lost more than $500 billion, at the lowest estimate, in the event and its aftermath. That makes a million American dollars for every al-Qaeda dollar, by the grace of God Almighty.

He continues later to mock President Bush on the same page:

For your information, we agreed with the general commander Mohammed Atta, may God bless his soul, to carry out all operations within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration could be aware of them, and it did not occur to us that the Commander-in-Chief of the American armed forces would leave fifty thousand of his citizens in the two towers to face this great horror on their own, just when they needed him most. It seems that a little girl's story about a goat and its butting was more important than dealing with aeroplanes and their butting into skyscapers. This gave us three timess the amount of required time to carry out the operations, praise be to God.

There are even more speeches where bin Laden praises the attacks, although he makes no mention of who carried it out, presumably though, if bin Laden were actually denouncing the attacks, or thought it was carried out by the Americans in order to blame him, he would not be praising them. There is, however, no denial or any indication by Lawrence that any of these admissions are fraudulent.

posted by James B. @ 7:56 PM

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Assorted Nuts

The Feathered Bastard lays one on the chin of an East Valley Tribune reporter who wrote the piece AP picked up a couple days ago on the 9-11 Accountability Conference in Chandler while somehow missing the whole story about Eric D. Williams.

But even if Markham was unaware of Williams’ Holocaust-denying book The Puzzle of Auschwitz, and did not know that several scheduled speakers have flaked on the kook convention since the Williams debacle broke, why pen a story that treats 9/11 conspiracy buffs as if they’re no more controversial than Civil War reenactors? Doesn’t the guy have Google on his ‘puter? Check this typical passage:

There are plenty of differing theories on what happened on Sept. 11. One is that government-planted bombs, not terrorist-hijacked jetliners, brought down the Twin Towers. And another is that an air-to-air missile shot down United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

At no point is someone quoted dismissing or criticizing such crackpot views, even though conference spokesperson Pete Creelman admits (after the jump) that “he doesn’t have proof of the government’s complicity.” Huh? Then why interview this guy without asking him any tough questions, like “Why do you believe in something you have no proof for?” Seems like a logical line of inquiry to me.



In fairness, the mainstream media may just think this stuff is self-evidently crackpottery.

Labels: 9-11 Accountability, Feathered Bastard

posted by Pat @ 5:21 PM 0 comments

Post a Comment On: Screw Loose Change
"More Loose Change Forum Idiocy"
1 Comment - Hide Original Post
I am just now catching up on recent events. I was at the beach with the family for the weekend, so I haven't been posting. Many thanks to Pat for keeping up his prodigious work and keeping you all informed. I was reading through the idiocy over at the Loose Change Forum and came across these gems for you entertainment.
First, from a thread, rather optimistically titled, "The Bbc Hit Piece Was A Good Thing, For the 9/11 Truth Movement":



It was sloppy, it was unfair, it was baised, it was incorrect at times, but overall I think the BBC Hit Piece was a boost for our movement.

Many people in the UK have never even heard of Loose Change or Alex Jones or even the idea that some people don't buy the official story.
Sure, some will buy right into the movie's premise, that ALL conspiracy theories are wrong, and the official story must be the correct one. But MANY, especially those who are skeptical of the mainstream media anyway, will probably get online and start researching these things for themselves.

This is the same hilarious spin they put on the South Park episode. Yeah, OK, they spend the entire time saying you are idiots, but hey, all publicity is good publicity! Sorry guys, we are not laughing with you, we are laughing at you.

The second one is from a thread Dylan Avery started on a video clip of Mark Roberts AKA "Gravy" talking with Dan Wallace. Apparently Mark is a real jerk because he asked Dan whether he actually knows what is in the NIST report. One poster hilariously commented:


Gravy cant control himself clearly.He looks very hard though. Im guessing ex military, maybe ex special forces....

[Photo]
Unconfirmed photograph of Mark Roberts in a previous job.



posted by James B. at 5:01 PM on Feb 20, 2007

shawn said...

What a suprise - some of us get upset when people continue to tell lies.

20 February, 2007 17:46

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Incredible Shrinking Loose Change Conspiracy

I've always held that those who thought that Dylan Avery was really backing away from MIHOP in Loose Change Final Cut had to be crazy, but it certainly sounds like it. In the BBC special the other day, Dylan started out by saying that:

"My bottom-line thesis is that the our government was either a) criminally negligent in its response and its awareness of the 9-11 attacks, or b) our government was directly involved in the preparation and planning of the attacks."

Well, a) isn't even LIHOP!

Labels: Dylan Avery, Loose Change Final Cut

posted by Pat @ 8:15 AM 21 comments
21 Comments:

At 20 February, 2007 08:15, texasjack said...

MIHOP, LIHOP, I don't think it matters to Avery. This is all about him. This became very evident yesterday when Guy Smith, the producer of the BBC special was on Alex Jones' show. Avery was allowed to ask a question to Smith, and the first thing he asks is why he got the fact that he was not a college drop-out. The irony of the question is the fact the makers of the BBC show were doing him a favor--they should have said is was a two-time film school reject. Avery, who apparently is not intelligent enough to know that it is better to accepted to a college, then drop-out, than it is to be simply rejected!

At 20 February, 2007 08:43, Susan's Husband said...

Could you put "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" in the "unusual terms / abbreviations" section of the top post? Thanks!

At 20 February, 2007 09:02, CHF said...

Ol' Dylan isn't nearly as confident about this shit as he used to be.

I guess getting bitch-slapped in every debate will do that to you.

At 20 February, 2007 09:33, BG said...

When this blog started, and it's purpose was to focus was on Loose Change, I didn't see this as a good development at all for creating a dialog on questions about 9/11.

As a close watcher and follower of the 9/11 Truth movement, I was uncomfortable from the beginning with Loose Change as a vehicle to wake people up.

Perhaps because I'm older, I didn't like the music that added to the soundtrack for one thing. I thought the production was too flashy in general and played fast and loose with details in many places. I have always been uncomfortable with treating such a solemn subject with a product that goes "showbiz" on a limited budget.

Of course, the fact that the video has become immensely popular on the web is evidence that, whether accurate and appropriate or not, sensationalism attracts and sells to some degree.

Although not nearly as misleading as M. Moore's Fahrenheith 9/11, my preference would not have been that Loose Change were never released, providing as it does such as easy target for blogs like this, and other commentators.

I will continue to ask anyone who cares about the truth to focus on the following 2 sub-groups:

1) Researchers who have extensive web sites or books published to back up their claims

2) Those who are pursuing the continuing challenge to our government representatives and agencies requesting follow up on the gaps left by the lack of due diligence to of the 9/11 Commission. This group includes Family Members, Rescue, etc., and those who have made videos such as "Press for the Truth".

My wish would be that many of you here would keep an open mind in both of the areas above. Facing reality, I respect that many of you are completely convinced that all alternative theories are outrageous. To those I will ask that you still pursue, investigate, and become active if you are inclined, toward #2 above.

Finally, in reviewing this blog since its inception, I have to say that, even with the disrespect attitude, SLC Blog has provided a valuable service in pointing out weaknesses in Loose Change and 9/11 Truth advocates assertions.

At 20 February, 2007 10:03, CHF said...

I will continue to ask anyone who cares about the truth to focus on the following 2 sub-groups:

1) Researchers who have extensive web sites or books published to back up their claims

2) Those who are pursuing the continuing challenge to our government representatives and agencies requesting follow up on the gaps left by the lack of due diligence to of the 9/11 Commission. This group includes Family Members, Rescue, etc., and those who have made videos such as "Press for the Truth".

What about:

3) engineers, crash investigators and demolition pros.

How can you possibly forget that crutial group of people, BG?

At 20 February, 2007 10:21, The Artistic Macrophage said...

Loose Change Final Cut will be the beginning of the end for the MIHOP movement. It will certainly get some popularity, similar to Michael Moore, but that will quickly fade.

A bunch of nuthin about nuthin, to promote this young man's career in hollywood. EOS.

TAM

At 20 February, 2007 10:43, troy said...

Spring training games start Thursday, March 1. The NCAA tournament begins mid-March. Baseball season opens on April 2.

I would like to thank the woo-woo's for making the past 4 months fly by. It's been an enjoyable experience for me.

I thank you all.


Sincerely,
Troy from WV

At 20 February, 2007 11:16, BG said...

Loose Change Final Cut will be the beginning of the end for the MIHOP

I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed about how MIHOP the new LC is, and how much energy will continue behind MIHOP assertions.

At 20 February, 2007 11:17, CHF said...

Answer my question, BG.

Engineers, crash investigators and demolition pros.

How can you possibly forget that crutial group of people?

At 20 February, 2007 11:25, default.xbe said...

Could you put "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" in the "unusual terms / abbreviations" section of the top post? Thanks!

Let It Happen On Purpose and Made It Happen On Purpose

LIHOP is the idea that the government had enough information and was fully capable of preventing the attacks, but chose to allow them to happen as an excuse to do whatever

MIHOP is the idea that the government planed and executed the attacks themselves

At 20 February, 2007 11:28, Swing Dangler said...

The point of BBC's 'drop out' comment was to attack the character of one of the creator's of LC. Of course that questions the character of the person right off the bat.

Generally a biased program will refuse to do that. Mark "Gravy" Roberts does the same thing by pointing out Professor Jone's religious beliefs and publications about Mormonism in his paper which of course have nothing to do with 9/11. This of course to cause the reader to disregard the persons expertise in the field of Physics.

How did the producer of the BBC special respond to the question?

I have yet to see any OS'er use the term Mark Roberts, Tour Guide, when discussing his work. Albeit James has done that once to point out the irrefutable evidence that Mark Roberts is an not an expert at anything.

So unsprisingly, BBC would do the same thing with a hit piece on the Truth Movement.

It is the most oldest most overused tactic to refute anyone in the truth movement and hopefully by now most sentient beings recognize it as such.

At 20 February, 2007 11:33, CHF said...

Actually, Swing...

Dylan has pointed out his "drop out" status on several occasions.

Such things simply make for the icing on the cake.

After all, one doesn't have to focus on Stephen Jones' bizarre jesus-went-to-America beliefs in order to make it clear that his thermite theory is horseshit.

At 20 February, 2007 11:39, troy said...

Another structural engineer.....I mean, actress.... sorry, joins the woo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtcaxs4Mf8M

I think she called Bermas' show one time.

At 20 February, 2007 11:43, texasjack said...

OK Swing, is it proper for Avery to state that "Popular Mechanics" should stick to tractors? You can't have it both ways.

At 20 February, 2007 12:19, Cl1mh4224rd said...

"My bottom-line thesis is that the our government was either a) criminally negligent in its response and its awareness of the 9-11 attacks, or b) our government was directly involved in the preparation and planning of the attacks."

Err... so Final Cut is merely going to be a documentary about the already-existing "debate" that's been going on between debunkers and "truthers" for the past 5 years?

At 20 February, 2007 12:32, default.xbe said...

Generally a biased program will refuse to do that. Mark "Gravy" Roberts does the same thing by pointing out Professor Jone's religious beliefs and publications about Mormonism in his paper which of course have nothing to do with 9/11. This of course to cause the reader to disregard the persons expertise in the field of Physics.

i think jones jesus-in-america paper is relevant because shows his disregard fro evidence when hes writing about soemthing he believes very strongly in

At 20 February, 2007 13:17, BG said...

chf,

Scientists and Engineers would be really helpful, mainly to point out the baloney that NIST has been putting out.

At 20 February, 2007 13:22, CHF said...

Scientists and Engineers would be really helpful, mainly to point out the baloney that NIST has been putting out.

Wonderful!

So show me a few engineers who point out NIST's baloney.

At 20 February, 2007 13:40, James said...

I don't think it can be either. It has to be one or nothing. If Avery says LIHOP, he has to abandon all the MIHOP aspects.

Its ludicrous.

At 20 February, 2007 13:42, James said...

I thought of one "CLITH"

Complacency Led It To Happen

At 20 February, 2007 13:50, The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

BG said...

I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed about how MIHOP the new LC is, and how much energy will continue behind MIHOP assertions.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be disappointed if it's anything less than a categorical apology.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Monday, February 19, 2007
Yes, George Monbiot Is On Our Payroll

Sheesh, it took me long enough to find the accounting code for Left Gatekeepers, but now that I look, I do see George and Noam and Alex and Matt down there. Hey, when you're paying off 75% of the structural engineers in the world it can get tough to find the mere columnists!

You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.



Hey, George, we're only pretending to be furious so we can negotiate a better deal when your contract comes up next quarter. The Loose Change boys are insisting on a bigger cut this time around and it's gotta come out of somebody's pocket!

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.



Climate change? George, we own climate change. You haven't noticed that Halliburton controls 90% of the solar power industry?

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.



Heheh, welcome to our world, George! In the first few months of 9-11 debunking I was always concerned that we were going to butt up against the hard cases sooner or later, the folks who really knew their stuff. Now I know why Gravy's so confident; there are no hard cases.

Labels: George Monbiot, Loose Change

posted by Pat @ 9:50 PM 1 comments
1 Comments:

At 20 February, 2007 03:46, Pepik said...

For people like Chomsky, this is really "blowback" for all the stupidity he has promoted over the years. He hates the way 9/11 draws on the same logic and thought patterns he uses to villify the USA.


Post a Comment

"AP Misses Story on Chandler Conference"

Post a Comment On: Screw Loose Change

"AP Misses Story on Chandler Conference"

11 Comments - Hide Original Post Collapse comments

You'd think they'd pick up on the mention at the bottom of the front page of the confab's website:

As a result of the controversy surrounding Eric D. Williams, he has stepped down from involvement in the 9/11 Accountability Conference. The 911 Accountability Conference does not support Holocaust denial, nor does the 9/11 Truth Movement. No speaker listed here is known to have published works related to the Holocaust.

But no, they run a straight piece on the Deniers:

Theories on what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, include one that the government planted bombs to bring down the World Trade Center towers and another is that an air-to-air missile shot down United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

"We don't believe we've been told the whole truth about what happened on that dreadful day," said Pete Creelman, a member of 911 Truth of Arizona, based in Phoenix.

The local group is one of many nationwide that have sprouted since the attacks. The group meets twice a month in both Phoenix and Mesa. Nearly 300 people have bought tickets to the conference. Organizers are hoping to double that with tickets sold at the door.

I don't have any benchmarks to compare that to; IIRC the LA conference got about a thousand attendees, but it's hard to say whether getting 50% of your attendance in walk-up traffic is normal. I believe Creelman is the guy who's supposedly been trying to get in touch with me for a "Dialogue with Debunkers"; apparently his investigative skills (see update) are up there with Dylan Avery's, since the email addy's up there at the top right.

Update: Creelman and I exchanged a few reasonably pleasant emails this afternoon, and he forwarded to me an earlier email which did look to be correctly addressed to me, so either I or my mail server screwed up. Either way, my crack about his investigative skills is unfair.

Bubbers said...

300 tickets? Maybe double? You would think none of them would be dumb enough to ever try and play the 84% card again. Sadly, we all know they'll keep doing it.

19 February, 2007 08:02

ConsDemo said...

Boy, is this a high speed journalistic outfit or what? Check out the headline (as of 8 am Pacific time on Feb. 19).

"Hundreds who say government about 9/11 to meet in Chandler" [sic!]

Maybe the twoofers will think the botched headline was a government plot to discredit them.

19 February, 2007 08:15

BG said...

In the following comment, I can be accused of doing exactly what I inveigh against the SLC Blog doing: Attacking individuals rather than sticking to the intellectual argument of what the evidence shows about 9/11.

In light of the BBC hit piece, which used certain 9/11 Truthers as props for discrediting the overall movement, I think it's reasonable to attempt to dissect the some of the individuals involved.

Alex Jones Watch: #10 Holding His Fire Against Fetzer

19 February, 2007 09:39

Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Except the BBC piece clearly raised and discussed most of the main claims involved in 9/11 conspiracy theory, from the 'missile' at the Pentagon through the poor response times to the controlled demolition theory. All these were in the show and were dissected as well as you can within a one-hour slot, BG - you seem to have watched an alternate cut of the show which was just sixty minutes of laughing at Jim Fetzer.

Besides, why should the BBC be blamed if Fetzer, Avery and Alex Jones come across as being completely barking mad? Nobody can change that but the individuals involved; it's not up to TV journalists to make them look more sane than they actually are.

Which Truthers do you think they should have interviewed?

19 February, 2007 10:59

911coverup said...

Nafeez Ahmed would be a good start.

19 February, 2007 11:43

ewing2001 said...

ny911NSAUrantiagate: "Jewbaiter" Jamieson cancels event from Luke Radowski/ Latest Timeline Update
http://www.911researchers.com/node/249
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2847
http://www.911bloglines.com/aggregator/sources/1

19 February, 2007 11:45

911coverup said...

Oops bad link

Nafeez.blogspot.com

This guy actually resides in london. Why didn't bbc pick up the local boy, oh I don't know, could it be because he is so damaging?

19 February, 2007 11:46

BG said...

Should have interviewed Steven Jones. Maybe he declined?

19 February, 2007 12:16

CHF said...

I don't think he would have faired any better, BG.

What would he have said when asked "how much thermite?" or "how did it all burn through the beams at the right time?"

It would have been just as ugly for you kooks had he been chosen.

19 February, 2007 13:49

BG said...

CHF said...

I don't think he would have faired any better, BG.

What would he have said when asked "how much thermite?" or "how did it all burn through the beams at the right time?"

It would have been just as ugly for you kooks had he been chosen.



I see your point.

I think I'm concentrating more on whether just a person's presence, tone and mannerisms are discrediting, which Fetzer seems to have in spades (meaning his sloppy bluster), especially with the camera work that BBC did.

The idea of whether the BBC would have buttressed the argument given even the strongest presenter is exactly the complaint of those of us who thought it was a smear. The BBC knew what they were after, and they pretty much got it.

19 February, 2007 14:49

CHF said...

Personelly, I wish they'd had David Ray Griffin on.

Imagine the people of the UK watching him claim with a straight face that the combined financial might of the twoof movement cannot afford a plane ticket to the Middle East to find the "still alive" hijackers.

It would have been even better than watching Dylan go pale when asked about Wally Miller.

19 February, 2007 14:55