Watch Screw Loose Change here:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw+loose+change&total=89&
I've watched Screw Loose Change, the debunkers' answer to Loose Change and I'll give you my critique so far. I'll do it in the same way the narrator, what I call Mark Iradian, the person who writes the captions, has done to Loose Change. Actually there's very little information in this piece of shite that you can't get from the Popular Mechnaics article. There's too much to go into in a single viewing as the narrator inserts a rebuttal almost every few seconds, but I've addressed the most important points:
1. Operation Northwoords shows that a capacity and will for deceit on an enormous scale was present in the Kennedy Administration. Are we to believe that the current Bush administration is different? Of course, as the narrator points out: Northwoods did not (at least openly and/or in its initial proposal!) involve any deaths, but saying that because of this 9/11 had to be unconnected, then the govt’s respect for the sanctity of human life is a pretty weak basis for that conclusion.
2. Why would a “New Pearl Harbour” be necessary just to introduce new ITC technology into the military?
3. There are several reports on seismic activity on 9/11. Why don’t we look at all of them concerning Building 7. The same goes for the firemen witnesses. Was fire damage the only thing that caused the collapse? Well then why didn’t the Windsor Tower in Madrid fall down? It does make the movie Towering Inferno somewhat far-fetched (I notice they’ve not shown this on British TV since 9/11/01!). Also WTC7’s inferno was far from “towering”; it looked more smouldering to me. As did the fire in the twin towers (The firemen’s reports from that one said that the firemen were confident that they could extinguish it with hoses).
4. The criticism of the Russ Wittemburg, Willis Carlo and Dylan Avery himself are pure ad hominem.
5. I’m glad the narrator didn’t insult our intelligence by quoting from the Jane’s scientist who reckoned the wings and tail of Flight 77 just folded up like a model glider. These “experts” seem to disagree even amongst themselves. If the know it all, it should be easy for them to work it out and concur.
6. The witness at the Pentagon in the “confusing aftermath” of the attack doesn’t sound “confused” to me. He sounds very calm and positive.
7. I haven’t made my mind up on what his the Pentagon; there’s a lot of contradictory evidence that both proves and disproves the missile and plane theories. In a way it’s only a secondary debate. Whether Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or not, it could still be an inside job. Also if it was definitely a missile it could support the official story too. Al Qaida have missiles too (mostly because the Americans sold them to Al Qaida!).
8. The narrator’s causal acceptance of the confiscation of the CCTV footage is pure denial. If the FBI are prevented by law from releasing the footage why do they release the helipad footage? Could it be because it’s the one most likely to prove the plane theory? Also the narrator says that it can’t be used because it “doesn’t show anything clearly”. Well it does seem to show clearly that there was no Boeing 757, but there is a puff of smoke.
9.The narrator’s single word “yes” makes me laugh. it seems a very convenient coincidence that the plane, or whatever it was, hit the Pentagon on the ring that was both reinforced and on the opposite side to Rumsfeld’s office.
10. The narrator says “why even compare the two?” when he refers to the strike on the empire State Building by a B25-bomber. Well where’s his analysis of the difference in structure of the two buildings? Does he think that the difference in weight, speed and fuel capacity of the B-25 and the 757 are the only factors? How about the structure of the aircraft and the impact damage? How about the size of the resulting fire? The news footage of the Empire State building crash looked no different to me than the 9/11 footage.
11. The narrator says that the other examples of buildings that burned and then didn’t collapse was because they were not hit by a plane. But WTC7 was not hit by a plane either.
12. The Windsor Building fell very differently to the WTC. It didn’t all pancake in one go.
13. Ah! So the twin towers did have supporting cores like the Windsor Building. The narrator says they’re hollow. But if you watch the film of the WTC being built they look pretty solid to me.
14. The narrator uses a positive ad hominem where he says that no structural engineer agrees with the “9/11 Deniers” (What a wonderful expression! It immediately makes you want to deomize them like holocaust deniers). I don’t think it’s true anyway.
15. The “freefalling” debris outside the collapsing WTC has been propelled by the explosion; it is not in free fall any more than a bullet would be if you fired it down at the ground from the roof. Also, as the narrator says a moment earlier to support his own point, you can’t actually see the main part of the collapse due to the smoke and dust.
16. The narrator states sarcastically “We always know that the first news reports are the most accurate ones.” I agree with that, sans sarcasm. The initial on-the-scene reports are often the most accurate because the media censors and the reporters own credibility safety net have yet to come down.
17. The narrator keeps comparing the WTC collapse to known controlled demolitions. He says that there’s no way the explosives could be rigged up in the WTC secretly. Are conventional explosives the only way to demolish a building? How about scaler beams and other secret technology that the govt has?
18. The narrator claims that similies in the firemen’s testimony are not evidence. I couldn’t agree less; they are crucial evidence. The firemen come from the position that it was not a controlled demolition so they are bound to use similies to describe what they witnessed.
19.The supposed “quote mining” is nothing of the sort when you add my above point. The firemen are relating what they hear from the founding assumption that the official terrorist story is true.
20. “An investigation was underway” so they couldn’t release the firemen’s tapes! Well then how come they released the Pentagon helipad CCTV footage? Surely you must see that there is a political motivation to all this, whether you believe the govt did 9/11 or not!
21. Supposedly the fireman who said the fire could be put out in the tower, whom I quote myself above, was mistaken. I’m interested to see if this film mentions Rick Rescorla. (It never does!)
22. The people jumping from the building need not be escaping the flames. Smoke inhalation and suffocation from a fire kills more people than burning does. The WTC fire was giving off thick black smoke.
23. So the molten steel might not have been steel, but aluminium. How much aluminium did the WTC contain? I’m only asking because neither LS nor the narrator say how much molten metal there actually was.
24. “The team” (what team?) spent six days examining millions of tons of rubble and then gathered “significant amounts of data” on its performance!? Does the narrator think we’re stupid? Yes he does and that’s his weakness. Then it was shipped off to the Staaten Island yard; how long did the team spend there? Also there were concerns that the material had been disposed of too quickly and these were only refuted by a member of Congress
25. The OK City bombings have everything to do with 9/11 because the same firm was involved in the clean-up and both were suspected false flag operations.
26. The narrator seems to have little knowledge of the history of false flag ops. If he’d learned about Operation Gladio maybe he’d be realize that the govt would have no qualms about killing people in a real Operation Northwoods.
27. The last words on Kevin Cosgrove were played longer than necessary to make the point. Exposing the viewer to this harrowing material could be an attempt at shock-tactics or demonization. “Look! Tragedies like this are what Dylan Avery doesn’t care about!” The continual use of the term “9/11 Denier” is definitely a personal ad hominem smear campaign.
28. The narrator criticizes the witnesses for using similies again. See what I wrote above about that.
29. But like the Pentagon theories, whether flight 93 was shot down or crashed is a secondary debate and has no bearing on whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.
30. I don’t dispute that wreckage of Flight 93 was found. But was it wreckage from a crash or from a midair explosion?
31. The theory that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland is another example of initial new reports, which I think are often the most interesting, while the narrator prefers to trust the party line ones that come out later after the script has been agreed on.
32. Flight 93 may have been shot down. A lower level of the govt from the one that orchestrated 9/11 may have covered it up to spare the feelings of the relatives, as well as the poor fighter pilot who had to pull the trigger. But even people who investigate this theory still think that Bin Laden did it, which is the ultimate goal of the agenda. A good way to disguise a big conspiracy is to hide it behind a smaller one.
33. The story behind the black boxes is interesting. Their contents are secret, but the FBI claim to have played the voice recordings to the victim’s relatives.
34. Amazing that, even if is possible for a passport to survive the explosion, this particular one did. Not just anyone’s passport, but a hijacker’s passport. This is a psyop: It gives the image of the individuals involved placed at the scene so that the subconscious will forever associate the two. It’s also odd that the narrator makes that very point when remarking on how amazing it was that the black boxes were claimed to have been found in the rubble. If he believes a passport can be found under those circumstances then why not a black box?
35. “OOH! The Evil One, Dylan Avery, questions the heroism of the flight 93 passengers! Grab your torches and pitchforks!”
36. It doesn’t seem to bother the narrator much that Flights 11 and 77 weren’t scheduled to fly that day!
37. More demonization! To question the content of the phonecalls for the plane! UGH! Well if these phonecalls were edited out of context to be misleading, or even faked, then how does not questioning them show respect and sensitivity to the grieving relatives? It’s getting to the ridiculous point that the official story of 9/11 is becoming a Holy Scripture.
38. Re: Betty Ong’s call: Is there much difference between seeing a murder, of a friend and crewmate probably, and hearing about one on your plane?
39. What about Barbara Olson, the lady who made a reverse-charges call from an airfone? This cannot be done. Even if she’d called the operator first; if the operator could have arranged it with special permission then why not just give her the call free?
40. Official, publicly released voice-synth technology needs recordings to clone a person’s speech. What about further secret development of the system?
41. The hijacker list was released on September the 14th, just 3 days after the attacks. It didn’t take them long to find out who did it eh? They didn’t even have to wait long after Bin Laden’s supposed confession (which was faked too anyway).
42. The authorities don’t half make a lot of mistakes when identifying hijackers. It only took them three days to get the list and then they reckon that the nine alive are just mistakes!? Get away!
43. The attempt to prove that the confession tape is genuine is a non-starter. The person depicted in the film is quite clearly a younger, fatter man than bin Laden. I’ve seen some good graphics that morph the two together so you can see the obvious difference. And the tape was “found in a hose”? That seems most odd. Wasn’t it posted to a police station or left at the US embassy? No, it was just stumbled upon, by coincidence, a mere 3 days after the attacks!
44. The narrator is living in Dreamland if he thinks that the USA is not descending into a dictatorship! The fact the Avery and Alex Jones etc are getting publicity is not by the govt’s choice of complacency. It’s because they’re falling before the tide of public opinion!
45. Kevin Barrett is branded a racist just because he denies that hijackers could take over a plane with Stanley knives. How does that make him a racist? He doesn’t make his claims on the fact that the hijackers were Arabs, only that they were unarmed. And Dick Cheney is not an “Angry, evil white man”. He’s not a man at all he’s a Reptillian!
46. I love the certified picture of a terrorist training camp, from a spy plane or even a satellite! Looks more like a field of hay bales to me! Could this be one of the propaganda pictures that the Bush administration released to justify the invasion Afghanistan? One of the ones that have been doctored?
47. The film ends with the sickest and most spiteful debunker of all: That if you question the official story of 9/11 you’re an unfeeling, exploitative pirate who doesn’t care about those who died. The only way to be patriotic and respectful to the victims is to be baptized into this new religious cult called “19 hijackers did it at the orders of bin Laden”. The wear and tear my keyboard would suffer typing the briefest response to that would not justified.
I've watched Screw Loose Change, the debunkers' answer to Loose Change and I'll give you my critique so far. I'll do it in the same way the narrator, what I call Mark Iradian, the person who writes the captions, has done to Loose Change. Actually there's very little information in this piece of shite that you can't get from the Popular Mechnaics article. There's too much to go into in a single viewing as the narrator inserts a rebuttal almost every few seconds, but I've addressed the most important points:
1. Operation Northwoords shows that a capacity and will for deceit on an enormous scale was present in the Kennedy Administration. Are we to believe that the current Bush administration is different? Of course, as the narrator points out: Northwoods did not (at least openly and/or in its initial proposal!) involve any deaths, but saying that because of this 9/11 had to be unconnected, then the govt’s respect for the sanctity of human life is a pretty weak basis for that conclusion.
2. Why would a “New Pearl Harbour” be necessary just to introduce new ITC technology into the military?
3. There are several reports on seismic activity on 9/11. Why don’t we look at all of them concerning Building 7. The same goes for the firemen witnesses. Was fire damage the only thing that caused the collapse? Well then why didn’t the Windsor Tower in Madrid fall down? It does make the movie Towering Inferno somewhat far-fetched (I notice they’ve not shown this on British TV since 9/11/01!). Also WTC7’s inferno was far from “towering”; it looked more smouldering to me. As did the fire in the twin towers (The firemen’s reports from that one said that the firemen were confident that they could extinguish it with hoses).
4. The criticism of the Russ Wittemburg, Willis Carlo and Dylan Avery himself are pure ad hominem.
5. I’m glad the narrator didn’t insult our intelligence by quoting from the Jane’s scientist who reckoned the wings and tail of Flight 77 just folded up like a model glider. These “experts” seem to disagree even amongst themselves. If the know it all, it should be easy for them to work it out and concur.
6. The witness at the Pentagon in the “confusing aftermath” of the attack doesn’t sound “confused” to me. He sounds very calm and positive.
7. I haven’t made my mind up on what his the Pentagon; there’s a lot of contradictory evidence that both proves and disproves the missile and plane theories. In a way it’s only a secondary debate. Whether Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or not, it could still be an inside job. Also if it was definitely a missile it could support the official story too. Al Qaida have missiles too (mostly because the Americans sold them to Al Qaida!).
8. The narrator’s causal acceptance of the confiscation of the CCTV footage is pure denial. If the FBI are prevented by law from releasing the footage why do they release the helipad footage? Could it be because it’s the one most likely to prove the plane theory? Also the narrator says that it can’t be used because it “doesn’t show anything clearly”. Well it does seem to show clearly that there was no Boeing 757, but there is a puff of smoke.
9.The narrator’s single word “yes” makes me laugh. it seems a very convenient coincidence that the plane, or whatever it was, hit the Pentagon on the ring that was both reinforced and on the opposite side to Rumsfeld’s office.
10. The narrator says “why even compare the two?” when he refers to the strike on the empire State Building by a B25-bomber. Well where’s his analysis of the difference in structure of the two buildings? Does he think that the difference in weight, speed and fuel capacity of the B-25 and the 757 are the only factors? How about the structure of the aircraft and the impact damage? How about the size of the resulting fire? The news footage of the Empire State building crash looked no different to me than the 9/11 footage.
11. The narrator says that the other examples of buildings that burned and then didn’t collapse was because they were not hit by a plane. But WTC7 was not hit by a plane either.
12. The Windsor Building fell very differently to the WTC. It didn’t all pancake in one go.
13. Ah! So the twin towers did have supporting cores like the Windsor Building. The narrator says they’re hollow. But if you watch the film of the WTC being built they look pretty solid to me.
14. The narrator uses a positive ad hominem where he says that no structural engineer agrees with the “9/11 Deniers” (What a wonderful expression! It immediately makes you want to deomize them like holocaust deniers). I don’t think it’s true anyway.
15. The “freefalling” debris outside the collapsing WTC has been propelled by the explosion; it is not in free fall any more than a bullet would be if you fired it down at the ground from the roof. Also, as the narrator says a moment earlier to support his own point, you can’t actually see the main part of the collapse due to the smoke and dust.
16. The narrator states sarcastically “We always know that the first news reports are the most accurate ones.” I agree with that, sans sarcasm. The initial on-the-scene reports are often the most accurate because the media censors and the reporters own credibility safety net have yet to come down.
17. The narrator keeps comparing the WTC collapse to known controlled demolitions. He says that there’s no way the explosives could be rigged up in the WTC secretly. Are conventional explosives the only way to demolish a building? How about scaler beams and other secret technology that the govt has?
18. The narrator claims that similies in the firemen’s testimony are not evidence. I couldn’t agree less; they are crucial evidence. The firemen come from the position that it was not a controlled demolition so they are bound to use similies to describe what they witnessed.
19.The supposed “quote mining” is nothing of the sort when you add my above point. The firemen are relating what they hear from the founding assumption that the official terrorist story is true.
20. “An investigation was underway” so they couldn’t release the firemen’s tapes! Well then how come they released the Pentagon helipad CCTV footage? Surely you must see that there is a political motivation to all this, whether you believe the govt did 9/11 or not!
21. Supposedly the fireman who said the fire could be put out in the tower, whom I quote myself above, was mistaken. I’m interested to see if this film mentions Rick Rescorla. (It never does!)
22. The people jumping from the building need not be escaping the flames. Smoke inhalation and suffocation from a fire kills more people than burning does. The WTC fire was giving off thick black smoke.
23. So the molten steel might not have been steel, but aluminium. How much aluminium did the WTC contain? I’m only asking because neither LS nor the narrator say how much molten metal there actually was.
24. “The team” (what team?) spent six days examining millions of tons of rubble and then gathered “significant amounts of data” on its performance!? Does the narrator think we’re stupid? Yes he does and that’s his weakness. Then it was shipped off to the Staaten Island yard; how long did the team spend there? Also there were concerns that the material had been disposed of too quickly and these were only refuted by a member of Congress
25. The OK City bombings have everything to do with 9/11 because the same firm was involved in the clean-up and both were suspected false flag operations.
26. The narrator seems to have little knowledge of the history of false flag ops. If he’d learned about Operation Gladio maybe he’d be realize that the govt would have no qualms about killing people in a real Operation Northwoods.
27. The last words on Kevin Cosgrove were played longer than necessary to make the point. Exposing the viewer to this harrowing material could be an attempt at shock-tactics or demonization. “Look! Tragedies like this are what Dylan Avery doesn’t care about!” The continual use of the term “9/11 Denier” is definitely a personal ad hominem smear campaign.
28. The narrator criticizes the witnesses for using similies again. See what I wrote above about that.
29. But like the Pentagon theories, whether flight 93 was shot down or crashed is a secondary debate and has no bearing on whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.
30. I don’t dispute that wreckage of Flight 93 was found. But was it wreckage from a crash or from a midair explosion?
31. The theory that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland is another example of initial new reports, which I think are often the most interesting, while the narrator prefers to trust the party line ones that come out later after the script has been agreed on.
32. Flight 93 may have been shot down. A lower level of the govt from the one that orchestrated 9/11 may have covered it up to spare the feelings of the relatives, as well as the poor fighter pilot who had to pull the trigger. But even people who investigate this theory still think that Bin Laden did it, which is the ultimate goal of the agenda. A good way to disguise a big conspiracy is to hide it behind a smaller one.
33. The story behind the black boxes is interesting. Their contents are secret, but the FBI claim to have played the voice recordings to the victim’s relatives.
34. Amazing that, even if is possible for a passport to survive the explosion, this particular one did. Not just anyone’s passport, but a hijacker’s passport. This is a psyop: It gives the image of the individuals involved placed at the scene so that the subconscious will forever associate the two. It’s also odd that the narrator makes that very point when remarking on how amazing it was that the black boxes were claimed to have been found in the rubble. If he believes a passport can be found under those circumstances then why not a black box?
35. “OOH! The Evil One, Dylan Avery, questions the heroism of the flight 93 passengers! Grab your torches and pitchforks!”
36. It doesn’t seem to bother the narrator much that Flights 11 and 77 weren’t scheduled to fly that day!
37. More demonization! To question the content of the phonecalls for the plane! UGH! Well if these phonecalls were edited out of context to be misleading, or even faked, then how does not questioning them show respect and sensitivity to the grieving relatives? It’s getting to the ridiculous point that the official story of 9/11 is becoming a Holy Scripture.
38. Re: Betty Ong’s call: Is there much difference between seeing a murder, of a friend and crewmate probably, and hearing about one on your plane?
39. What about Barbara Olson, the lady who made a reverse-charges call from an airfone? This cannot be done. Even if she’d called the operator first; if the operator could have arranged it with special permission then why not just give her the call free?
40. Official, publicly released voice-synth technology needs recordings to clone a person’s speech. What about further secret development of the system?
41. The hijacker list was released on September the 14th, just 3 days after the attacks. It didn’t take them long to find out who did it eh? They didn’t even have to wait long after Bin Laden’s supposed confession (which was faked too anyway).
42. The authorities don’t half make a lot of mistakes when identifying hijackers. It only took them three days to get the list and then they reckon that the nine alive are just mistakes!? Get away!
43. The attempt to prove that the confession tape is genuine is a non-starter. The person depicted in the film is quite clearly a younger, fatter man than bin Laden. I’ve seen some good graphics that morph the two together so you can see the obvious difference. And the tape was “found in a hose”? That seems most odd. Wasn’t it posted to a police station or left at the US embassy? No, it was just stumbled upon, by coincidence, a mere 3 days after the attacks!
44. The narrator is living in Dreamland if he thinks that the USA is not descending into a dictatorship! The fact the Avery and Alex Jones etc are getting publicity is not by the govt’s choice of complacency. It’s because they’re falling before the tide of public opinion!
45. Kevin Barrett is branded a racist just because he denies that hijackers could take over a plane with Stanley knives. How does that make him a racist? He doesn’t make his claims on the fact that the hijackers were Arabs, only that they were unarmed. And Dick Cheney is not an “Angry, evil white man”. He’s not a man at all he’s a Reptillian!
46. I love the certified picture of a terrorist training camp, from a spy plane or even a satellite! Looks more like a field of hay bales to me! Could this be one of the propaganda pictures that the Bush administration released to justify the invasion Afghanistan? One of the ones that have been doctored?
47. The film ends with the sickest and most spiteful debunker of all: That if you question the official story of 9/11 you’re an unfeeling, exploitative pirate who doesn’t care about those who died. The only way to be patriotic and respectful to the victims is to be baptized into this new religious cult called “19 hijackers did it at the orders of bin Laden”. The wear and tear my keyboard would suffer typing the briefest response to that would not justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment