Screw Screw Loose Change

[hagbard_celine]

Watch Screw Loose Change here:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw+loose+change&total=89&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

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 stance 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 that could do the job.

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”.:mad::mad: The wear and tear my keyboard would suffer typing the briefest response to that would not justified.

[macaula]

A reply by Mark Iradian

The guy behind Screw Loose Change video.

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 stance for that conclusion.

One thing many people forget is Operation Northwoods is it was written by a single general, not the entire government. It's because of the government that it was never executed and this same entity that released this operation for the public to see.


Quote:
2. Why would a “New Pearl Harbour” be necessary just to introduce new ITC technology into the military?

Maybe they should read the document to find out. It sure beats using one sentence to summarize a huge PDF file. They don't even know what they are arguing against.


Quote:
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).

I can already tell they didn't even watch the entire video. I point out why the Windsor Building did not collapse and why comparing it is such a dumb idea. The seismic readings do not show explosive spikes and the firemen witnesses all point to a scenario where fire was a key factor to WTC7's collapse. Again, I point this out, citing the numerous firefighters including Daniel Nigro.


Quote:
4. The criticism of the Russ Wittemburg, Willis Carlo and Dylan Avery himself are pure ad hominem.


Not really. Russ is the minority in his profession who believe nothing hit the Pentagon, while the majority of legit pilots believe Flight 77 nailed the Pentagon and any moron could've done it. Willis Carto's political affiliation and beliefs does have a huge role, because he owns the source that the Truth Movement uses. Does it make sense to you that you are using a holocaust denier source (one of the most investigated historical events of the last century) for your research? I hope not.


Quote:
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.

Pathetic attempt at a strawman.


Quote:
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.

I would really like to know what he is talking about. They were hundreds of witnesses down there.


Quote:
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 that could do the job.


It's not secondary debate. They were innocent people on those planes and only small remains of them were inside the Pentagon. The victims range from Bernard's young son to middle aged couples. Saying the physical evidence such as the plane debris, the damage done to the light poles and generator, and the human remains are nothing but "secondary debate" deserves an improper teabagging.


Quote:
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.


If it cannot clearly show a plane, how can it clearly show a puff of smoke? Again, I would have to ignore the physical evidence and human remains to even give this guy credit. I don't plan on ignoring reality.


Quote:
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.

I'm glad the thought of using physical evidence to debunk a theory makes you laugh. Just showing off your true colors.


Quote:
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.


The funny part is I show the video the vast differences between the two planes. I can't believe he is actually saying that the outcome would be the same from these two planes.


Quote:
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.


Strange he forgets to mention that the WTC7 had a huge hole in the corner of the buildings, had fires that weren't fought for several hours, and didn't have a concrete core unlike the other buildings.


Quote:
12. The Windsor Building fell very differently to the WTC. It didn’t all pancake in one go.

Because, like I said, it had a concrete core. This guy is simply ignoring the debunking! Forget 9/11 Denier, let's call him a reality denier!


Quote:
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.


Hey why don't you bring this up to Leslie E Robertson? I guarantee you that he will be shocked as I am by such a dumb statement. It's a hollow building because it's an office building!


Quote:
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.


Well you guys do use Holocaust Deniers as your sources of information, aka Willis Carto, Chris Bollyn, and that Eric guy with the funny last name. Next thing he'll bring up is David "Christ" Shayler.


Quote:
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.


Uh what? An explosion doesn't act a force going downwards. Reality Denier!


Quote:
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.


Just like the Helicopter Crash in New York last year, October 11th. Oh wait...


Quote:
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?


Now we are getting into speculation land now. Sorry kid, but unless you have proof that such a technology exists, you can't expect true skeptics like myself to take unsupported imaginative thoughts seriously. Next thing you'll tell me is psychics are real and fairies protect your home from illegal immigrants.


Quote:
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.


It's not concrete evidence. Besides, none of the NYFD how found any evidence of explosive devices during the cleanup. None. You think for a building that is three times taller then the biggest building to ever be bought down would've left some detention cord or some trace. But nope, nothing. Also, as I again post in the video, there is some examples of explosions that could happen without a bomb.


Quote:
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.


A poor excuse for me exposing the manipulative methods of your dumb movement. Come on, you could use a bit more imagination. Tell me more about the little itty bitty secret explosive technology the military has...please...!


Quote:
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!


Strawman argument.


Quote:
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!)


What does he have do with your theory?


Quote:
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.


Now you are just asking for swift kick in the the nuts for making an insulting and ignorant comment.


Quote:
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.


There isn't really information on "how much" there is, and even if there was, it couldn't have been molten steel. An excavator cannot pick up molten steel because it would stop working at anything above 2000 degrees.


Quote:
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


Man...so all of those pictures with the clean up crew examining the debris of the towers and looking for survivors/remains were just goofing off? To suggest there was no investigation is an insult to everyone who was down there, from the first responders looking for survivors to the the scientists who had to look at the debris and find out how the building collapsed in the first place. These people had more things to worry about, while you play armchair "researcher"


Quote:
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.


Ah, so you are accusing of more people of being part of the cover up. Nice.


Quote:
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.


Nothing to do with 9/11, exactly like Gladio and Northwoods.


Quote:
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.


And threatening me and calling me a shill is a-ok. Sorry man, the label was originally made to parody your movement's labellings "debate" tactics. Glad it's pissing you off.


Quote:
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.

Let's just ignore the fact that your hero Dylan is saying all the phone calls were fake and just recently, the guy who created the voice technology that is used in LC calls bullcrap on the theories.


Quote:
30. I don’t dispute that wreckage of Flight 93 was found. But was it wreckage from a crash or from a midair explosion?


As I point this out in the film (again), the FDR did not show any abnormalities prior to the crash.


Quote:
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.


More accusations without evidence. Much like Flight 77, I would have ignore the physical evidence like Wally Miller's findings of human remains, the FDR, the debris, phonecalls, etc etc..

Reality Denier indeed.


Quote:
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.


Lower level of the government? First you have accused of the media, investigators, NYFD, and the victim's families of being part of it. Now it's a lower level?

Screw a swift kick in the nuts, you need a dropkick to the head. At least you're climbing up the ladder.


Quote:

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.


So the victims are lying when they said they heard the voice recordings? Unfortunately, I can't think of anything more punishing then a dropkick to the head at the moment. Maybe you can help me out, since you love to use imagination.


Quote:
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?


Considering the passport wasn't crushed under debris, but outside the area like the papers and the seat cushions...
Plus we wouldn't even need the passports to show they were there. Airport security footage is another good method.


Quote:
35. “OOH! The Evil One, Dylan Avery, questions the heroism of the flight 93 passengers! Grab your torches and pitchforks!”


Questions? He downright says that they are fake and thinks Mark Bingham's last words were too stupid to be real. Questioning my wonderful ass.


Quote:
36. It doesn’t seem to bother the narrator much that Flights 11 and 77 weren’t scheduled to fly that day!


Physical evidence has shown that they did.


Quote:
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.


He talks about me demonization the movement, when he is suggesting the phonecalls are fake.


Quote:
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?


See above.


Quote:
40. Official, publicly released voice-synth technology needs recordings to clone a person’s speech. What about further secret development of the system?


Just a few days ago we had the original developer say the theories are crap. Let me guess, he's part of this?


Quote:
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).


Flight manifests.


Quote:
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!


That was BBC's fault, not the investigation. BBC even admitted that they screwed up.


Quote:
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!


Actually it has proven by one of your kind that it was a simple format change. Plus I have used other parts of the video to show OBL in the tape looks like the real thing. Plus we can see other members of Al-Qaeda perfectly. Are you suggesting that all these Al-Qaeda members were taking to a fake Osama? WTF?

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html


Quote:
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!


Complete opposite of a dictatorship. If there was no freedom of speech, AJ and Avery wouldn't exist. All it takes a simple bullet to kill them off. Remember that this is the same government that supposedly killed 3000 people in one day.


Quote:
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!


He is a racist because he suggests that all arabs live in caves, basically saying that arabs are dumb people.


Quote:
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?


Imagination!

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/6149/imaginationby8.jpg




Quote:
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.


Haha, I pissed off a 9/11 Denier! Go internet!
__________________

[auron]

Man, this is going to be an interesting thread....:rolleyes:

[i am all i am]

true skeptics like myself

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Welcome to the forum.

This is an interesting term that you have used to describe yourself.

As a true skeptic, does this mean that you are skeptical of everything that you are told, read or see ???

Does this also imply that you are a skeptic of the 'official 9/11 story', being a true skeptic ???

Are you then, as a true skeptic, also skeptical of your own experiences, thoughts, words and actions ???

OR

Are you not really a skeptic, and are merely portraying yourself as one because it is an excuse for you being argumentative towards others and acting superior ???

OR

Are you a true skeptic because you are skeptical of those that are skeptical of the 'official 9/11 story' ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

If the programs not the one you want change channel.

Nobody forces you to read threads so moaning is a little silly to say the least. If you want a thread about a different subject go for it start one no one is stopping you. Your post contributed nothing so if you dont mind.

[macaula]

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Welcome to the forum.

This is an interesting term that you have used to describe yourself.

As a true skeptic, does this mean that you are skeptical of everything that you are told, read or see ???

Does this also imply that you are a skeptic of the 'official 9/11 story', being a true skeptic ???

Are you then, as a true skeptic, also skeptical of your own experiences, thoughts, words and actions ???

OR

Are you not really a skeptic, and are merely portraying yourself as one because it is an excuse for you being argumentative towards others and acting superior ???

OR

Are you a true skeptic because you are skeptical of those that are skeptical of the 'official 9/11 story' ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

The replies are from Mark Iradian the maker of screw loose change as indicated at the top of the post. So they are his words not mine. Why not ask him?

[i am all i am]

The replies are from Mark Iradian the maker of screw loose change as indicated at the top of the post. So they are his words not mine. Why not ask him?

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

This is also interesting. You've posted someone elses replies.....does this person not reply for themselves or have you gotten these replies from another forum (if so could you please supply the link) ???

As you have posted the replies, does mean that you agree with replies, or do you have your own perspective about this thread ???

You're welcome for the welcome.

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

Mark gave me his replies after i showed him the critique. Obviously Mark does answer for himself hes the one that wrote the replies lol. Maybe you mean isn't he a member here in that case then no. I thought people might like to see what the maker of the film had to say about the critique of it you know hearing both sides and all that. What i believe or dont belive has no bearing on my reason for posting Marks replies.

[john white]

Waaaagghhh!!!

There there.

Poor little Robot

Your daddy's super special little chap, and he'd never lie to you

[i am all i am]

Mark gave me his replies after i showed him the critique. Obviously Mark does answer for himself hes the one that wrote the replies lol. Maybe you mean isn't he a member here in that case then no. I thought people might like to see what the maker of the film had to say about the critique of it you know hearing both sides and all that. What i believe or dont belive has no bearing on my reason for posting Marks replies.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

So what are your reasons for posting his replies ???

Surely you have a belief in relation to the replies, one way or the other, that would relate to your reason for posting them.

Do you believe that he is making valid points in the video and the subsequent replies that you have posted upon the critique of his critique of loose change ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

Or you could ask why show Mark the Critique.

I was interest what the maker had to say so i asked him. I posted his replies so others could read them.

[macaula]

There there.

Poor little Robot

Your daddy's super special little chap, and he'd never lie to you

So because i posted a response by the author to a critique of his work you find it necessary to call me names. Why is that? Please leave members of my family out of your comments in the future if you dont mind. Also it would be appreciated if you didn't make false quotes in my name.

Cheers.

[i am all i am]

Or you could ask why show Mark the Critique.

I was interest what the maker had to say so i asked him. I posted his replies so others could read them.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Does this mean that you thought that they were humourous replies and we would all get a good laugh out of them ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

No i thought people might find it interesting how the film maker answered the critique of his work. I never mentioned humor.

[i am all i am]

No i thought people might find it interesting how the film maker answered the critique of his work. I never mentioned humor.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Ok. Let me see if I understand this then.....

You were surfing the net and saw the thread and thought that it would be cool to show someone that has done a critique on loose change, that their critique was also critiqued, and see what, if any, there replies would be to the critique of the critique, and then post those replies on the thread of the critique of the critique on loose change.

Is that about it, or am I missing something else here ???

Of what interest do you think that these replies would have for everyone else ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

Its called hearing both sides something i personally like to do.

I have been reading this site for a while and i noticed the critique of Loose Change post and read it. After reading it i decided to ask the film maker what he thought of the critique so he showed me what he thought. I then posted it so other members could read it. What interest other members have in my post is their personal business not mine.

Thats it.

[i am all i am]

Its called hearing both sides something i personally like to do.

I have been reading this site for a while and i noticed the critique of Loose Change post and read it. After reading it i decided to ask the film maker what he thought of the critique so he showed me what he thought. I then posted it so other members could read it. What interest other members have in my post is their personal business not mine.

Thats it.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Did you offer the makers of loose change the same opportunity as the maker of screw loose change ???

By the way, do you happen to personally know Mark Iradian ???

Having now heard both sides, what have you decided in relationship to the information that has been offered by both sides ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Did you offer the makers of loose change the same opportunity as the maker of screw loose change ???

By the way, do you happen to personally know Mark Iradian ???

Having now heard both sides, what have you decided in relationship to the information that has been offered by both sides ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif


Yes i sent the makers of loose change an Email containing Hagbard Celines critique and Mark Iradians replies. Like i said i like to hear both sides.


No i do not know Mark Iradian.


Loose change contains errors dubious claims and conclusions not 100% backed up by facts as the producer Dylan Avery will tell you himself.

[i am all i am]

Yes i sent the makers of loose change an Email containing Hagbard Celines critique and Mark Iradians replies. Like i said i like to hear both sides.

No i do not know Mark Iradian.

Loose change contains errors dubious claims and conclusions not 100% backed up by facts as the producer Dylan Avery will tell you himself.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Actually I meant did you send them a copy of screw loose change, and, if any, what reply(ies) did you receive ???

Are you going to post those replies as well, especially what Dylan Avery has to say himself ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[macaula]

If the makers of Loose Change decide to comment on something they havent seen thats up to them. Its not like Screw Loose Change is hard to get hold of and I mentioned the title so its up to them if they watch it.

Yes of course when i get a reply i will post it. Like i said i like to hear both sides and thought others would too.

[i am all i am]

If the makers of Loose Change decide to comment on something they havent seen thats up to them. Its not like Screw Loose Change is hard to get hold of and I mentioned the title so its up to them if they watch it.

Yes of course when i get a reply i will post it. Like i said i like to hear both sides and thought others would too.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Macaula.

Now this statment may take a bit of an explanation. First question.....

How do you know whether "the makers of Loose Change" have or have not seen screw loose change ???

If you believe that it is easy "to get hold of" screw loose change, why do you believe that the makers of Loose Change would not have seen it ???

Well, this is really the point. We have seen both sides through the videos that each side has presented.

What new information are YOU bringing to the discussion ???

Hagbard Celine has made a decision to believe Loose Change and not screw loose change.

What decision have you made ???

Also, what information have you regarding Dylan Avery and your assertion that "Loose Change contains errors dubious claims and conclusions not 100% backed up by facts as the producer Dylan Avery will tell you himself" ???

What parts of Loose Change do you believe to be erroneous ???

What parts of Loose Change do you believe to have dubious claims and conclusions ???

What information do you have to offer that backs up these statements that you have made ???

As someone that likes to hear and share both sides, where is the Loose Change side that you have presented ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[barbitone]

Why has macaula been banned?

[auron]

Yes, you just beat me too it Barbitone! Why?

[lydia78]

There there.

Poor little Robot

Your daddy's super special little chap, and he'd never lie to you

LOL..sorry classic sarcasm always cracks me up...:D

[i_am]

Previously banned poster :)

[hagbard_celine]

I'm not going to bother replying to the rebuttel, firstly because I can't; I've placed the "macaula" on my ignore list because I recognise him. But also because there are two more important questions that need answering:

1. How do I find the 9/11 memorials?

2. How much does a can of spray paint cost?

Than again if I'm going to soil the memeories of the 9/11 victims shouldn't I try to make some money out of it? Let's hope David Shayler doesn't corner the market!

:mad::rolleyes:

[harris999]

Basically it says that everything in loose change was a coincidence. and after watching loose change, with al the info in it, its close to impossible that it was all a coincidence.

[freedomnonfighter]

Funny enough, there's a presentation entitled "9/11 Coincidence Theory" :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5236492071990669218

[john white]

Previously banned poster :)

IE Emtec again :D

[matrixcutter]

I think this Mark Iradian posts on myspace, in News and Politics (mostly General (http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewCategory&CategoryID=69&Mytoken=DFB28624-05CB-44FE-AD15D38BA44D9D5D25690850)) - the most appropriate forum for 9/11 truth. Every time there's a 9/11 thread, him and about 4 or 5 others flock to it and tell lies and ridicule everything. There are a few exceptions, when there is good, undeniable information there they will tend to just ignore it.

Fortunately, there are quite a lot of people who know the truth nowadays, but they could always do with more help.

The guys that made The Pentacon (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=5477955350625095031&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=pentacon&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D5477955350625095031&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D5477955350625095031% 26q%3Dpentacon%26total%3D24%26start%3D0%26num%3D10 %26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H22KXrpRMLUY0bM3x1-22UavMFbt3w) and The First Known Accomplice? (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=7893359820637031024&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=first%2Baccomplice&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D7893359820637031024&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D7893359820637031024% 26q%3Dfirst%2Baccomplice%26total%3D41%26start%3D0% 26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21Zq7VSzOsA3FGO_iFtMqBVq1mbsw) have probably taken the most shit (they have referred to Mark (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=83202352) as Mark Iradian, and his profile mentions that he did Screw Loose Change) but the guy who made Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-6240504594075547308&esrc=sr7&ev=v&q=twin%2Btowers%2Bdemolition&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D-6240504594075547308&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6240504594075547308%26q%3Dtwin%2Btowers%2Bdemoliti on%26total%3D333%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D1%2 6type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D6&usg=AL29H23Qm_4ZEM9WBCi4ISOYGAT6DxdJ3Q) and II (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-5255701680091399090&esrc=sr6&ev=v&q=twin%2Btowers%2Bdemolition&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D-5255701680091399090&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5255701680091399090%26q%3Dtwin%2Btowers%2Bdemoliti on%26total%3D333%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D1%2 6type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D5&usg=AL29H223lUXAHT34khi7DbI-UnCHD2u2Cw) has also taken a lot. Most of it is pretty desperate thread derailing, but the lies and accusations of lies are pretty standard too.

Note - you have to be registered for 7 days before you can post on the forums, but you can make other profiles at the same time, with other email addresses, so that if (and when) you get banned, you don't have to wait 7 days again.

[i_am]

I think this Mark Iradian posts on myspace, in News and Politics (mostly General (http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewCategory&CategoryID=69&Mytoken=DFB28624-05CB-44FE-AD15D38BA44D9D5D25690850)) - the most appropriate forum for 9/11 truth. Every time there's a 9/11 thread, him and about 4 or 5 others flock to it and tell lies and ridicule everything. There are a few exceptions, when there is good, undeniable information there they will tend to just ignore it.

Fortunately, there are quite a lot of people who know the truth nowadays, but they could always do with more help.

The guys that made The Pentacon (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=5477955350625095031&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=pentacon&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D5477955350625095031&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D5477955350625095031% 26q%3Dpentacon%26total%3D24%26start%3D0%26num%3D10 %26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H22KXrpRMLUY0bM3x1-22UavMFbt3w) and The First Known Accomplice? (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=7893359820637031024&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=first%2Baccomplice&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D7893359820637031024&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D7893359820637031024% 26q%3Dfirst%2Baccomplice%26total%3D41%26start%3D0% 26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21Zq7VSzOsA3FGO_iFtMqBVq1mbsw) have probably taken the most shit (they have referred to Mark (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=83202352) as Mark Iradian, and his profile mentions that he did Screw Loose Change) but the guy who made Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-6240504594075547308&esrc=sr7&ev=v&q=twin%2Btowers%2Bdemolition&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D-6240504594075547308&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6240504594075547308%26q%3Dtwin%2Btowers%2Bdemoliti on%26total%3D333%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D1%2 6type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D6&usg=AL29H23Qm_4ZEM9WBCi4ISOYGAT6DxdJ3Q) and II (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-5255701680091399090&esrc=sr6&ev=v&q=twin%2Btowers%2Bdemolition&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D-5255701680091399090&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5255701680091399090%26q%3Dtwin%2Btowers%2Bdemoliti on%26total%3D333%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D1%2 6type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D5&usg=AL29H223lUXAHT34khi7DbI-UnCHD2u2Cw) has also taken a lot. Most of it is pretty desperate thread derailing, but the lies and accusations of lies are pretty standard too.

Note - you have to be registered for 7 days before you can post on the forums, but you can make other profiles at the same time, with other email addresses, so that if (and when) you get banned, you don't have to wait 7 days again.

Interesting! Thank you for that information matrixcutter.

[matrixcutter]

You're welcome.

[dondaz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=101027#post101027)
Previously banned poster :)

IE Emtec again :D
__________________
Have fun in your Spacesuit!

He keeps coming back and getting rumbled!


http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u39/dazp5/sidesplitter-small.gifhttp://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u39/dazp5/Jumpforjoy.gifhttp://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u39/dazp5/sidesplitter-small.gif

[hagbard_celine]

I think this Mark Iradian posts on myspace, in News and Politics

.

We should invite him here to see what he thinks of this thread! It will probably drive him onto a state of apoplexy if "Screw loose Change" is anything to go by! A whole village of Dylan Averys! Not just one heartless, disrespectful money-grabbing grave robber, but an entire forum of them!

[auron]

We should invite him here to see what he thinks of this thread! It will probably drive him onto a state of apoplexy if "Screw loose Change" is anything to go by! A whole village of Dylan Averys! Not just one heartless, disrespectful money-grabbing grave robber, but an entire forum of them!
That would be amusing. :D

[matrixcutter]

If you invite him for a debate I wouldn't be surprised if he did actually turn up, but he won't debate you. He will just tell you that everything you come up with has already been "debunked" - the shills' magic victory word.

He will also tell lies and smear people like William Rodriguez, and bring anti-semitism into the "debate" - that's a guarantee, if he stays long enough.

Other things that are fairly predictable are him bringing 4 or 5 other shills along with him just to agree with everything he says (and say how brilliant his jokes are) and disagree with everything everybody else says, and him ridiculing the reptilian stuff, obviously, and linking it to 9/11 truth (which he calls 9/11 denial), which he links in turn to Holocaust denial.

If you were to find some sort of shills handbook, there would probably be nothing in there that this Mark hasn't done, many times.