View Full Version: Loose Change Guide

Loose Change Forum > Under the Bridge > Loose Change Guide


Title: Loose Change Guide
Description: Is there a debunk to this debunk?


The_Animus - October 4, 2006 11:11 PM (GMT)
I was looking through the stickies in this forum and even did a search but nothing came up. I was wondering if anyone did a debunk of the debunk on loosechangeguide.com?

If so could someone please give me the link?

Thanks!

rishta - October 5, 2006 12:09 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 5 2006, 01:11 AM)
I was looking through the stickies in this forum and even did a search but nothing came up. I was wondering if anyone did a debunk of the debunk on loosechangeguide.com?

If so could someone please give me the link?

Thanks!

Hmmm... Maybe try to employ your critical thinking first. Think what they want you to believe and what they don't want you to know.

The_Animus - October 5, 2006 12:34 AM (GMT)
Well my critical thinking notes two very interesting things.

The first is the question I asked.

QUOTE
I was wondering if anyone did a debunk of the debunk on loosechangeguide.com?


The second is your responce.

QUOTE
Hmmm... Maybe try to employ your critical thinking first. Think what they want you to believe and what they don't want you to know.


Notice that your responce has absolutely nothing to do with intended purpose of this thread or the question I asked.

MJChicago - October 5, 2006 12:43 AM (GMT)
I know that sanders, I think, had made a large post about it... let me see if I can find it...

roger - October 5, 2006 12:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 4 2006, 04:11 PM)
I was looking through the stickies in this forum and even did a search but nothing came up. I was wondering if anyone did a debunk of the debunk on loosechangeguide.com?

If so could someone please give me the link?

Thanks!


I did.

First "debunk" in that pile of shit is "operation Northwoods is irrelevant. Has nothing to do with 9/11 because it didn't happen back then."

If you are a f*cking moron, you can fail to see the relevance of how a military plan to fake hijackings and terrorist attacks against US cities to foment a war would have anything to do with 9/11.

That's where I stopped. Because the logic is equally sordid from start to finish.
The only way to debunk stupidity is education. Educate yourself, and you won't need someone to spoonfeed it to you. You have seen LC, you have read the Gravy shitstack. Make up your own f*cking mind and live with it.

MJChicago - October 5, 2006 12:45 AM (GMT)
Found it. Its actually a sticky in this particular forum... lol.

Skrew Loose Change... The Movie [salute]

rishta - October 5, 2006 12:46 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 5 2006, 02:34 AM)
Notice that your responce has absolutely nothing to do with intended purpose of this thread or the question I asked.

Yes, it has everything to do.
Read the debunking, read this forum, see what's more reasonable. Try to notice manipulation in the "debunking" article.
The purpose of truth-seeking is not disproving some gibberish but finding the most reasonable explanation of the events. Loose Change does not claim to be the perfect and irrefutable. Else there would be no need for the final cut.

I think on the subject of LC movie, this guide does the thing you want. And here's a supplement.

MJChicago - October 5, 2006 12:50 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (rishta @ Oct 4 2006, 07:46 PM)

Yes, it has everything to do.
Read the debunking, read this forum, see what's more reasonable. Try to notice manipulation in the "debunking" article.
The purpose of truth-seeking is not disproving some gibberish but finding the most reasonable explanation of the events. Loose Change does not claim to be the perfect and irrefutable. Else there would be no need for the final cut.

I think on the subject of LC movie, this guide does the thing you want. And here's a supplement.

Basically thats it. Use your thinking. Watch SLC and LC, and compare and see what the "debunks" are for yourself. And those guides you list are good if you want an Actual Loose Change Viewers Guide.

hdog - October 5, 2006 01:26 AM (GMT)
In my mind there only a few things you need to know:

No proof of official conspiracy theory.

Building 7. All the features of a controlled demolition, molten metal in basement, partially evaporated steel beams. No official explanation for its collapse.

Thw Towers. Again all the features of a controlled demolition, although top down explosion. Huge steel beams laterally ejected hundreds of feet. South Tower cap reverses direction and blows up. Pulverized concrete while near free-fall collapse. Again molten metal in basement and seen pouring from South Tower.

NIST report - fireproofing dislodged, tweaked computer models, fail to prove collapse initiation leads to global collapse, does not address structural behaivor after collapse initiation.

Blatent evidence destruction at Ground Zero.

Pentagon - no proff Flight 77 hit, clocks stop at 9:31, most likely bombs in the building, Hani Hanjour does not make the military manuvers.

Shanksville - plane nose dives and liquifies into soft dirt. Yeah, right.

Coincidental war games and no plane intercepts.

The_Animus - October 5, 2006 01:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
I did.

First "debunk" in that pile of shit is "operation Northwoods is irrelevant. Has nothing to do with 9/11 because it didn't happen back then."

If you are a f*cking moron, you can fail to see the relevance of how a military plan to fake hijackings and terrorist attacks against US cities to foment a war would have anything to do with 9/11.


There is a distinction you have to make here. Operation Northwoods does show precidence and as such it is related. It is not evidence that 9/11 was an inside job because it does not prove anything. I assume you are making the following conclusion, if not then I misinterpreted. You are saying that because the government made a plan to attack its own citizens in the past, they must have planned 9/11 as well. This is not the case. Just because they did it in the past does not mean they MUST HAVE done it in the future as well. Take this analogy for example. Lets say that in the past the British went to war with the French because the French assassinated a British leader. Now lets say that just recently the British went to war with the French again. The reason for going to war may be that there was an assassination, since they went to war for that reason before. But then again it may be because the British leader thought the French leader cheated in a game of chess. Who knows. You would have to get evidence to find out the real reason.

QUOTE
Skrew Loose Change... The Movie


I must admit I am a little confused. I have never seen Skrew Loose Change.... The Movie, but isn't that different than loosechangeguide.com? I know that the last couple posts in that thread refer to lcg but that is not a debunk of it. Sanders merely replies to some of the comments from the forum poster rather than from lcg itself.

QUOTE
Try to notice manipulation in the "debunking" article.


I notice that the guide it written harshly and in a sarcastic and insulting way. But I don't pay any attention to that part of it. I pay attention to sources.

EDIT: Typos

The_Animus - October 5, 2006 01:46 AM (GMT)
By the way I appreciate the links to those guides, but understand that it may be a while before I am able to fully read them. Generally in between posts I am already reading not one but multiple documents or articles. After all there is a ton of information out and I can only read so long before my eyes start to hurt from staring at a computer screen for so long.

MJChicago - October 5, 2006 01:52 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 4 2006, 08:36 PM)
I must admit I am a little confused. I have never seen Skrew Loose Change.... The Movie, but isn't that different than loosechangeguide.com? I know that the last couple posts in that thread refer to lcg but that is not a debunk of it. Sanders merely replies to some of the comments from the forum poster rather than from lcg itself.

Oh I didnt realize it was a seperate "Guide" from the movie. Though I imagine all in all that most of the rhetoric is more or less the same. I'll check it out later...

roger - October 5, 2006 03:09 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 4 2006, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE
I did.

First "debunk" in that pile of shit is "operation Northwoods is irrelevant. Has nothing to do with 9/11 because it didn't happen back then."

If you are a f*cking moron, you can fail to see the relevance of how a military plan to fake hijackings and terrorist attacks against US cities to foment a war would have anything to do with 9/11.

You are saying that because the government made a plan to attack its own citizens in the past, they must have planned 9/11 as well. This is not the case. Just because they did it in the past does not mean they MUST HAVE done it in the future as well. Take this analogy for example. Lets say that in the past the British went to war with the French because the French assassinated a British leader. Now lets say that just recently the British went to war with the French again. The reason for going to war may be that there was an assassination, since they went to war for that reason before. But then again it may be because the British leader thought the French leader cheated in a game of chess. Who knows. You would have to get evidence to find out the real reason.

QUOTE
Skrew Loose Change... The Movie


I must admit I am a little confused. I have never seen Skrew Loose Change.... The Movie, but isn't that different than loosechangeguide.com? I know that the last couple posts in that thread refer to lcg but that is not a debunk of it. Sanders merely replies to some of the comments from the forum poster rather than from lcg itself.

QUOTE
Try to notice manipulation in the "debunking" article.


I notice that the guide it written harshly and in a sarcastic and insulting way. But I don't pay any attention to that part of it. I pay attention to sources.

EDIT: Typos

QUOTE

There is a distinction you have to make here. Operation Northwoods does show precidence and as such it is related. It is not evidence that 9/11 was an inside job because it does not prove anything. I assume you are making the following conclusion, if not then I misinterpreted.


No, you're a moron. If it were evidence then the movie would only be 2 minutes long.

How long is the movie genius? Is the movie two minutes long?

No...the movie is not two minutes long.

Hmm, maybe I can misinterpret that you are a moron. I have no evidence that you are a moron. Why would they put it in the movie if it wasn't evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Why did they name the movie "scientific evidence that 9/11 was an inside job"? Oh, they did not name the movie "scientific evidence that 9/11 was an inside job". Why did they put music in the movie? Music does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. But there is music. WHY is there music in this movie.

Did Gravy miss this point. Music in Loose Change is totally debunkable. It has totally NOTHING to do with 9/11 and they put it in there anyway. Well I caught them. I'm onto their little scheme. I know better. I am a proud proponent of the OFFICIAL music of 9/11.

And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm freeeeeeee.....

and, yer just another dumbf*ck troll so I'm done with this convo and wish you a happy reincarnation under another dumbf*ck handle.

Sanders - October 5, 2006 03:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 5 2006, 10:36 AM)
I must admit I am a little confused. I have never seen Skrew Loose Change.... The Movie, but isn't that different than loosechangeguide.com?

It's the same logic, practically the same debunk, in video form.

I spent a few hours and went through some of the loosechange guide point by point once and posted it in reply to a challenge in a thread once, but I have no idea where to find it. It was the exact same stuff - roger nailed it on the head - if you can't see the significance of the Northwoods documents you need to pull your head out of the sand. I didn't finish the "SLC movie" attempt, but I don't see the point. You get the idea quite clearly from what's been posted already in that thread, only a fool would waste any more hours than I did going through every point.


QUOTE
The only way to debunk stupidity is education.



[crylol]

headcold - October 5, 2006 04:00 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (roger @ Oct 5 2006, 03:09 AM)
and, yer just another dumbf*ck troll so I'm done with this convo and wish you a happy reincarnation under another dumbf*ck handle.

Thanks Roger for making all of us dumber. Animus, please disregard the idiots on these forums. There's tons of them and they will attack as soon as you disagree with them. Knowledge is power, and power corrupts.

The_Animus - October 5, 2006 05:43 AM (GMT)
Roger: This is the one and only handle I have. It is also the only handle I need because I do not break the forum rules. Unlike yourself.

QUOTE
No, you're a moron. If it were evidence then the movie would only be 2 minutes long.

How long is the movie genius? Is the movie two minutes long?

No...the movie is not two minutes long.


I'm going to assume you meant "If it weren't evidence..." because the way you stated it makes absolutely no sense. But then again your argument makes no sense anyway. You are implying that everything in the movie must be evidence otherwise it wouldn't be in the movie. I'm sorry it is precidence, not evidence. I explained to you already.

Headcold: Yeah thanks. Every forum has people like him. If nothing else their posts are good for a few laughs.

The_Animus - October 5, 2006 05:49 AM (GMT)
Sanders: I read your whole debunking of the SLC. I think the SLC video was made by idiots. The loosechangeguide.org I think is much better. Unfortunetally the tone of the writer is very negative and sarcastic, but that writer also addresses all of the points very well and provides sources for almost all of his debunking info. So while I think you did a good job with the SLC debunking I do not think it is the same as the lcg.

By the way, you should really warn roger. He hurts your cause more than he helps it.

roger - October 5, 2006 06:05 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The_Animus @ Oct 4 2006, 10:43 PM)
Roger: This is the one and only handle I have. It is also the only handle I need because I do not break the forum rules. Unlike yourself.

QUOTE
No, you're a moron. If it were evidence then the movie would only be 2 minutes long.

How long is the movie genius? Is the movie two minutes long?

No...the movie is not two minutes long .


I'm going to assume you meant "If it weren't evidence..." because the way you stated it makes absolutely no sense. But then again your argument makes no sense anyway. You are implying that everything in the movie must be evidence otherwise it wouldn't be in the movie. I'm sorry it is precidence, not evidence. I explained to you already.



No, you're still a moron. If it were evidence then the movie would only be 2 minutes long.

How long is the movie genius? Is the movie two minutes long?

No...the movie is not two minutes long.

Now you see, you paused, and engaged in critical thought. You responded that it is not evidence, it is precendence. Can precedence be included in a movie?

Hmmmm.

Why yes it can. And if establishing a precedence were relevent in later discussing evidence, would it make a little bit of sense to put that in the movie?

Hmmmm.

Why yes, that would make sense. And if precedence- and music- can be included in a movie, then would it stand to reason that the entire content of the movie isn't evidence?

Hmmmm.

Why yes that does make sense doesn't it.

And if you pretend to be so f*cking dense that you disregard that fairly straightforward concept by simply stating "this has nothing to do with 9/11. Next..."

That you might just be a wannabe intellectual with an agenda to refute a belief you do not agree with?

Yep. Probably. But thanks for thinking. Keep up the good work!

The_Animus - October 5, 2006 06:39 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Operation Northwoods does show precidence and as such it is related.

I hope you feel stupid. Because I said that initially before you started throwing a fit.

QUOTE
And if you pretend to be so f*cking dense that you disregard that fairly straightforward concept by simply stating "this has nothing to do with 9/11. Next..."


I think you have me confused with the makers of SLC. They said that. I did not. So again, I hope you feel stupid.

painter - October 5, 2006 08:06 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (roger @ Oct 4 2006, 07:09 PM)
<s>
No, you're a moron.
<s>
How long is the movie genius?
<s>
Hmm, maybe I can misinterpret that you are a moron. I have no evidence that you are a moron.
<S>
and, yer just another dumbf*ck troll so I'm done with this convo and wish you a happy reincarnation under another dumbf*ck handle.

Roger, Roger, Roger.

What *AM* I going to do with you. I'm sure you know that it really doesn't help our public image when someone of your intelligence and stature calls someone, well, what you have. It really does make the Administrator job difficult. You see, had The_Annamus called YOU those names he would be IP banned in a heart beat. NO SHIT.

You, however, are a remarkable member of this community (however some may not yet comprehend the depths of your wit). If I don't give YOU a warning of some sort, then it would appear that we have double standards, that WE CARE MORE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE ONE OF OUR OWN than we do others who, in the main, think we're all a bunch of lunatics. And of course, to them, our double standards only further reinforce their already prejudiced view of us, you know what I mean?

So. What to do what to do.

I shall have to give this some deep and careful consideration.

Perhaps call a privy council.

. . . I'm wishing right now that I had a scraggly, bearded little smiley holding a protest sign that reads:

REPENT FOR THE END IS NEAR!

Don't know if anyone else would get it though.


roger - October 6, 2006 12:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (painter @ Oct 5 2006, 01:06 AM)

Roger, Roger, Roger.

What *AM* I going to do with you. I'm sure you know that it really doesn't help our public image when someone of your intelligence and stature calls someone, well, what you have. It really does make the Administrator job difficult. You see, had The_Annamus called YOU those names he would be IP banned in a heart beat. NO SHIT.

You, however, are a remarkable member of this community (however some may not yet comprehend the depths of your wit). If I don't give YOU a warning of some sort, then it would appear that we have double standards, that WE CARE MORE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE ONE OF OUR OWN than we do others who, in the main, think we're all a bunch of lunatics. And of course, to them, our double standards only further reinforce their already prejudiced view of us, you know what I mean?

So. What to do what to do.

I shall have to give this some deep and careful consideration.

Perhaps call a privy council.

. . . I'm wishing right now that I had a scraggly, bearded little smiley holding a protest sign that reads:

REPENT FOR THE END IS NEAR!

Don't know if anyone else would get it though.


I can sympathize with your plight. If you made me a moderator, I would ban myself immediately and get a lot more guitar time in. So I am probably not the best person to advise you on the predicament. Actually I would ban The Animus first. Then me.

I was mistaken, he doesn't appear to be a troll. So I formally apologize for making the accusation.

As for the rest, it's the carbon copy affect. How many posts have there been that read exactly the same, requesting a 'debunking' of gravy's shitstack of rhetoric. Is it really that hard to see it for what it is? It's a critique of a film he watched and didn't like.

To me, it's like taking a negative review of some Michael Moore movie in the Chicago Tribune, or better yet The Nation, and mailing it to Michael Moore saying, "I watched your movie, but then I read this. Before I can formulate an opinion on your movie I need you to respond to this review. Thanks".

To which Michael Moore, in a hypothetical sense, would think..."gosh you are a f*cking moron aren't you." and I doubt he would respond. And I want to be clear that I am talking about a hypothetical moron. Not a real moron. That would be understandably out of line, but I can fax you my Turrette's Syndrome certification if that would help.

I've said it before, you are free to edit/censor/delete any comments I make which you, the moderating team, deem appropriate on any given day. Since you have apparently modeled your moderating system on the Italian government circa 1945-2000, it really is easier for you to enforce rules than it is for me to keep track of what they are (or who is/is not a moderator for that matter). I am not a big proponent of the whole 'free speech on the internet argument. There's a couple hundred million domains still available, and if you really can't find a place to say what you want then you can start your own website. Thus...feel free to take the offending term out of any contentious posts and replace it with something blissfully noncombative. I won't be offended.

That's all I got. Hope it helps.

The_Animus - October 6, 2006 02:35 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
It's a critique of a film he watched and didn't like.


Actually when I watched it I did like it. And at the time it shifted my opinion more towards the version of events presented by LC. But I'm not going to treat that video as the gospel and as such I decided to continue in my research. Upon doing so it seemed to me that there were numerous innacuracies. But again I am not done researching.

Daniels - October 6, 2006 08:11 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (roger @ Oct 6 2006, 08:34 AM)

As for the rest, it's the carbon copy affect. How many posts have there been that read exactly the same, requesting a 'debunking' of gravy's shitstack of rhetoric. Is it really that hard to see it for what it is? It's a critique of a film he watched and didn't like.

To me, it's like taking a negative review of some Michael Moore movie in the Chicago Tribune, or better yet The Nation, and mailing it to Michael Moore saying, "I watched your movie, but then I read this. Before I can formulate an opinion on your movie I need you to respond to this review. Thanks".

To which Michael Moore, in a hypothetical sense, would think..."gosh you are a f*cking moron aren't you." and I doubt he would respond. And I want to be clear that I am talking about a hypothetical moron. Not a real moron. That would be understandably out of line, but I can fax you my Turrette's Syndrome certification if that would help.

I am not a big proponent of the whole 'free speech on the internet argument. There's a couple hundred million domains still available, and if you really can't find a place to say what you want then you can start your own website. Thus...feel free to take the offending term out of any contentious posts and replace it with something blissfully noncombative. I won't be offended.



Pure brilliance, like Einstein with a foul mouth! [wavetowel] [wavetowel] [wavetowel]




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards