FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Loose Change 9/11 Blog





deanhills
I found a recent blog "Loose Change 9/11" when I was responding to a thread under the Movies Forum. Probably that is the right place for it along fictionalizing facts lines. However would love to hear people who are interested in politics' comments on the blog and movies. Looks as though the blog is quite recent, and wonder how long it will be running on the Web? Smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
liljp617
Quote:
It connects Kennedy, Iran Contra, Watergate, Drug Running, 9/11 and even the current economic crisis we’re in today with all the same figures and a central theme of how they did it will also be shown.


Stopped wasting my time there.
lagoon
They somehow compile (and connect) the major U.S conspiracy theories into one easy to read blog? If anything, it sounds a little suspicious. Rolling Eyes
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
They somehow compile (and connect) the major U.S conspiracy theories into one easy to read blog? If anything, it sounds a little suspicious. Rolling Eyes


Like your description Lagoon. My thoughts too. Almost like a religion of a kind with the same story woven in all of the chapters and also with the same characters. Not sure whether it was easy reading though, I could only take a couple of paragraphs and scan most of it. Smile
officernarc
oh jesus. do people still eat up this loose change bullshit? i was under the impression that all of this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense was debunked a long time ago.

to the OP, loose change and its creators are nothing short of absolute frauds. at best, they are charlatans and opportunists, and profiteering from the deaths of people at worst.

probably the most insulting thing is that people actually believe this as irrefutable truth to the point of ignoring the facts about the september 11th attacks. i think noam chomsky said it best when he called the conspiracies nothing more than a distraction from the real problems going on in america.
liljp617
officernarc wrote:
oh jesus. do people still eat up this loose change bullshit? i was under the impression that all of this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense was debunked a long time ago.


They were.
Blaster
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-33279.html#389172
handfleisch
Without delving into any particular so-called conspiracy theory mentioned, the point must be made that the term is wrongly used to dismiss anything out of hand. (I admit to using the term against right wingers when they are claiming something as politically ridiculous as The Moon Landing Was Fake.) But keep in mind that many things we know to be true now were once (or could have been) labeled conspiracy theories. A few from recent history off the top of my head:

-There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda or 9/11, and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US could go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Iraq invasion now.

-The rolling blackouts in California in in 2000-2001 are intentionally created by an strange corporation so they can trade energy on the market like stocks and get rich. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Enron scandal now.

-President Reagan is secretly sending serious weapons to the mullahs in Iran, who are supposed to be one of his biggest enemies. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Iran-Contra scandal now.

-The Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the large-scale involvement of the US in the Vietnam War pretty much didn't really happen at all and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US can go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Vietnam war now.

-Candidate Reagan is doing well in the debates against President Carter because Reagan has an informer in the Carter White House smuggling debate notes to the Reagan team. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Reagan campaign now.

-The president has a list of political enemies and with the aid of secret bank accounts is paying ex-spies and thugs to do burglaries and other illegal activities to destroy them politically. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Watergate Scandal now.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Without delving into any particular so-called conspiracy theory mentioned, the point must be made that the term is wrongly used to dismiss anything out of hand. (I admit to using the term against right wingers when they are claiming something as politically ridiculous as The Moon Landing Was Fake.) But keep in mind that many things we know to be true now were once (or could have been) labeled conspiracy theories. A few from recent history off the top of my head:

-There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda or 9/11, and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US could go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Iraq invasion now.

-The rolling blackouts in California in in 2000-2001 are intentionally created by an strange corporation so they can trade energy on the market like stocks and get rich. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Enron scandal now.

-President Reagan is secretly sending serious weapons to the mullahs in Iran, who are supposed to be one of his biggest enemies. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Iran-Contra scandal now.

-The Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the large-scale involvement of the US in the Vietnam War pretty much didn't really happen at all and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US can go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Vietnam war now.

-Candidate Reagan is doing well in the debates against President Carter because Reagan has an informer in the Carter White House smuggling debate notes to the Reagan team. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Reagan campaign now.

-The president has a list of political enemies and with the aid of secret bank accounts is paying ex-spies and thugs to do burglaries and other illegal activities to destroy them politically. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Watergate Scandal now.
I was surprised to see my thread again after such a great lapse of time. I had to read your comments a few times however, as was not completely sure what you meant with them viz a viz the original one that was made. Are you saying that originally you thought it was bogus, but in time it could be possible?
liljp617
handfleisch wrote:
Without delving into any particular so-called conspiracy theory mentioned, the point must be made that the term is wrongly used to dismiss anything out of hand. (I admit to using the term against right wingers when they are claiming something as politically ridiculous as The Moon Landing Was Fake.) But keep in mind that many things we know to be true now were once (or could have been) labeled conspiracy theories. A few from recent history off the top of my head:

-There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda or 9/11, and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US could go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Iraq invasion now.

-The rolling blackouts in California in in 2000-2001 are intentionally created by an strange corporation so they can trade energy on the market like stocks and get rich. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Enron scandal now.

-President Reagan is secretly sending serious weapons to the mullahs in Iran, who are supposed to be one of his biggest enemies. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Iran-Contra scandal now.

-The Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the large-scale involvement of the US in the Vietnam War pretty much didn't really happen at all and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US can go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Vietnam war now.

-Candidate Reagan is doing well in the debates against President Carter because Reagan has an informer in the Carter White House smuggling debate notes to the Reagan team. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Reagan campaign now.

-The president has a list of political enemies and with the aid of secret bank accounts is paying ex-spies and thugs to do burglaries and other illegal activities to destroy them politically. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Watergate Scandal now.


All of these were treated how they should have been treated when the accusations arose. If someone makes an extraordinary claim and fails to provide extraordinary evidence, they're rightfully called conspiracies.

Given that not a shred of legitimate evidence has been placed behind the "9/11 Truth" movement, it's quite fair to label it conspiracy.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Without delving into any particular so-called conspiracy theory mentioned, the point must be made that the term is wrongly used to dismiss anything out of hand. (I admit to using the term against right wingers when they are claiming something as politically ridiculous as The Moon Landing Was Fake.) But keep in mind that many things we know to be true now were once (or could have been) labeled conspiracy theories. A few from recent history off the top of my head:

-There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda or 9/11, and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US could go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Iraq invasion now.

-The rolling blackouts in California in in 2000-2001 are intentionally created by an strange corporation so they can trade energy on the market like stocks and get rich. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Enron scandal now.

-President Reagan is secretly sending serious weapons to the mullahs in Iran, who are supposed to be one of his biggest enemies. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Iran-Contra scandal now.

-The Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the large-scale involvement of the US in the Vietnam War pretty much didn't really happen at all and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US can go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Vietnam war now.

-Candidate Reagan is doing well in the debates against President Carter because Reagan has an informer in the Carter White House smuggling debate notes to the Reagan team. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Reagan campaign now.

-The president has a list of political enemies and with the aid of secret bank accounts is paying ex-spies and thugs to do burglaries and other illegal activities to destroy them politically. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Watergate Scandal now.


All of these were treated how they should have been treated when the accusations arose. If someone makes an extraordinary claim and fails to provide extraordinary evidence, they're rightfully called conspiracies.


By what evidence do you claim that all of these "were treated as they should have treated when accusations arose" ? I do not think that's true, and my point was they were treated as conspiracy theories until the evidence came in, which sometimes was slowly, and much later. That's why "conspiracy theory" is such a problematic term.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Without delving into any particular so-called conspiracy theory mentioned, the point must be made that the term is wrongly used to dismiss anything out of hand.

^.^
You make me laugh sometimes!

You certainly seem to dismiss any 'conspiracy theory' about Obama fast enough!
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
By what evidence do you claim that all of these "were treated as they should have treated when accusations arose" ? I do not think that's true, and my point was they were treated as conspiracy theories until the evidence came in, which sometimes was slowly, and much later. That's why "conspiracy theory" is such a problematic term.
For once, I agree with you. Quite a lot of the evidence was lacking and slow in coming as quite a lot of the investigations were done behind closed doors. So not only was there lack of evidence to prove the "conspiracy" theories, but also lack of evidence to prove that there was no conspiracy.

For example, there is no evidence offered why there was hardly a dent made into the Pentagon, people have to make their own conclusions. Also the hijackers were a muddle as some of those identified had not even been in the country at the time of the terrorist acts. I still don't believe Bin Laden was capable of coordinating something like that from as far away as Afghanistan, everything was just too much synchronized. He also denied that El Qaeda was responsible, and why would he have denied something like that if he had been responsible? There are just so many questions that have not been satisfactorily answered.
liljp617
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Without delving into any particular so-called conspiracy theory mentioned, the point must be made that the term is wrongly used to dismiss anything out of hand. (I admit to using the term against right wingers when they are claiming something as politically ridiculous as The Moon Landing Was Fake.) But keep in mind that many things we know to be true now were once (or could have been) labeled conspiracy theories. A few from recent history off the top of my head:

-There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda or 9/11, and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US could go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Iraq invasion now.

-The rolling blackouts in California in in 2000-2001 are intentionally created by an strange corporation so they can trade energy on the market like stocks and get rich. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Enron scandal now.

-President Reagan is secretly sending serious weapons to the mullahs in Iran, who are supposed to be one of his biggest enemies. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Iran-Contra scandal now.

-The Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the large-scale involvement of the US in the Vietnam War pretty much didn't really happen at all and this fraudulent claim is being pushed so that the US can go to war. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Vietnam war now.

-Candidate Reagan is doing well in the debates against President Carter because Reagan has an informer in the Carter White House smuggling debate notes to the Reagan team. Conspiracy theory then, fact of the Reagan campaign now.

-The president has a list of political enemies and with the aid of secret bank accounts is paying ex-spies and thugs to do burglaries and other illegal activities to destroy them politically. Conspiracy theory then, fact of Watergate Scandal now.


All of these were treated how they should have been treated when the accusations arose. If someone makes an extraordinary claim and fails to provide extraordinary evidence, they're rightfully called conspiracies.


By what evidence do you claim that all of these "were treated as they should have treated when accusations arose" ? I do not think that's true, and my point was they were treated as conspiracy theories until the evidence came in, which sometimes was slowly, and much later. That's why "conspiracy theory" is such a problematic term.


They should be treated as conspiracy theories until the evidence comes forth proving otherwise.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
They should be treated as conspiracy theories until the evidence comes forth proving otherwise.


The term might be appropriate for the wackos who say the moon landings were faked and Obama wants to kill old people. But it doesn't bother you that you would be dismissing and insulting all these truths listed previously (like the Gulf of Tonkin incident) with the de facto epithet, "conspiracy theory", when they turned out to be a reality? Don't you see something wrong with this approach?

I can give you an example from my own experience. Because of research I followed, I already knew most of the basic aspects of the Contragate scandal about a year before it hit the headlines. I knew about Oliver North running illegal businesses in his White House office, the arms trafficking to the Contras, the drug trafficking by the Contras, the terrorism that Oliver North was engaging in, the names of most of the major players like Manucher Ghorbanifar, Michael Ladeen, etc etc. (The revelation that came from Reagan that the profits from the illegal selling of arms to the mullahs in Iran were being tunneled to the Contras was a surprise, though.)

Anyway, if I had told somebody these things in mid 1985, they probably would have called it kooky conspiracy theory. They would have been able to cite experts and authorities who said no such thing was happening, nor could it happen. But of course, it turned out to be all too real -- the Reagan White House really was running private terrorist groups in Central America and funding the endeavor by selling weapons to their supposed nemesis, Iran. And that's the problem with overusing the term "conspiracy theory".
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
They should be treated as conspiracy theories until the evidence comes forth proving otherwise.
Unless the objective of treating these theories as conspiracy theories is to bury the truth? For example, if all the information about the terrorist acts was transparent and open, and everyone had equal access to all the evidence, then yes, it would be a clearcut case of a conspiracy theory, but if some of the information and plenty of the evidence are unavailable for scrutiny by the public, or no longer available at all, then there is lack of evidence both in proving that it was not a conspiracy, as well as proving it was a conspiracy.
Ophois
The thing about conspiracy theories involving governments is that nobody wants to believe that their own government is willing to screw them that hard. People always say "that happens over there, not over here". Nobody wants to feel that vulnerable to their own government. But it happens. Over and over again. Over here as well as over there.

The term "conspiracy theory" has been stigmatized to the point that once a theory, even a potentially valid one, is labeled as a "conspiracy theory", it is immediately shelved away from any real investigation. Even those who try to investigate the claims of said theory after the label is attached, are no longer taken seriously. In fact, those people are almost always viewed as foil hat wearing lunatics.

We can use the term derogatorily for obviously silly theories, such as BBC contributor David Icke's theory that most world leaders are actually 7 foot tall, blood drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the star system Alpha Draconis, masquerading as humans in order to control us. Ok. That can be ridiculed with the "conspiracy theory" label. But what of other theories?

"9/11 was an inside job". If you have been to NYC in the past few years, you may have seen people carrying these sandwich-board signs and shouting that tag line. They are almost like "the end is nigh" zealots, screaming it in your ear. So it's easy to scoff at them and brush it aside as yet another fringe lunacy cooked up by Bush bashers. But how impossible is a theory like that? Is it really so unbelievable that a government, our own government, could wholesale murder thousands of it's own citizens in order to justify the military invasion of a sovereign nation who had not attacked us?

It sounds crazy and absurd at first glance, but it's not entirely impossible. Do I think it happened that way? I have no idea. Our government lies about so much, keeps so much "evidence" secret, that it wouldn't surprise me. But I will not go so far as to say I buy it, and I will not accuse people of being whacko just for believing that theory. When we slap the "conspiracy theory" label on it, that's what we do.

A better solution, to me, would be to simply ask for more evidence. Yes, technically, it is a theory which depends on government conspiracies to sustain itself. But that term is interchangeable with "crazy" and "paranoid", the way people just throw it around on anything they don't happen to agree with. So, for those who make the claim that Bush and Cheney blew up the WTC, I ask for more evidence.

I also ask for more evidence that Usama bin Laden did it. Which, apparently, nobody can produce. If they could, then that's one of the crimes he would be wanted for on the FBI web site.

The point here is that when someone puts forth a theory, no matter how absurd it might seem to you, if it is in the realm of believability, then wouldn't it be a much more intelligent move to ask for more evidence, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand?

In lighter news, and pertaining to the whole "9/11" thing. Here is something funny that I thought I would share.
Emperor Palpatine engineered the attacks!
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
I also ask for more evidence that Usama bin Laden did it. Which, apparently, nobody can produce. If they could, then that's one of the crimes he would be wanted for on the FBI web site.
I've been asking for this right from the beginning of time. There has never been an admission of guilt from Usama Bin Laden, when obviously there are a large number of brownie points for him to have had for taking credit for the attacks. So what difference is there with making Usama bin Laden responsible for the attacks in a massive anti-Bin Laden campaign, and the campaign about "weapons of mass-destruction" in Iraq and an enormous anti-Sadam Hussein campaign. Looks almost like a pattern here.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
I've been asking for this right from the beginning of time. There has never been an admission of guilt from Usama Bin Laden, when obviously there are a large number of brownie points for him to have had for taking credit for the attacks. So what difference is there with making Usama bin Laden responsible for the attacks in a massive anti-Bin Laden campaign, and the campaign about "weapons of mass-destruction" in Iraq and an enormous anti-Sadam Hussein campaign. Looks almost like a pattern here.
Well, they either think bin Laden did it, and can't/won't provide evidence, or someone else did it and the blame is being put on bin Laden for other reasons.

The latter theory goes something like this:

bin Laden is an Arab who is already wanted by the FBI. Blame 4,000 innocent American deaths on bin Laden and ignite anti-Arab sentiment throughout the USA(which happened). Then use ant-Arab sentiments to point weapons in Saddam's direction, who is also Arab. Anti-Arab sentiment allows for national support of attacking an Arab country, even though that country never posed a threat to us.

Now, it's a semi-reasonable theory. It has no evidence, but that doesn't make it any more or less crazy than the one which is accepted as fact.

Mind you, I am not saying I believe it. But the whole bin Laden thing? I don't buy that load of crap either. It seems to me that we have been beating the drum for the better part of a decade about bin Laden being absolutely "guilty" of the WTC attacks, and yet, he is not on the FBI most wanted list for, or in connection with, that particular crime. That's no accident, either. According to Rex Tomb, FBI Director of Investigative Publicity:

“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

So I'm gonna go ahead and call "conspiracy theory" on the whole "bin Laden planned and executed it from a cave in Afghanistan" shtick.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
But the whole bin Laden thing? I don't buy that load of crap either. It seems to me that we have been beating the drum for the better part of a decade about bin Laden being absolutely "guilty" of the WTC attacks, and yet, he is not on the FBI most wanted list for, or in connection with, that particular crime.
Agreed. Sort of an insult to the intelligence of most people. Must say Osama could not have had a better PR than it received from the US Government and Media.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.