What word other than "ghastly" suffices to describe the performances of Loose Change mavens Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas on Democracy Now? Their own words and reprehensible behavior speak for themselves. I urge you to download the show and listen to these two expose themselves as classic examples of conspiracy buffery gone wrong.You'll hear it all: Constant interruption, agent-baiting, surmise presented as fact, lingering mysteries trumpeted as "proof" of wild theories, an unwillingness to consider more than one explanation, and the paranoid presumption of bad faith on the part of any who dare to disagree. Here's a taste:
JASON BERMAS: I'd just like to thank you for the opportunity to take on the government's lies and Popular Mechanics, which is a Hearst yellow journalism publication’s lies, as well.Even the goofiest of the yoo-foe buffs never sunk that low. Except for one guy...
That's when it hit me: This performance inescapably reminds one of Milton "Bill" Cooper -- notorious demagogue, militia maniac, and clown prince of '90s-era conspiratopia. Some of you may be too young to remember Coop. He was noted for his ultra-wild claims, his psychological inability to admit that he could ever be wrong about anything, and his tendency to see malign forces behind anyone who dared to criticize him. He combined high paranoia with a bad case of "testosterone poisoning,"
Avery and Bermas have youth as an excuse, which Coop did not. And I don't think they'll turn into violent creepazoids, which is how Unlce Miltie ended up. (Cooper shot a cop in the head and died in a round of richly-deserved return fire.) Despite their poor manners and uncertain attitude toward the truth, the Loose Changers probably mean well -- unlike Coop, who was, well, mean.
Still, I think it is fair to wonder if subcultural history is repeating itself.
By all means, download and watch Loose Change. I also urge you to watch the counter-video, the cleverly-titled Screw Loose Change. (Click the ad at the top of the right column of this page.) Unlike Avery and Bermas, I urge you to familiarize yourself with more than one side of the argument. Facts speak for themselves, and reasonable people understand that arguments should not be "won" through constant interruptions and unfounded accusations.
16 comments:
This may be off-topic, but this guy rants to those responsible.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
Frankly, I have to disagree with you about Avery and Bermis on Democracy Now. Although I don't buy into many of their claims, especially about the WTC, I thought they presented a more cogent argument and stayed on topic far more than their opponents from Popular Mechanics. For being older and supposedly more "mature" men about my own age, I thought they behaved more reprehensibly. The PM guys did not seem to me to represent the "official" explanation for events very well. It was the PM guys who seemed to dwell on name-calling more and reverting to ridiculing their debate opponents as "conspiracy nuts" and likening them to Creationists.
Both sides needed to calm down and analyze their opposing side's evidence more objectively and impartially, IMHO. I think if that happpened we could all more easily arrive at the truth. However, as I said on the BradBlog post, this whole issue of WTC and the Pentagon is less important as evidence of possible government complicity, or worse, than that surrounding the background of the alleged hijackers, OBL, and "al Qaeda" leaders and their long associations with our own government.
I really don't see how the way the theorists or scientists alters the underlying scientific facts. If science was a popularity contest, we would still be in the dark ages.
Can we just let the theories stand on their own merit? I have already highlighted in previous comments the gross erros in kinetic energy calculations presented on the debunking911 page. Until this is corrected, I suggest that the "science vs. bull" be changed to "bull vs. bull", or maybe the "road to Pamplona"
they are kids who believe what they are saying, they don't have to be polite and they will be judged accordingly. i don't think they care and i don't blame them.
saying we talked to the experts without backing it up is not a proper rebuttal to thier questions.
on another note why did you censor/delete the comment on the post below@2.56? there was nothing profane in it and as far as being off topic it was no more so than many other comments in this thread
ewastud, your experience of the show is fascinating. fascinating because you seem to have suspended reality during your experience of it.
you are not alone. an anon yesterday posted a similar response, accusing the editors of resorting to name-calling, and claiming that the filmmakers only called the editors liars once.
well, i searched the transcript, and the filmmakers called the editors to their faces three times, and one of those times was very aggressive. and i don't think that number even counts the quote joe posted.
the editors at no point called the filmmakers conspiracy nuts, but did caution against the danger of failing to apply reason and good research principles to any investigation, otherwise you become no better a thinker than the creationists or holocaust deniers.
this is a very valid warning, one that joe and i have both attempted to emphasize here. i suggest strongly and respectfully that you examince what your biases might be that so twisted your experience of the DN! debate. or perhaps read the transcript.
i can only hope you don't have the same response to that suggestion that anon did; he linked to a report on how the WH press conference transcripts have been altered. and then either he or another anon referred to amy goodman's work as 'hypocrisy now.'
this whole debate has been very interesting for me, but also very frustrating. having been trained as a scientist to do research and to apply strict standards to what counts as logic and reasonable evidence, i am frankly appalled at the pervasive lack of logic and reason. moreover, i'm almost frightened by the insistence on blind emotional bias.
such sad failures of common sense. it is always our biases that destroy us, folks.
ewastud, your experience of the show is fascinating. fascinating because you seem to have suspended reality during your experience of it.
you are not alone. an anon yesterday posted a similar response, accusing the editors of resorting to name-calling, and claiming that the filmmakers only called the editors liars once.
well, i searched the transcript, and the filmmakers called the editors to their faces three times, and one of those times was very aggressive. and i don't think that number even counts the quote joe posted.
the editors at no point called the filmmakers conspiracy nuts, but did caution against the danger of failing to apply reason and good research principles to any investigation, otherwise you become no better a thinker than the creationists or holocaust deniers.
this is a very valid warning, one that joe and i have both attempted to emphasize here. i suggest strongly and respectfully that you examince what your biases might be that so twisted your experience of the DN! debate. or perhaps read the transcript.
i can only hope you don't have the same response to that suggestion that anon did; he linked to a report on how the WH press conference transcripts have been altered. and then either he or another anon referred to amy goodman's work as 'hypocrisy now.'
this whole debate has been very interesting for me, but also very frustrating. having been trained as a scientist to do research and to apply strict standards to what counts as logic and reasonable evidence, i am frankly appalled at the pervasive lack of logic and reason. moreover, i'm almost frightened by the insistence on blind emotional bias.
such sad failures of common sense. it is always our biases that destroy us, folks.
anon 426, science is not a popularity contest per se (though it is a human enterprise, so it is subject to such frivolities; stephen hawking a great case in point). but the source of information is always considered; it's an important consideration for credibility. for example, in research on the effects of tobacco smoke on lung cancer, would you believe the opinions of a medical researcher of the opinions of a tobacco ceo?
your desire to let the facts stand on their own merits would be great if we all understood the finer points of mechanical engineering and newtonian physics. it is for this reason that we must consider the credibility of experts.
the editors in the DN! debate consulted experts for their research, and gave them credibility over non-experts. this is something the filmmakers did not do. they talked only to people who were asking the same questions they were, which is not scientific or even reasonable, but instead is self-serving.
i encourage you to read my rant on what counts for logic and reasonable evidence. it might be a bit easier to get your head around the criteria if you consider the standards used in our judicial system. you simply cannot make a case against someone because you have a lot of coincidental questions. moreover, you cannot make a case when there is compelling counter-evidence, which is where the filmmakers fail. they ignore the counter-evidence, which is worse than convicting someone on circumstantial evidence.
and anon 743, what in the world are you thinking? 'kids' are allowed to be polite?? since when is this an accepted rule?? or lack thereof? besides the fact that these 'kids' are actually grown men. young men, but grown men, nonetheless. that attitude that anyone, whatever the age, should be allowed to be impolite is just insane. you don't blame them for not caring? then what do you care? what are you doing here?
and the editors DID back up their evidence as presented by experts. did you not listen to the show? remember; they did not do a film, merely a book. which would require you to actually read it.
DR Elsewhere,
i didn't state kids are allowed to polite, quite the opposite. and i also stated that anybody who acted they way they did suffers the consequences.
as well the guys from pop mech did not offer any proof on the show they just kept reiterating that they talked to experts or we viewed the photos, also they constantly stated that "this is a common fallacy with conspiracy theorists" or "like holocaust deniers" labeling them with inference (i guess that is how polite company does it).
BTW check out the link provided below and you might find some info previously unknow3n to yourself
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm
First, I happen to think that the comparison of CD believers to creationsists and Holocaust deniers is valid. Not only that: It is necessary.
Alex Jones is a crackpot. Jeez, you should see him at the end of "Screw Loose Change," hogging the camera to blather about Skull and Bones and how Bush and Kerry are in it together. I've been conversant with the political firnge for nearly twenty years now, and lemme tell ya -- the (and I mean THE) lowest, most vile, most infuriating, most impervious-to-reason conspiracy cranks are the ones who blather on about "Satanic elites" and evil rites at the Bohemian Grove and all that crap.
Alex Jones? You're going to have to cite a better source than THAT, bub.
His attack on the Popular Mechanics piece was itself a welter of lies and half-lies. Alex Jones says that Dr. Steven Jones absolutely, positively identified thermate in the WTC debris, when he did no such thing. All he found was suplhur and other materials which could have other origins. (Sulphur is found in gypsum board.)
Facts are facts, and here they are: THE only physicist who has accepted the controlled demolition hypothesis is also a guy who believes that magic stones can be used to translate books. NO OTHER PHYSICIST in the world believes this. Nobody in the engineering department at BYU agrees with him. No engineer in the world (that I know of) believes him.
I have proven in a previous post that Dr. Steven Jones DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED a key source through gerrymandered quotation. No one has offered a counter-argument.
He has claimed that he submitted his findings to a peer-reviewed journal, when he has done no such thing. (His findings were published in something called, if memory serves, The Journal of 911 Studies, which is "reivewed" by non-physicists already committed to the conspiracy position.)
No expert in controlled demolition supports the CD theory. NOT ONE. Anywhere in the world. Compare video of an actual controlled demolition with what happened on September 11, 2001. The two things look uterly different.
Not a single scientific paper espousing this theory has appeared in any peer-reviewed journal -- anywhere in the world.
Good freaking Christ, how can you people possibly feel comfortable with these facts? Yes, yes, I know the rationalization: "If every controlled demoliton expert int he world feels afraid to speak up, that just shows how big this conspiracy really is...!"
God, there are times when I wish every conspiracy crank in the world had but one neck so I could wrap my fingers around it.
(As for the math: As I said, I'll try to have it double-checked. Right now, I'm not taking your word for it. The pro-CDers have told so many damned lies -- just plain, in-your-face fucking evil LIES -- that I've reached the position where I won't take their word for anything.)
I listened to the DN episode, and I agree that the substance of the Loose Change theories was compromised by its presentation. The Loose Change guys came across as angry and paranoid, while the PM guys sounded reasonable and balanced.
I don't know what to think of 9/11 theories - all based on scientific "evidence", none of which I am qualified to judge. However, the most incredulous notion is that the Bush administration managed the entire event - for God's sake, they cannot even pull-off a fake tele-conversation with the troops (remember that comedy?). Bush is a liar, but he is not a good one - I cannot believe that the MSM actually was reporting that Bush was winning a book-reading contest against Rove 60-55, or that Bush recently read "3 Shakespeares". I think that the adminstration has enough grandeur and self-delusion to justify staging 9/11, but I doubt that they have the competence.
Well hell, I don't buy Loose Change wholesale but I think the kids came off rather well.
"...the editors at no point called the filmmakers conspiracy nuts,"
No, just "...in the world of paranoid" conspiracy theory".
Nice dodge from the PM folks on Mineta statement:
"... we're not going back to conspiracies that might have been hatched from the Kennedy era" LOL Good gawd.
Megis says the WTC collapse was the most intensely studied collapse in world history... oh, but what is omitted?
NY TIMES
December 25, 2001 THE TOWERS
Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall "In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation...Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said...Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling", Dr. Mowrer said."
Gee, I might call Meigs a liar too!
And I really liked this quote too:
"... my friend David Corn"
-- David Meigs, Popular Mechanics.
Interesting.
Oh, and Alex Jones? He thinks the Pentagon thing is a poison pill. And didn't he predict 9-11? Yes, in fact he did.
You know a measure of humility in these 9-11 conspitard posts would be nice because you don't know exactly what happened either. Do you?
Great comment, Anon 7:37 pm. I agree completely. More humility is needed on all sides. So many people heatedly engaged in this debate seem to have adopted the very attitude of their mutual nemesis: "If you are not with me, you're agin' me!" Simply ridiculous!
If the PM guys were supposed to be educated professionals with a better grasp of the science and technicalities, they should never have uttered a word about "conspiracy" or "creationism" or "holocaust denial." That was unnecessarily inflammatory and not helpful in the slightest for a civilized discussion. The PM guys should have referenced the principle of Occam's Razor, IMHO. Why resort to a more complex explanation for what is observed when a simpler explanation suffices? I have not followed the controversy too closely because I frankly don't think it worth so much expenditure of energy or thought. However, I don't think there has been any direct evidence of CD found yet, but maybe because it has been covered up, as the NYT article implies it might have been.
As a person trained in architecture and urban planning, I don't find it implausible at all that the planes crashing into WTC can fully explain what happened that day. However, that is not to say some explosives were planted to make sure there was spectacular fall. However, such an explanation requires a lot of direct physical evidence to support it, IMHO.
One of the main problems here is that a scientific debate of the facts is not possible, as not all of us have equal levels of knowledge in physics and math.
Speaking of credibility, I noticed on the Screw Loose Change document criticizing Steven Jones for not being a structural or materials engineer. I have looked at Steven Jones webpage, and with his political and other wacky leanings aside... there is probably not a more qualified person in the country on atomic structure and energy transfer in metals.
And unfortunately, for those of us who live the scientific life, there has yet to be a mathematical model that can account for the collapse. A project this size requires a team of scientists that can correlate the seismic activity with the natural oscillations of the building. An always present possibility is the Tesla resonance effect (interested folk should watch a recent Mythbusters episode), a 6lb oscillating force is able to transmit oscillations throughout an entire bridge.
Believe me, ANYONE who tries to account for the collapse with a set of 1 or 2 linear equations is a hoax. Steven Jones can only speculate as to the CD. All he has achieved really is to demonstrate that in the most generous conditions, the official story of the pancake collapse is a fairytale at best.
the editors at no point called the filmmakers conspiracy nuts
No, they just called them Holocaust deniers.
has anyone here watched the mpovie at www.wkjo.com? I believe it will answer many of the questions we have about who engineered this debacle..and it is a terrific movie..not a documentary about 911 but a real story about a guy that wants to know what happened that day just like the rest of us. One actor plays seven different roles as if they are all parts of his personality..the researcher..the skeptic..the paranoid voice..the objective realist that says leave it alon it will make you coo coo..and so on. The conclusion is powerful!
Watch Who Killed John O'Neal at wkjo.com and see the connections of AIG and 911 and Dddddrugs.
Cannonfire asks..or says..
Kozeny's partners in the Azeri scheme included a managing director of Hank Greenburg's American Insurance Group (AIG). Greenberg was forced to step down amid the Eliot Spitzer probe, a scandal, it is rumored, which involved a major Bush family and associates' international money-laundering operation that has spanned more than a generation and has been used to illegally fund US elections since the Nixon era.
Post a Comment