But -- what the hell. I just don't care. I'm in my cups this morning, so damn the consequences.
The film fascinates me precisely because it offers the worst conspiracy theorizing to be found outside the flying saucer subculture. And also because of the title.
What the hell does Loose Change mean in this context? The title appears to be a non-sequitor. This conundrum may seem silly to you, but it has been bugging me for months. Today being Sunday -- the one day when this blog goes off on tangents -- I shall explore this mystery.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
One possible explanation for the name occurred to me while listening to the finest opera ever produced by an American. No, I'm not talking about Porgy and Bess, although that is a remarkable work indeed. I'm talking about John Adams' Nixon in China.
Richard Nixon is the one role I wish I had sung, back when I had a voice -- the best role ever written for a baritone. Stand outside my shower and you might yet hear me belt out his opening number: "News! News news news news news has a has a has a has a kind of mystery!"
If you don't know the work, I should mention that it boasts a remarkable libretto by Alice Goodman -- perhaps the finest libretto ever written for an opera. At this point, I cannot disentangle the things actually said during those days and the words invented by Goodman.
Mao, on changing the world: "I could not change it. I'd be gratified to think that in the neighborhood of Peking, some things will remain." Okay, I'm pretty sure he actually said that. But then we come to his parting shot to Nixon: "I'm growing old and soft. I won't demand your overthrow." And Nixon's comeback: "It's a relief to think I may be spared." Goodman or reality? At this point, I can't be sure!
Those of you old enough to recall those events may be stunned or disheartened to think that one day people will seek out this history only to understand this opera better, just as we learn Florentine politics only to learn why Dante wrote certain passages of the Divine Comedy.
Where was I? Oh yes. Loose Change.
In Act II, the Nixons attend a revolutionary Chinese opera conceived by the fanatical Madame Mao. Through some magical process, Pat and Dick leave the audience and enter into the action of the play.
The plot of the play-within-a-play involves a young working-class woman who gains revolutionary consciousness after an evil warlord whips her nearly to death. The warlord is inhabited by the soul of Henry Kissinger -- who, unlike Dick and Pat, is given a thoroughly unsympathetic treatment.
This opera is how H the K will be known to future generations. The artists always get the last word, and only liberals make art. Revenge is sweet indeed.
After surviving her ordeal, our heroine (that is, Madame Mao's heroine) learns the Maoist spirit and joins the Red Army. She is sent on a secret mission into the city, where she is supposed to seduce and kill the Overseer (a.k.a. Kissinger).
In a sleazy bar, Nixon runs into the Overseer/Kissinger. A drunken Henry K blurts out the following lines:
I'm here to liaise with the backroom boys who know how to liveNixon responds by slipping some folding money into Henry's pocket. "Here, friend. Something for you. You're talking like a real pro." In real life, I wonder who was the mentor and who was the hanger-on?
And me, I contrive to catch a few crumbs
the ringleader's names, the gist of their schemes.
Loose change.
That's when Our Heroine shows up and fails to assassinate Kissinger. Madam Mao gets so pissed off by her inaction that she begins the Glorious Cultural Revolution. What follows is mindless shooting, mass death, chaos, brainwashed hordes chanting "Joy! Joy! Joy!", and then The End of Act II.
Do you think that a clown like Dylan Avery could possibly be hip enough to draw the name of his documentary from a source like this?
Personally, I think this theory gives that turkey way too much credit. But I can't think of any other reason why he would give his lousy film that bizarre title.
49 comments:
It never stops. It never stops. You show the CD freaks even the slightest crack in the door and they will stick their foot into it, burst into your living room, and start selling you snake oil.
Loose Change = Loose Screws
To me, all the video studies, arm-chair physics speculations, vast conspiracy theories miss the main failing: IF the Bushies had planned such a diabolical scheme, why would they have left themselves looking like such idiots when 9/11 happened?
Instead of presenting themselves as pursuing Star Wars defense systems, spending months on vacation, and reading My Pet Goat while the towers burned, they would have spent the previous months posturing themselves as having to revamp our anti-terrorism structure after being "decimated" by the Clinton admin. They would have made sure the previous months of news reels showed Bush consulting with his military leaders, instead of consulting with his caddy. And when 9/11 occurred, Bush would have stood up in that class, politely excused himself, and presented himself as being in command, instead of sitting there with that duuuuuuuh deer-in-the-headlights look for so long.
No. These conspiracy theories are using what I call Occam's Chainsaw: Getting from Point A to Point B by going through the entire rest of the alphabet first - concocting the most complex approach possible to explain the situation.
Had this really been a BushCo master plan, they wouldn't have put fighting terrorism at the bottom of their priority list in 2001, they would have put it on the top and been in front of all the cameras when doing so. In fact, they would have proposed legislation for massively expanding our anti-terror capabilities so expensive that it would guarantee the Democrats would reject it. Then, when 9/11 occurred, Bush could present the event as the Democrats' fault (and himself as a prophet). They would then guarantee Republican majorities in Congress and a Republican White House for the next decade, or two. Such a scenario might have even destroyed the Democratic Party altogether.
Quite simply, if you suffer from Munchausen’s syndrome and set up a catastrophe so you can rush to the rescue, you don't show up with your pants down.
iLarynx (Doc's bro)
sofla said...
ANY patsie set up, frame job, false flag covert op, and the like, makes Occam's Razor not only inoperative, but about 180 degrees off mark. It is well known in spycraft and forensic crime scene investigations that false trails and clues can easily be laid down, in order to throw the investigator off the truth of the circumstances. Murders can be covered up as suicides (forge a note!), arsons as innocent accidental fires, murders covered by arson as allegedly accidental fire deaths, and etc.
That is, in those kinds of scenarios, about which no one should be so naive as to think they do not exist, the simplest explanation is the worst, because that is the perspective that has been planned to be taken to be the truth (when it is not).
That aside, the fairly obvious (to me, at least) meaning of the title of this hated (in JC's world) CT/CD film is exactly the same as the antecedent meaning in which the auteur of Nixon in China meant HIS (/her?) reference.
"Loose change" is sorta odds and ends, miscellanea, or as the Jeopardy category would have it, 'Pot-pouri.'
Yeah, I know: I'm inviting (because you need more visitors) trouble whenever I mention Dylan Avery's execrable Loose Change, the frequently-debunked (by you and a few other closed minded, investigation weary, used to be's, middle of the roaders and mid life crisescoholics) yet seemingly inevitable pseudo-documentary (where's yerz?) devoted to the gospel of the controlled demolition (by Marvin Bush and Co.)
Loose Change doesn't add up to much.
I CANNOT FUCKING STAND IT!
"because you need more visitors"?
Look, do you have any idea how many visitors you CDers have COST me? The results are up there on Alexa for all to see.
Do you know that I turn down all requests to appear on the radio or to speak in public -- and I've been asked to do both? Do you know that I have politely turned down feelers to write for larger blogs and actual ink-on-paper publications?
If I were desperate for attention I would do the sorts of things other bloggers do to get attention, now, wouldn't I?
And for what purpose would I be shilling for more visitors? The Google adsense amounts to very very little. Barely enough to grab dinner out once a month. In all this time, I've not carried any ads fro BlogAds, which is more lucrative.
But facts do not matter to the motherfucking CDers. They accuse me of being a sellout. That is their script and they will stick to it.
You shitheads are as reality impaired as the Jesusmaniacs.
Jeez, I've literally offered to give this blog to someone else. I am leaving in a week or two. And STILL you fuckers spook-bait me and accuse me of being out to build up attention!
Yeah, I'm pissed. Seems nobody even read the story past the jump.
Why is it such a problem?
If you think the, what’s the name for this group?, the group of people that think some sort of pre-planning and possibly pre-planted devices played a part in 9/11… you know, that group. Not just those that think it might have played a part but perhaps even those who haven’t totally dismissed the notion. You know, that group.
Well, if you think that group is bonkers, then I assume the depth and quality of the investigation suits you just fine. Is that what I am to assume? (I’m referring to the official one, of course)
Thanks for your feedback.
No, I didn’t read past the jump. We don’t always read past the jump. We’re here, though.
"We're here"? Well, why not just go away?
I will. This whole enterprise has become a toxin.
Back in '04, I promised my ladyfriend that I would give up the blog the moment the spook-baiting started, and it has indeed begun. The only reason I'm still here is because dr. elsewhere asked me to hang on until the latter part of February. My heart's not really in it.
I bet the fucking CDers will STILL accuse me of being out to drum up readers -- no matter HOW many times I've stated in no uncertain terms that I just want you to leave!
Joseph,
haven't you noticed that the CD'ers have been absent from your comments on the past several weeks worth of posts since you had your big blowup with them the last week of December? (especially since your posts with the exception of daniel hopsicker's ongoing investigation into the hijacker's connections haven't dealt with 9/11 at all)
You should have been pretty happy/relieved about that.
you should be flattered to know that even hardcore Cannonfire fans like me who you spat upon both in private emails and on this blog for even being openminded to consider other (non-official NIST or non-jetfuel fire caused collapse) theories about how the WTC towers collapsed still check your site daily. I'm not saying I believe the "bombs in the building" CD theory. All I am saying is that the WTC skyscraper towers are the first to collapse because of fire and I don't know how/why the WTC buildings collapsed but the official NIST "fire theory" doesn't add up and not enough investigative research was done to learn more. This doesn't make me crazy for not agreeing with you or the NIST official report on how the WTC towers collapsed. I know I don't really know and I may never know. So no need to verbally condemn me, really Joseph. OK? can we agree to disagree?
I am being humble in saying what I don't know and there was no need to lump me in the same category of Holocaust deniers or "Jews caused WWII" or 9/11 CD conspiracy theorists. So no need to verbally chew me out and condemn me.
I think you are doing some really great work and if I was a trustfund baby I would be making more paypal donations and on a monthly basis and I encourage all of you readers to put your money where your heart is:
if you all contribute generosly to Cannonfire via his "paypal" link, maybe Joseph would be more inclined to keep his blog going.
And no, Joseph didn't ask me to post this, in fact he ordered me never to email him again back in December, in fact just a few days before Christmas, without so much as wishing me a Merry Christmas or Happy New Year-despite being a supporter.
I thought you were on your way to moving past your CD anger with all your great posts the past month but your comments show you're still super mad as hell. I'm sorry this is such a sore point for you. I've been faithfully reading your blog every day since sometime in nov 2004 when you were one of the first to start bringing up the subject of election fraud in Ohio. thank you for all your great work.
I hope you reconsider and put everything into perspective.
did you watch Fox channel's "24" program last Thursday night? apparently it featured an nuclear explosion based in Valencia, CA as part of its storyline. I have been waiting for you to post something about that episode.
And before you pull the plug on your blog and stop publishing, I want to add that I agree with your recent posts about Cheney setting up the stage for a major nuclear war with Iran which will give bush the legal basis to declare martial law. Recent articles indicate this will happen in late march/early April. I hope this doesn't happen but if it does, blogspot.com will be one of the first websites that gets pulled from the internet once martial law gets declared and gets put into place by the private militia of contractors that Cheney/Halliburton has been building over the past 4 years and made the front page of today's Sunday NY Times.
take care
Joseph, as a John Adams fan
("Harmonielehre" forms the fantasy
soundtrack to a screenplay I've
written) I commend your repertoire.
Though I have never seen "Loose
Change" I believe the title refers
to the gold that was allegedly
removed through the tunnels under
the towers when they were under
attack.
ilarynx, the problem with your
notion is that if the Bushcists had
presented themselves as prepared
and competent, they could not have
claimed the attacks were
unexpected, and the attacks could
not plausibly have succeeded. If
the attacks had not succeeded they
would not have terrorized the
country.
I suspect the reason for the Pet
Goat incident was that it was
improvised because flights 77 and
93 were late. Had Bush left the
room at 9:06 to find out what was
going on, he would have been
expected to order fighter cover
over DC, and then flight 77 could
not have struck its target.
In defense of the "9/11 truth movement."
By Sander Hicks, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2007.
No "CD" but interesting
mick
You should shut down this blog. The sooner the better. You really don't seem able to handle the slings and arrows too well.
One other thing. The idea that you can hand over this blog to someone, so that it might live to see another day, is idiotic. You are a great researcher, commentator. Someone else of your caliber will have their own blog; why give themselves up to save your sorry ass. Cannonfire will die. Should die. By it's own hand. This is the only honorable way. I say this as an avid reader.
End it now, and either go into therapy or find a fish shop to manage somewhere in the baja. Tequila for everyone.
I've never even heard of Nixon in China, but I sure can respect this line:
"The artists always get the last word, and only liberals make art."
First, I have a co-writer and I have made certain promises to her. That's the reason why I have never hit the "delete blog" button.
A major reason why I don't think I want to do this anymore, and why I've turned down offers to write non-fiction pieces elsewhere (for pay!), is that I've lost faith in people in general. I don't think they WANT truth. People want myth -- have done, since the days of Og the Caveman. So I may turn to fiction, even though the world does not want another writer of fiction.
Daniel Hopsicker privately told me that the truth is addictive. I countered by pointing out that the majority of the people in this country (or something close to a majority) believe in Creationism. LIES are addictive. Lies are smack. Truth is the detox clinic, and most people want to stay high.
Reading Chris Hedges' American Fascism (on the Christian right) brought this thought home hard.
About Sandor Hicks: I used to think the world of that guy. Then I heard an interview in which he bought into the CD line. He wrote to me not long ago -- a kind letter -- and I ripped him a new one. I am not ashamed of doing so. The CDers have to understand that their marriage to a lie makes them toxic. I have found that one must never engage such people in dialogue -- one can only oppose and attack them, just as one can only oppose and attack the Southern Christian rightists. They are no longer human. They are the Borg.
Hey, I'd like to know what that Harmonielehre script is like. Although we are all supposed to appreciate music as music, I think it's impossible to listen to that particular piece WITHOUT visualizing images and stories. Of course, extra-musical images gave rise to the work: The first movement begins when Adams dreamed of a massive tanker rising out of San Francisco Bay and flying into the night, while the last movement represents a dream in which Meister Eckhart reveals the secret of harmony to Adams' daughter, as they both fly through the heavens. Yet those aren't the only images that can go with that music...
Obviously you need to take a break or leave permanently. Good riddance.
We didn't have to agree but you have no right for uncivil behavior or, what do they call them, 'ad-hominem' attacks. Whatever, go your way, away, whatever. You're far too bright for the rest of us who can't read every word you write. Too bad.
So, where can I get my refund?
wtc7wtf? - You've missed the point completely. The "unexpected" argument was an "after the fact" one, only needed when the administration was shown to have been completely incompetent at defending this country. The fact is, the event wasn't unexpected as noted by the 9/11 commission after the fact, and by Richard Clarke as well as the Hart-Rudman Commission before the fact. Oh, and don't forget the presidential brief of August, 2001, among others.
Of course, if you want to start making 'Backwards Day' arguments like: "That the people in the Bush administration are able to hide their genius behind the brilliant facade of making themselves look like complete idiots, shows how diabolically ingenious these geniuses really are!!!" - go right ahead, I'll go get some popcorn. That, and the incredibly imaginative "Pet Goat Delay" point clearly shows that fantasy fiction is your forte. Bravo.
Joseph - You're taking these folks waaayyy to seriously. Think of sitting at the corner cafe when a Gay Day parade comes by. They're not doing this to attack you, they're making themselves look silly in order to make themselves and others laugh. (This is what the CDers are intending, right?)
For the record, when they first came out, I looked at these theories with an open, but critically thinking, mind. Having already been aware of things like Operation Northwoods, I was expecting to see the pieces of the conspiracy puzzle come together. They didn't. It wasn't long before these theories fell by their own weight faster than a controlled demolition.
I recommend you go to the video store and check out Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" episode on "Conspiracy Theories." You'll probably see the faces of some of the "Loose Change" posters here.
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do
iLarynx
It’s not about 9/11. Joseph doesn’t understand why people can’t read and understand every twist of logic he takes the time to write. And it’s not about being right or wrong. But he’s wrong. This blog isn’t just about what he writes. I come to hear the comments as well. He provides and atmosphere and a certain intellectual perspective, sometimes comical sometimes surreal. I don’t care about his opinions as long as the atmosphere is interesting enough to bring a good selection of topics and comments. That was his art (and I emphasize ‘was’).
But people have a right to their opinions without getting pummeled. I don’t understand 9/11. I don’t think we (as a nation) do. I think it’s entirely possible that it was blown to bits. And ‘loose change’ may be amateurish, but what did you expect? Attacking the messenger or his delivery doesn’t negate the premise. I’m semi-intelligent and I still see no reason why 9/11 couldn’t have been cd. I know this topic is apparently off-limits here, so I won’t go on. We just don’t know, opinions won’t make a bit of difference, actual research had to have been completed. It wasn’t (it was rushed or suppressed, in any case insufficient). That’s the story.
The import of the possible implications is what drives people to be insane about this. They have every right to be insane about it. Joseph should understand that. It’s not about him or his pet theories or explanations or their inability to read his logic. I’ve read everything he’s referenced about 9/11. We disagree. His attitude though is definitely amaterurish.
Attacking an entire group of normal folks for their opinions is just stupid.
But what did we, as readers, expect? It’s not easy being publisher, editor, researcher and artist for an unregulated gig. Probably went to his head.
In my book he’s gone from being respected to being dismissed as a cranky, unappreciative, over-hyped fool. But, again, what did we expect? Thanks for the short ride. And even more thanks to those who have contributed comments (from all persuasions) and filled out the topics here.
Jeez, I can't believe the fantasies people have. Over-hyped? By whom? I do not hype this blog, even though hype might have turned it into a paying proposition. Did I not state earlier that I've turned down opportunities to speak on the radio and to...?
Oh hell. There I go again, rising to the bait.
People will believe precisely what they want to believe. And that is the problem.
Until a good answer to Pilate's question comes along, there's no reason -- beyond habit -- for me to write anything, for ANYONE to write anything.
You're right, though -- this blog has become as much about the readers as about me. And I don't like my readers. Sorry, but there's no point in pretending otherwise. Someone who really WAS interested in hype and building readership and making $$$ and all the other things I'm routinely accused of WOULD pretend to adore his readers.
Another blogger/reporter (I won't name her) told me privately that despising one's readers is an inevitable part of the authorial trade. But why pay rent for a roommate you can't stand?
Joseph, these people CAN'T be for real. If nothing else, they are exhibiting the same rabidity and need for pure destruction as others we know and dislike. Come to think of it, how ironic they support "controlled demolition."
I wish you wouldn't go. To me it's like Kerry not sticking around to make sure everyone's vote counted. Kinda.
Miss P.
I do believe the title refers to the gold in the sub-basements.
Joseph, please, take your blog and just GO. What does it matter what promises you've made to people who want to piggyback?
I believe the title refers to the fact that they made the doco' with their "loose change" ,as the budget to make the doco' was only a few grand.
mick
Joe just keeps provoking people for no reason and then flies off unhinged when people take him to task on it.
Very odd behavior Joe... why not just let it go? The idea that the towers were brought down by CD is not really that odd. Professional demolition experts with more knowledge than you have said it looked like CD and planes crashing into buildings have NEVER brought two entire buildings down before.
SO WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING THIS UP?????
I keep bringing it up because people like you are motherfucking LIARS. You are not ignorant: You are a liar and you know damned well that you are lying. I honestly believe that some of you, at any rate, must be paid to write this shit.
Not a single expert in controlled demolitions in the world has ever said that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. NOT ONE.
I keep saying that, and you CD liars keep saying I'm wrong. But you never name the name of a single CD expert.
No physicist in the world -- even in opposing nations -- thinks that the towers were brought down by CD. There is but one exception, a guy who also believes in translating books using magic stones.
THE COLLAPSE BEGAN AT THE IMPACT POINT, MORON. Are you saying there were explosive charges on every floor? Charges which did not set each other off instantly? What an inane idea!
I'm furious because there are a thousand and one legitimate questions about 9/11 and we cannot discuss them because the CD liars have poisoned the debate. Anyone who questions any aspect of the common perceptions is automatically shoved in the same category with you jerks. You have erected a laughter curtain around the subject.
You have thus become an essential part of the cover-up. Bush and Cheney must LOVE you guys.
Part of me thinks that as long as people continue to bleat lies ("Professional demolition experts with more knowledge than you have said it looked like CD"), decent people should bleat truths. Part of me thinks that it's too late, that the very concept of truth is an anachronism.
Creationism has become mainstream. That was unthinkable when I was a boy, but it is now. Not a day goes by when this horrible thought does not assail me.
You know what? You've won. You've driven me from my position. I'm only here because of a promise to my co-writer. But in the days remaining to me, I'm going to detoxify my blog.
The ban is in place once again. Go ahead: Call me a censor. From now on, every pro-CD comment -- every comment that even hints that the subject is open to discussion (it is NOT; it will become open only when you start naming a few CD experts on your side) -- will be excised on sight.
It's the only way to stop people from saying "Well what about Building 7? What about this? What about that?" -- What about a million and one other things that I've already dealt with ad infinitum. You keep on repeating the same lies no matter how many times they are exposed as such, hoping (in a robustly Republican fashion) to win through sheer repetition.
I figured, in my own snarky way, that Avery was approached about his theories by someone who said, "Show me the money." What he had in response was "Loose Change."
.R.S.E.
TO the fellow I just deleted who repeats the lie that there were experts who immediately recognized the fall of the twin towers as a CD:
NAME ONE. Name one and I will not delete your post.
And sign your real name to your work.
Otherwise, stand revealed as the PAID LIARS that you are..
I know who you are. Do not visit my site again. Do not write to me again.
No matter what you believe about who was responsible for 9/11, and how it went down, we're all amazed at how much political capital the events of that day produced for this administration: A bipartisan consensus on torture; an era of permanent war; detentions without trial; "no fly" lists for activists; the Bill of Rights gone with the wind, and a cowed professional media willing to self-censor and suppress pertinent information.
from AltrNet
I had mused that the title Loose Change referred to .02, more OR less.
Miss P.
Ilyarynx 6:48
I don't miss the point at all, and
your claim that the “unexpected”
story was created after the fact is
circular reasoning. “Surprise
attack” was the only cover story
that was going to work, so that's
what they had to use. And it did
work, thanks to submissive media
and a craven Congress. Condi said
“No one ever imagined” and then got
confirmed as Secy of State with
barely a peep.
Your recommendation of Penn and
Teller's hit piece is indicative
of the quality of your reasoning.
P&T is completely unfair,
presenting geeky spokesmen for the
dissenting views and using video to
ridicule them, while presenting
solid citizens for the official
story and uncritically allowing
them to make factual errors I can
enumerate only at the risk of being
deleted.
Sorry, I haven't been back for a few days. Well, as I recall, there were two prominent experts whose first impressions were that of cd regarding the towers collapse. The first was that fellow who later retracted his statements. The second was that Dutch fellow. (who are you trying to kid anyway?).
I don’t know what the big deal is. Are you trying to assassinate the personalities or reputations of those who might say something like that? Is that a popular or constructive thing to do? And if you succeed in that have you proven your point (of course not).
The point is, no one (not you, not me, not the experts) has sufficient information regarding the collapses to make a secure judgment. The NIST investigation and research was cut short. How can anyone have a secure opinion, whether expert or not?
Now let’s say your 30 year old car exploded… into tiny bits which then buried themselves in a puddle. Let’s say you paid some mechanics (experts) to find out why. Let’s say you gave them $20 and 10 minutes to do that. Let’s say they said it was a naturally occurring explosion based on faulty design, twisting fatigued metal from a carpet fire caused by an out of control cigarette lighter.
Ok, now, because no other mechanic is offers an opinion contrary to the ‘official’ version, do you think that’s a consensus?
I hope you’re right. But… if you’re wrong, and I’m not convinced otherwise… I sure as hell don’t want to let it slide.
This is not something where we should be satisfied with ‘pretty sure’. There is a litany of folks (not all of whom are totally crazy) who are pretty sure the other way. Why the hell can’t we spend the capital to find out… while we can, regardless of your non-expert opinion? Hell, if you’re so sure, why not sit back and let us prove it? Not like you have to do any work.
I’m trying to guess your response because I don’t want to engage in this silly argument anymore. You might say that we can ‘never be convinced.’. Joseph, that’s wrong. The majority of us can be convinced with a little more objective research. We want to be sure, not just convinced because the so-called president was innocently reading ‘my pet goat’. I just don’t find the behavioral theory convincing… enough.
Jason, I will keep yours up because you at least had the decency not to be anonymous. But if there is one thing I cannot stand about you CDers, it's that you keep repeating things that HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH. Can't you see how frustrating it is to have to debunk the same lies not just once, but six zillion times?
Okay, once more into the breech -- and keep in mind that I have written about these two guys before.
"The first was that fellow who later retracted his statements. The second was that Dutch fellow. (who are you trying to kid anyway?)."
Who are YOU trying to kid, asshole? Here are the facts:
The guy from New Mexico was Dr. Van Romero. I'll reprint after the asterisks what I wrote in the comments section to a post you can find here...
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
* * *
Romero has been accused of making an ambiguous recantation under pressure from "Them." Here are his words:
"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building. I only said that that's what it looked like."
And:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
I see no ambiguity. I see silly or disingenuous conspiracists grasping at straws.
* * *
Back. Now for the "Dutch guy." His name is Danny Jowenko. You can see him interviewed here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-129851858930592160&q=dutch+911
And guess what? He does NOT believe that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition! In fact, he offers excellent and compelling reasoning as to why that could not be the case.
So just stop your damned lying, willya, jase? You said that guy supported the CD theory of the Twin Towers' fall, when in fact he does exactly the opposite -- on camera!
Also stop your intellectual laziness. You could have looked up the names. You know how to use Google as well as I.
There's another point. Every time this subject comes up, the fucking CDers expect me to write the equivalent of an entire book in one night, as they pester me with questions. I work for a living, you know. I really can't spare that time -- yet I have expended that time repeatedly, lest I be accused of ducking key points.
But it is worse than that. I have to rewrite the SAME book EVERY DAMN TIME because CDers are too damn brainless and lazy to check whether I've written about a specific issue before.
In the case of Jowenko, if you want to see what I said about his response to WTC7 (NOT the twin towers), go to the comments here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
Look, surely you can see at least THIS much from my point of view. Is it fair -- is it even remotely fair -- for you people to expect me to write the same things over and over and over? Can't you shitheads do ANY of your own homework? Can't you simply ask yourself (as I would do, were I in your shoes) "Before I ask Cannon to address subject X, let's check and see if he has talked about that subject before"? Is that really too damn much to ask?
I mean, it's not hard. You could have simply gone to Google and typed in the words "Cannonfire" and "Jowenko." You got a problem with that?
Well, you have a bigger problem. You still have an utter lack of any expert in the field of controlled demolitions who embraces the CD theory.
Remember the rules of our game (and these rules are perfectly fair): You must give the NAME of a single CD expert who embraces the CD theory of the fall of the TWIN TOWERS. And you must give your own name. Or a reasonable nick. Something other than "Anonymous."
(A parting shot: My ladyfriend has taken to calling the CD enthusiasts "trannies." You see, those initials have more than one meaning...)
Joe,
One last thing (after reading this http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070212&s=moser ): You think you've got it rough having to listen to the insane prattling of a group of lunatics?
I live in red-state Georgia.
Top THAT!
Oh, and as for the wtc7wtf "circular reasoning" claim: I don't think you recognize what circular reasoning is. Of course, coming from your pretzel logic perspective, most everything must look kind of loopy.
Ok, whatever is a trannie? I don't really need to know. I didn't look up those names, my bad, but, hell I don't put any weight in either one of them nor in any expert. I put some weight in other's opinions, sure. I would put more weight in 'expert' testimony... now here's the catch... the part I understand. I'm an engineer. I would listen carefully what these so-called experts had to say, what their experience tells them. That, I would listen to very carefully, except for one thing. We don't have the data. We have opinions. Period. Opinions are fine, for parlor talk. When it comes to risking lives, building bridges, constructing dams, well, facts and data are where I begin.
I'm telling you, it's a fact, we don't have the facts, period.! Now, that's a story, in an of itself.
I'm sorry about you having to write and re-write, convince and re-convince. Doesn't help, I know. What convinces you doesn't necessarily convince others. You may have a super-clear perspective on these things. But... I'm a scientist, an engineer, I will be convinced with facts and data and nothing short of that. We simply don't have a convincing case. I wish it were otherwise.
In fact if there were an expert with a definitive opinion about this I wouldn't call him an expert at all. The conclusions given by NIST are nothing more than a hypothesis. And when they tried to prove that the hyposthesis was even possible, they failed, with the excuse that they couldn't duplicate the conditions. Nevertheless, their 'possible' hypothesis is the 'official' conclusion.
Maybe that convinces you... or maybe it's the reading of 'My pet goat', but for me... I need data.
My god, you deserve a head butt if you're wrong. The downing of those towers should have produced a vacuum in every American's psyche that would generate an enormous and immediate demand for complete discloser. That vacuum is still there for me.
Thanks for hosting this nonsense.
I am beginning to understand the plight of the blogger. I offer you no solace. Don't know what you're going through. Best of luck to you (I sure as hell don't want to do it:)).
ilarynx 2:16, pretzel logic is just circular with a twist, and your logic is circular. The "unexpected" cover was made up after the fact, in your book, to cover up incompetence. The conclusion is the same as the premise. In fact, you have no way of knowing when "unexpected" was concocted. It was the only possible cover whether invented before or after the fact, so its use proves nothing.
jason 7:34, the destruction and suppresion of the evidence that would have told the tale are the most damning aspects of this story, IMHO.
here a twist for ya, who would have thunk ?
"Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be “Pulled”
New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician asked “how could someone have rigged all these explosives?” before towers collapsed, support columns had been blown out"
http://enthousiazo.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/september-11-2001-the-controlled-demolition-of-world-trade-center-7/
mick
mick, I have dealt with WTC7 AD INFINITUM. People deride me for using intemperate language, but how can I do other wise when you keep repeating LIES?
You keep misquoting that damn Silverstein quote. He did not say they would pull the building that day. In context, it is clear that he wanted the firemen out of harm's way and that it was better to give the building up for lost.
He ALSO said that the decision was made BY THE FIRE CHIEF.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I KEEP REPEATING THIS?
You link to piece that LIES about the SIlverstein quote and that refuses to publsih the photos of the building's south side. Therefore, nothing on that site can be trusted.
The site also relies on the word of Dylan Avery, who has been caught in deliberate lies repeatedly. See "Screw Loose Change" for numerous examples.
GO AWAY. Just go away. I only have a week or so on this gig...please just leave me alone in the equivalent of my own home for that small time. Have you no feeling of human decency left in you?
CDers are simply not human. They are the most evil fucks I've ever encountered int he conspiracy-verse, with the exception of their close kin, the Holocaust deniers -- and I will NEVER apologise for that perfectly apt linkage.
It only takes a few holocaust deniers
to taint a whole movement. One
questions whether they join in sincere hopes of aiding the movement, in hopes of advancing the causes of holocaust denial and anti-semitism, or with the intention of discrediting the movement.
Post a Comment