Chamaeleo:

Du är ju uppenbarligen ett offer för judestyrd media.

Du är uppenbarligen ett offer för knäppa teorier.

Chamaeleo:

Bevisa att det var "al Qaida" eller stick.

Al Qaida säger att det var dom.

Chamaeleo:

Uppenbarligen visste de 4000 om i förväg att de borde hålla sig undan?

Hahahaha, du förstår hur långsökt och omöjligt det är?

Pumpkin:

Ofta att allt det där är sant. Det var ju helt klar al Qaida.

Pumpkin:

Al Qaida säger att det var dom.

Hade jag varit ledare av en terrorist grupp så hade jag lätt viljat ta på mig det ansvaret, det är ju as bra PR.
Va lite kritisk va.

Chamaeleo:

Jävligt lustigt, smartskaft.

Ja, det var därför som jag postade länken.

NUJÄVLARR:

Va lite kritisk va.

Låter inte det här med judarna lite farfetch. Var lite kritisk.

Pumpkin:

Låter inte det här med judarna lite farfetch. Var lite kritisk.

Jo, det tycker jag, men du kan inte säkert veta att det var al qaida.
Jag är kritisk, dte är du som inte är det.
Finns MYCKET som visar att det inte var det.

NUJÄVLARR:

Finns MYCKET som visar att det inte var det.

Som vad?

Chamaeleo:

jude

Hur kommer det sig att din avatar har en Davidsstjärna? Lite motsägelsefullt om du inte gillar judar.

Pumpkin:

Hur kommer det sig att din avatar har en Davidsstjärna? Lite motsägelsefullt om du inte gillar judar.

Oj, nu motbevisade du hela min tråd!!!11

Pumpkin:

Som vad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korey_Rowe
Kolla hela dokumentären, tanka den eller vad fan som helst.
Loose Change heter den.
Kanske lite väl korrupt, men det är ändå en möjlighet.

Pumpkin:

Hur kommer det sig att din avatar har en Davidsstjärna? Lite motsägelsefullt om du inte gillar judar.

Det ska nog föreställa en nidbild av en jude.
Iallafall en bit av bilden.

Chamaeleo:

Oj, nu motbevisade du hela min tråd!!!11

För det första vill jag ha en källa på det här.

För det andra kan det väl ha varit så att Mossad faktiskt visste om attentatet, det betyder väl inte att dom planerade det?

NUJÄVLARR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korey_Rowe
Kolla hela dokumentären, tanka den eller vad fan som helst.
Loose Change heter den.
Kanske lite väl korrupt, men det är ändå en möjlighet.

Loose Change has been subject to criticism from a variety of different sources. In March 2007, the United States Department of State published an article called "Loose Change Debunked" in which it says that the movie makes "sloppy mistakes". The article is highly critical of the evidence cited to support the claim that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and it criticizes the controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center claiming that "Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the Towers that day would have been impossible." The article goes on to say:

"It treats statements made at this time as if they represent reasoned judgments, not impromptu, often poorly thought-through misimpressions and uninformed speculation... In sum, Loose Change is researched very shoddily, making numerous mistakes of fact and judgment. Nevertheless, this has not prevented it from becoming extraordinarily popular."[37]

It goes on to note that Loose Change has also been criticized by other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, referencing the critique entitled Sifting Through Loose Change.[38] Michael Green, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, has analyzed the film and is critical of many of its claims and methods.[39] Several independent researchers have also written critiques of the film. The Loose Change Guide,[40] created by Mark Roberts, features the whole transcript of the show, along with his comments and criticisms. Roberts also compiled a lengthy selection of interview quotes in which the Loose Change creators elaborate on the claims made in the film.[41]

In May 2006, the blog Screw Loose Change was created to criticize the claims in the film.[42] In collaboration with the creators of the blog and drawing upon the work of Mark Roberts, Mark Iradian prepared an edited version of Loose Change which he subtitled with criticisms.[43] Another analysis of the film has been created by the Internet Detectives.[44] Many of the critiques argue that Loose Change quote mines, uses unreliable or out-of-date sources, and cherry-picks evidence to claim that there are serious problems with official accounts of the events of September 11.[44][42][43][18][39] America.gov points out what it deems to be "very sloppy errors" Loose Change makes on the Pentagon attack.[45]

One of the many aspects focused on by these critiques is Loose Change's analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center. The comparison to other notable high-rise fires which did not lead to collapse ignores differences in building design, significant WTC structural damage and compromised fireproofing;[46][18] as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F).[47][48] The Madrid's Windsor Tower comparison fails to note its steel-supported perimeter floors collapsed during the fire.[49] Kevin Ryan, described by Loose Change as an working for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), was actually employed in a water-testing subsidiary.[18] Furthermore, UL does not certify structural steel,[18] and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires.[50] The NIST found no evidence of any firm having conducted tests on WTC materials in the past.[51] Another expert quoted, Van Romero, has clarified that he was misquoted by the Albuquerque Journal; he had actually said that it "looked like" explosives took down the WTC. When the misquote was printed, he felt his "scientific reputation was on the line."[48]

On September 11, 2006, Democracy Now! broadcast a discussion between the Loose Change creators and editors from Popular Mechanics, where they debated various aspects of the documentary.[18] Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has written that the "9/11 truth movement": "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."[36]

Chris Farrell, the Director of Investigations & Research at Judicial Watch, warned in an interview that his organization "could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the "9/11 truth movement", and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77."[52] He stated, "Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised."

According to George Monbiot, "The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change."[53]

Homunculi:

text

Som jag skrev tidigare så ska man vara kritisk.