Garrett (garote) wrote,

  • Mood:

loose frickin' change

This "Loose Change" video just keeps popping up, among my friends and community. Last week there was even a screening of it at the Rio theatre. And of course the wily Santa Cruzans lined up down the block, like they were seeing something vital. Not, say, something they could see online for free right next to "Monkey Sniffs Butt Passes Out" and "Camgirl #49251 Lifts Her Shirt".

I first heard about it as a mass-forwarded email. The sender declared it to be "well worth the time", and said "I watched the whole thing with my mouth hanging open." I posted a dismissive reply, which then erupted into a multi-message debate with a total stranger from somewhere else in the forwarding chain.

Reproduced here is the largest of my replies, along with the quotes I was replying to.

IF YOU CAN'T SEE that there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that this administration lies to the American people about one thing after another: manipulating us into invading another country under false pretense, torturing people in defiance of international law, trampling over our constitutional rights, invading our privacy, fabricating a never-ending "War" on terror (a misnomer at best) all under the guise of "spreading democracy" by which they REALLY mean "democracy-with-our-boot-on-the-back-of-your-neck" . . .
It sounds like you have a healthy suspicion with, and anger towards, those at the top of the US government. I have no problem with that, in fact I endorse it. I called the bombing of Afghanistan and the needless invasion of Iraq for the waste they were from day 1. Bush Jr effectively squandered the international goodwill that the WTC attacks inspired, by kicking the UN in the balls and allowing his corporate backers to feast unchecked at the trough of the military budget. But that phenomenon is part of a longer, more problematic power structure, known as the military-industrial complex. It was in place and ready to go dozens of years before Bush arrived to loose it again.

Here, read what Eisenhower said about it in 1961:

This is a very real and very dangerous phenomenon that we as a country are still trying to deal with.
That makes even less sense.

First of all, "mysterious flashes of light" do not an explosive make. Second, the supporting infrastructure of the WTC towers is more in the very center of the building than at the edges. Explosive charges would need to be on the inside, if anywhere.

So if you claim (which you have to) that these explosives were also wired into the center of the building - even setting aside the obvious question of where the hell do they hide them, and how do "secret operatives" install them all around the building without anyone noticing, and how do they detonate them with the exact timing required - then I ask you: What makes you think these hidden explosive charges are necessary at all? You wouldn't be able to see them going off. What makes you think they're there?

Look at the video with your own two eyes. A building is essentially being dropped on top of its other half. You claim that explosives were required because explosives make a conspiracy. Not because explosives were actually required. Not because you have any factual evidence whose explanation _requires_ the presence of explosives.

Here, read a bit about the structure,
and then a bit about the impact.

Then, if you're still taken in by these "mysterious flash" people, take a university-level engineering course on demolitions.
IF YOU AREN'T WILLING to admit to volumes of evidence that this is an outlaw administration...not simply regarding 9-11, but regarding nearly everything it has done since it has been in power. . .
That, however, I do not believe. To believe that I'd have to be pretty selective with my choice of news outlets, as well as with the people I know. I already know too much to believe that overblown accusation.
Then I can clearly see why you would so vehemently resist the POSSIBLE valid points in this video. For every one of the 4 or 5 points you made in your rebuttal, there are at least two dozen other points that deserve some serious non-partisan consideration.
You say non-partisan like that term should mean something to me. Partisan politics is beneath us all. That video was put together by a few people who chose a theme first, and then went scrounging all over the internet for "facts" to fit their theme. I've seen constructions like this before, some better, some worse, none of them even remotely interested in accuracy. And that is the level I rightly consider this on. An anonymous geocities web page is not a trustable source. A serious producer would cut that crap out of his material, regardless of it's content, before draft 1 ever made it to the encoder. What does that tell you about these people? Axe to grind.
Unlike you, who seems to be bending over backward to discredit any validity this video might have, I am NOT jumping up and down saying GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!!!
I do not have to "bend over backward" to "discredit" this video. It has precious little credit to revoke. It's structured like an episode of "A Current Affair" and a holocaust apologist film. You've leapt to the conclusion that I dislike this video because I dislike what it implies about the government. Not necessarily. I dislike this video because I've written 6th-grade book reports with more journalistic integrity than this. If people are going to address the real, non-boogeyman, non-tinfoil-hat, non-aliens-in-area-51 problems that are part of this government, they're going to have to learn to turn away from this thrilling alarmist hodgepodge that freely mixes the reputable with the unsubstantiated and misdirects attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and systemic problems.
I use the word "evidence" very seriously.
The people who produced this video do not. Nor do they use the phrase "scientific analysis" with any real meaning. It's just a phrase to them that means, "look, we used some math!"
Here's the bottom line to me: Dealing with this administration is like finding a man holding a bloody knife over a freshly killed corpse. The alleged murderer says "I didn't break the law" so we say, "Well, it sure LOOKS like you did, but OK, if you say you didn' you go."
Who is this "we" to whom you refer? It's not you, and it's not me.
It is possible that the man with the bloody knife really DIDN'T commit a crime, but it is also possible that he did. The way to determine the answer is NOT simply by accepting the word of the accused.
The trouble with your analogy here is that you've already begged the question: You assume there's a corpse, and a knife. For four years (Bush Jr's entire first term, more or less), a very large chunk of US citizens got exactly what they wanted. The president they voted for, the anti-abortion, anti-gay supreme court members they wanted, the disregard for environmental restrictions they personally felt, the christian commando they preferred. And these people aren't just confined to "blue states", but mixed in all over the country. For example, even in liberal California 44 PERCENT of citizens voted for the guy, _for_a_second_term_.

While it's certainly easy to blame Bush for all that's confused and backwards and corrupt in government across the nation, I prefer to blame the crap voting and campaign finance system that put him there to begin with. For some reason, we were given HIM as a candidate. That's just laughable, and indicative of the complete failure of our democratic system.

I do reserve, exclusively for Bush, however, the inane series of White House decisions that led us to declare war on Iraq. Take Bush out of the picture, and this whole trillion dollar pissing contest would have likely never happened at all. He brokered the new buzzword - terrorism - into a diaphanous pretense to go kill arabs for his daddy. And for that I call him a fraud and a bastard.

However let's keep on track here: The "loose change" video is using the WTC attacks as a platform to slander Bush, by claiming that our government firebombed and then demolished it's own most prominent and economically vital structure. (Remember why it was called the WORLD TRADE center? Even I used to do business with a guy who worked there, and I'm a nobody in terms of economic importance.) Even if the evidence were voluminous (which it is not), the whole idea of it is just not logical.
Plus, unlike the man found over the corpse...our government has the power to confiscate all the evidence right before our eyes and then either destroy it, alter it, or refuse to relinquish it. And on the rare occasion when secrecy, lies, and evasion haven't worked for them---when their actions have been brought before the court--- they simply defy the rulings with endless delays and excuses.
It also has the power to drop nuclear weapons on France. Having the ability to do something does not immediately translate into that thing being done. Furthermore, you refer to "them". Are you aware of how much like a stereotypical conspiracy-theorist that makes you sound? Name your accused. Bush and his friends? Fine. But "Bush" and "the government" are actually two different entities. The former contains "Bush", while the latter contains congress, the house, the supreme court, the CIA, the FBI, the tax board, and all their employees and underlings. Are you really waving your hands at them all, and saying, "secrecy! lies! evasion!"?
This government was designed to follow the rule of LAW...not the unchecked mandate of an individual or group in power. This so-called "War" on Terror should not have the power to put our system on hold.
I agree. What the heck does this have to do with a crappy, alarmist video on the internet?
I don't know whether I believe even a half of the minutia in this 9-11 video, but I DO believe that, if a tenth of the claims have even a shred of validity, that tenth is enough evidence to deserve more serious, mainstream consideration---and legal, unobstructed investigation with access to ALL the evidence.
Well I can tell you right now, "loose change" is neither worth your consideration, nor necessary to inspire an investigation into the much more legitimate presidential scam that is Iraq.

Here's a site for you to examine:
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened