It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Being a skeptic, I like listening to both sides of the argument. One person by the name of MarkyX created a video called "Screw Loose Change", using LC's own footage and words against them. Most of the information on the video uses gravy's viewer guide, but he does add much of his own stuff as well. You can view it on both google video and youtube.

He also links to numerous other sources, including the pentagon crash on this forum. In my opinion, it's a really good video that shows how much Loose Change is willing to manipulate, lie, and quote mining to gain exposure. It also shows how disrespectful Dylan and co. is concerning the victims of 9/11. It even raises questions for many of the theories out there, like WTC7 controlled demolition to the video being fake. Really worth it.

You can view the sources and the video itself here: www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

[edit on 3-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]


I went to the site. As soon as I saw them using 911myths.com as a source, I closed that window. 911myths is one of the biggest disinformation sites out there.

I'm not going to watch a video that sources a site that purposefully misleads people




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
No, because it didn't happen. What you're suggesting is having a thought crime.

Your original question was, "ON wasn't to kill anyone." I just proved it was meant to kill people. So do you now agree that ON was to kill people regardless if the ON plan was executed or not?


[edit on 4-6-2006 by diggs]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
And? So the military is capable is thinking on how to wipe everyone out. Do you know they have plans on how to invade countries like Canada during peacetime? Again, if we started going after people for what they did in the past, there would be no country left.

No, I mean if the military currently drafted plans to kill our own people and blame on others, should the President, or the supervisor who is given this plan charge the people who DRAFTED the plan with treason? Drafting official military plans up is a lot different than jotting one's thought's down on a piece of notepaper.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Operation Northwoods did have a few plans that killed people, however no where in the plan do they plan on killing American Citizens.

The first quote posted comes right after a detailed plan on faking the sinking of a surface ship.

BTW, please provide a source with the external source tags.


www.geocities.com...

We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

emphasis mine


The second quote sure seems convincing when taken out of context. However the full plan clearly states that no Americans were to die. The college students would really be Government Agents evacuated before the plane blew up.


www.geocities.com...

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio



Still not sure why this has anything to do with 9-11. There are no plans in ON to kill american citizens.

Derdy, care to show us how 9-11 myths misleads people.

It often helps to get opposing viewpoints when you want to find the truth. I watched all of Loose Change, and all of 9-11 Eyewitness. My convinctions didn't change because of it and all I lost was a few hours of my time.

Perhaps you should watch the whole of Screw Loose Change, it might not convince you but it might give you a broader perspective. You'll never learn anything only looking at what agrees with your opinion.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Operation Northwoods did have a few plans that killed people, however no where in the plan do they plan on killing American Citizens.

What about innocent foriegn civilians? And if the plan was executed, you really think no innocent American citizens would accidentally be killed in the plot?


The second quote sure seems convincing when taken out of context. However the full plan clearly states that no Americans were to die. The college students would really be Government Agents evacuated before the plane blew up.

I must not be reading it correctly. Where does it say the college students would really be agents?


Still not sure why this has anything to do with 9-11. There are no plans in ON to kill american citizens.

The updated 2001 version does.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Blowing up an empty plane over Cuba is a far cry from flying two planes full of passengers into buildings on American soil.


Read the part I just quoted. How would they accidently kill American Citizens by blowing up an empty plane? I guess there is that small chance that debris would hit an American in cuba.


No you are not reading it correctly, please note, in the quote I posted last, how the bullets go like this.

8. plan to blow up plane full of college students over cuba to start a war.

a. Substitute agents evacuate plane and fly the drone over to cuba.

b. Shoot down empty drone plane and blame cuba for killing non existent plane full of college students.


Notice how the only similarity to 9-11 is that it involves a plane.


I suppose you have proof of the 2001 edition?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Just to clarify, Here are the Northwoods documents:

Operation Northwoods (PDF)

I would say that by waging a terror campeign against the Cuban community in Florida they would certainly run the risk of killing citizens. Especially Cuban citizens.

wupy



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by derdy

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Being a skeptic, I like listening to both sides of the argument. One person by the name of MarkyX created a video called "Screw Loose Change", using LC's own footage and words against them. Most of the information on the video uses gravy's viewer guide, but he does add much of his own stuff as well. You can view it on both google video and youtube.

He also links to numerous other sources, including the pentagon crash on this forum. In my opinion, it's a really good video that shows how much Loose Change is willing to manipulate, lie, and quote mining to gain exposure. It also shows how disrespectful Dylan and co. is concerning the victims of 9/11. It even raises questions for many of the theories out there, like WTC7 controlled demolition to the video being fake. Really worth it.

You can view the sources and the video itself here: www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

[edit on 3-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]


I went to the site. As soon as I saw them using 911myths.com as a source, I closed that window. 911myths is one of the biggest disinformation sites out there.

I'm not going to watch a video that sources a site that purposefully misleads people


Typical CT. Ignores facts it doesn't fit in their ideal world.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 4-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Correct Mr Wupy, however there is no plan in ON that calls for catastrophic and wholesale destruction on Amercan Soil.

There is no, blow up the pentagon, or set off bombs in the empire state building. While there are plans in there that would result in death, none of them are on par with the amount of civilian deaths on 9-11.

Nor is there talk of intentionally killing thousands of US citizens.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
What a lame debunk, It looked like a school boy debunked it, how he starts with operation north woods is just plain rong, boming with mortar sheels guantanomo?arent us soldiers american citizens ?
And the more debunking he does the more idiotic he sounds, in the end he becomes ridicules, words like "was galileio there" or something like that, or saying milion of steal buildings colapsed do to fire , or that the explosions were from the colapsing building, the explosions that go off are before the tower starts to colapse and has nothing to do with the colapse, it's just a lame counter operation done by who knows what kind of a person which needs to grow up .



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Still not sure why this has anything to do with 9-11. There are no plans in ON to kill american citizens.

Derdy, care to show us how 9-11 myths misleads people.

It often helps to get opposing viewpoints when you want to find the truth. I watched all of Loose Change, and all of 9-11 Eyewitness. My convinctions didn't change because of it and all I lost was a few hours of my time.

Perhaps you should watch the whole of Screw Loose Change, it might not convince you but it might give you a broader perspective. You'll never learn anything only looking at what agrees with your opinion.


I'm actually working on a piece to present my argument. I hope to have it done soon. If you care to take the time, go here. It's pretty easy to see if you do any amount of research. It's pure obfuscation and is clearly misleading people. I would accept an excuse of a mistake, but the author of the site clearly states that he does research. That being said, the author knows that the argument presented there is to make something very malignant into something rather benign. (If you can even understand the argument! I found my head spinning from the obfuscation!)

I'll post my piece when I'm finished.

As for seeking the truth and getting different viewpoints; been there, done that. Our government is complicit in this just as they were complicit in a number of terror campaigns in foreign countries to promote their policitical and economic interests.

As for the Operation Northwoods, it did call for violent acts in American cities.
read here page 8, point 4 of the document. (bottom of page 11 in pdf)



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Derdy, that doesn't really state anything. It's very vague.

They could've hired actors to stage victims, attacks, and terrorists in a home-grown studio. The entire document is vague, and it's more suggestions then a real plan. "We could" ? Doesn't sound like a step by step plan to me.

And PNAC was more on domestic defense improvements. As the screw loose change video has said, Iraq goes against PNAC's agenda.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Typical CT. Ignores facts it doesn't fit in their ideal world.


I've done my homework pal. I've looked at both sides. I laughed in my friends face at first mention of government involvment last August. Since that time I've done extensive research into the events of that day and the untold history of America. (ie Iran-Contra, coup attempt in 1933, the War on Drugs and money laundering by big business and drug smuggling by the CIA, etc)

You live in a very scary world my friend when you rely on sites like that to tell you what "facts" are.

Yes, my ideal world of a fascist government that spits on the Constitution, corrupt to the core, where industry comes first and the people are at the butt end of everything!
What a lovely world! When I was growing up I hoped to live in such a place, looks like I've made it! hooray!



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
What a lame debunk, It looked like a school boy debunked it, how he starts with operation north woods is just plain rong, boming with mortar sheels guantanomo?arent us soldiers american citizens ?
And the more debunking he does the more idiotic he sounds, in the end he becomes ridicules, words like "was galileio there" or something like that, or saying milion of steal buildings colapsed do to fire , or that the explosions were from the colapsing building, the explosions that go off are before the tower starts to colapse and has nothing to do with the colapse, it's just a lame counter operation done by who knows what kind of a person which needs to grow up .


Did you forgot that he pointed out the numerous flaws in Loose Change, such as the following:

- Wrong engine part on Flight 77
- The 'fake' voices on Flight 93
- The Osama 'fake' confession tape (type up on Google "Muslim Culture Left Hand")
- WTC7, showing how LC hides evidence like the southside of the building
- The tents
- The pentagon engine part found
- The 'B-52' bomber

He does a good job showing how heavily flawed Loose Change is and shouldn't be trusted at all.


[edit on 4-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Derdy, why do you dismiss the whole site and everything related to it, yet claim to be familiar with both sides?

It's probably something for another thread, but I don't see how your difference of opinion on PNAC, somehow makes the info contained on 911myths invalid.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Derdy, that doesn't really state anything. It's very vague.

They could've hired actors to stage victims, attacks, and terrorists in a home-grown studio. The entire document is vague, and it's more suggestions then a real plan. "We could" ? Doesn't sound like a step by step plan to me.

And PNAC was more on domestic defense improvements. As the screw loose change video has said, Iraq goes against PNAC's agenda.


Vague?
"We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)""Exlpoding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots"

Yes, they are suggestions FROM THE UNITED STATES JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SUGGESTING STAGING ATTACKS TO GARNER PUBLIC SUPPORT TO GO TO WAR WITH CUBA!!


Iraq goes against PNAC's agenda?!

From PNAC's website:
Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998
fourth paragraph, last 3 sentences.

"In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Yes, it appears they didn't want to take Saddam out at all



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by derdy

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Derdy, that doesn't really state anything. It's very vague.

They could've hired actors to stage victims, attacks, and terrorists in a home-grown studio. The entire document is vague, and it's more suggestions then a real plan. "We could" ? Doesn't sound like a step by step plan to me.

And PNAC was more on domestic defense improvements. As the screw loose change video has said, Iraq goes against PNAC's agenda.


Vague?
"We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)""Exlpoding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots"

Yes, they are suggestions FROM THE UNITED STATES JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SUGGESTING STAGING ATTACKS TO GARNER PUBLIC SUPPORT TO GO TO WAR WITH CUBA!!


Iraq goes against PNAC's agenda?!

From PNAC's website:
Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998
fourth paragraph, last 3 sentences.

"In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Yes, it appears they didn't want to take Saddam out at all


Didn't clinton even stated that they had WMD?

Yes he did



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Derdy, why do you dismiss the whole site and everything related to it, yet claim to be familiar with both sides?

It's probably something for another thread, but I don't see how your difference of opinion on PNAC, somehow makes the info contained on 911myths invalid.


You don't need to be familiar with 911myths.com to know both sides.

I can clearly show that they are misleading people. Why would you even be interested in reading something from someone that is known to mislead?

It's not a difference of opinion. PNAC has a stated agenda which you can find if you take the time to read their works on their site. So their agenda is a fact. The author on 911myths takes those facts and twists and obfusates.

By the way, I am in no way saying "Loose Change" is completely true and accurate.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I'd love to debate more, but it's a nice day outside and I can tell already I'd be stuck in front of my PC if I don't stop now.

I should say that I mean no disrespect and hope that we can keep the debate civil as I will be coming back with my work for 911myths soon.

*CHEERS*

-Derdy




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join