(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

At least they admitted he was a member, unlike one of our anonymous commenters who claimed that he'd never been a WAC-CO member. But no admission of scrubbing their website, you notice. We Are Change Colorado had no contact with Sean after he got back from Thailand? What about Fran Shure, or Michael Wolsey? Are they members of WAC-CO?

Hey, I'm just asking questions. I don't have to come up with an alternative theory!

Also, note the hilarious exhortation to Troy in the "Info" section of the post:

Your connecting of Sean to us is pitiful and shows your failed attempt to make any argument if this is all you have. And if this is all you have, you look really desperate to make obvious false accusations about groups you have no idea about and have NEVER made any real attempt to contact in a cordial manner. Your lack of objectivity is clear in your videos, anyone with a brain is not only laughing at you but wondering when you will seek professional help.

The original glass-house gang shouldn't be talking about seeking professional help.

Commenter Falcon Apoda did a You Tube video on this topic a few months ago that is right on the money. I particularly like the point he makes about how the reason the Truthers are ducking coming up with their alternative theory, is that every time they have they've been debunked.

Let's look at 9-11 as a real investigation. What do the investigators do? Well, they start with a very broad theory; that somebody on the planes was behind the attacks. So they go to the airline companies and get the flight manifests. In the meantime, they're getting reports that there were phone calls from the planes indicating they'd been hijacked, in some cases giving seat numbers of the hijackers. And what do you know, when they check those seats against the names of the passengers a pattern starts to form; all of the flights had 4-5 men with Middle Eastern names, some of whom match the seat locations given by the callers. Hmmm, a closer in theory starts to emerge: These were the guys behind it. They check further and discover that each of the planes had a licensed pilot among the 4-5 men with Middle Eastern names. A sharper theory begins to emerge: They took over the planes, substituted their pilots and flew them into buildings.

Now that's very quick detective work, obviously, and not very tricky; I'd suspect that 99% of us would quickly come to that conclusion. But the Troofers will seize on any perceived inconsistency. Look, here's a report that one of the hijackers was drinking; clearly he's not a devout Muslim ready to give his life for jihad. Therefore the 4-5 men including one pilot with Middle Eastern names were not the ones responsible.

Okay, Detective Truther, what's your theory? We can already see how remarkably strong the case is against Mohamed Atta and his pals, what do you propose instead. And of course, they're reduced to laughable claims like remote control (after telling us not even a skilled pilot could hit the towers). Or maybe they were other planes--the mythical 767 tankers, for example.

And their theories get shot down because frankly there's nothing to them. So they've learned to mostly keep out the theorizing and stick to "We're just asking questions." But "asking questions" is only one part of investigating. Eventually you have to start connecting the dots.

Commenter Falcon Apoda did a You Tube video on this topic a few months ago that is right on the money. I particularly like the point he makes about how the reason the Truthers are ducking coming up with their alternative theory, is that every time they have they've been debunked.

Let's look at 9-11 as a real investigation. What do the investigators do? Well, they start with a very broad theory; that somebody on the planes was behind the attacks. So they go to the airline companies and get the flight manifests. In the meantime, they're getting reports that there were phone calls from the planes indicating they'd been hijacked, in some cases giving seat numbers of the hijackers. And what do you know, when they check those seats against the names of the passengers a pattern starts to form; all of the flights had 4-5 men with Middle Eastern names, some of whom match the seat locations given by the callers. Hmmm, a closer in theory starts to emerge: These were the guys behind it. They check further and discover that each of the planes had a licensed pilot among the 4-5 men with Middle Eastern names. A sharper theory begins to emerge: They took over the planes, substituted their pilots and flew them into buildings.

Now that's very quick detective work, obviously, and not very tricky; I'd suspect that 99% of us would quickly come to that conclusion. But the Troofers will seize on any perceived inconsistency. Look, here's a report that one of the hijackers was drinking; clearly he's not a devout Muslim ready to give his life for jihad. Therefore the 4-5 men including one pilot with Middle Eastern names were not the ones responsible.

Okay, Detective Truther, what's your theory? We can already see how remarkably strong the case is against Mohamed Atta and his pals, what do you propose instead. And of course, they're reduced to laughable claims like remote control (after telling us not even a skilled pilot could hit the towers). Or maybe they were other planes--the mythical 767 tankers, for example.

And their theories get shot down because frankly there's nothing to them. So they've learned to mostly keep out the theorizing and stick to "We're just asking questions." But "asking questions" is only one part of investigating. Eventually you have to start connecting the dots.

I wasn't feeling very well, and almost didn't go, but I ended up making the trek tonight down to Olympia to see David Ray Griffin speak. I had actually made up some flyers on the scientific method to pass out, but due to my low energy level and lack of motivation to argue with idiots on the sidewalk, I just went in and waited for the show to begin. Most of the speech was the standard stump speech that he has been giving since 2004. I swear, if I hear him say that the hijackers were not on the flight manifests one more time I am going to scream... Oh wait, I kind of did.

I wasn't intending to interrupt, but I guess I overestimated my tolerance for idiocy, so I ended up overlooking my more polite upbringing and pointing out his lies rather aggressively on a couple of occasions (OK, 3), which Mr. Griffin and his die hard fans did not appreciate much. Although I rather doubt they object much when We Are Idiots do the same thing to much more significant people. The time I lost it the most was when he repeatedly stated that in order to do what he did Hani Hanjour would have had to be a "ace pilot". I don't recall exactly what I said, but it went something along the lines of "Ace pilot? He crashed his plane how exactly does that qualify you to be an ace pilot?". I also almost lost it when he said that killing Barbara Olson was important to get everyone angry because everyone knew her from CNN. Oh yeah, Americans didn't care that terrorists killed 3,000 people and destroyed half of lower Manhattan, but when we found out that they killed a minor celebrity... I bit my tongue though and kept it to muttering under my breath.

Strangely enough, because I had vigorously expressed my opinion Griffin invited me up to ask him the first question. I had several in mind, but knew I wouldn't get very long, so I limited it to the follow-up question from Osaka regarding how the bodies from AA77 ended up in their condition in the morgue. Needless to say he completely avoided explaining how this could have happened, and it was difficult to even get through the entire question without him going off on irrelevant tangents. In what was probably his most honest, albeit disturbing moment, he did give a definitive "yes" response, to widespread audience applause, when I asked him if he was accusing FBI Tara Bloesch, who was in charge of the morgue at the Pentagon, of perjury.

I must say that Griffin appears much older in person, even though I was sitting only a few feet from him, I didn't even recognize him until someone addressed him by name. Outside of his prepared speech he stammered and weaved around subjects. Once when asked about false flags he referred to how it led to the "Tonkin War", causing a confused murmur in the audience. The woman sitting behind me asked her friend "Tonkin War? Does he mean Tonkin Bay?" I finally couldn't take the idiocy anymore and yelled out, "It is the Gulf of Tonkin." Only a few minutes later he then repeatedly stated that Obama had promised to move into Afghanistan. Uhh, don't look now, but I think we have already done that.

I shot some video on my digital camera, although I don't know if I got anything interesting. When I get a chance I will take a look and post it if so. There were plenty of troofers recording there though, so I am sure my ugly mug will end up on some troofer "most wanted" poster. I don't know if I will be going to anymore of their events any time soon. Maybe I am just getting old, but my tolerance for lies and stupidity has worn thin.

I wasn't feeling very well, and almost didn't go, but I ended up making the trek tonight down to Olympia to see David Ray Griffin speak. I had actually made up some flyers on the scientific method to pass out, but due to my low energy level and lack of motivation to argue with idiots on the sidewalk, I just went in and waited for the show to begin. Most of the speech was the standard stump speech that he has been giving since 2004. I swear, if I hear him say that the hijackers were not on the flight manifests one more time I am going to scream... Oh wait, I kind of did.

I wasn't intending to interrupt, but I guess I overestimated my tolerance for idiocy, so I ended up overlooking my more polite upbringing and pointing out his lies rather aggressively on a couple of occasions (OK, 3), which Mr. Griffin and his die hard fans did not appreciate much. Although I rather doubt they object much when We Are Idiots do the same thing to much more significant people. The time I lost it the most was when he repeatedly stated that in order to do what he did Hani Hanjour would have had to be a "ace pilot". I don't recall exactly what I said, but it went something along the lines of "Ace pilot? He crashed his plane how exactly does that qualify you to be an ace pilot?". I also almost lost it when he said that killing Barbara Olson was important to get everyone angry because everyone knew her from CNN. Oh yeah, Americans didn't care that terrorists killed 3,000 people and destroyed half of lower Manhattan, but when we found out that they killed a minor celebrity... I bit my tongue though and kept it to muttering under my breath.

Strangely enough, because I had vigorously expressed my opinion Griffin invited me up to ask him the first question. I had several in mind, but knew I wouldn't get very long, so I limited it to the follow-up question from Osaka regarding how the bodies from AA77 ended up in their condition in the morgue. Needless to say he completely avoided explaining how this could have happened, and it was difficult to even get through the entire question without him going off on irrelevant tangents. In what was probably his most honest, albeit disturbing moment, he did give a definitive "yes" response, to widespread audience applause, when I asked him if he was accusing FBI Tara Bloesch, who was in charge of the morgue at the Pentagon, of perjury.

I must say that Griffin appears much older in person, even though I was sitting only a few feet from him, I didn't even recognize him until someone addressed him by name. Outside of his prepared speech he stammered and weaved around subjects. Once when asked about false flags he referred to how it led to the "Tonkin War", causing a confused murmur in the audience. The woman sitting behind me asked her friend "Tonkin War? Does he mean Tonkin Bay?" I finally couldn't take the idiocy anymore and yelled out, "It is the Gulf of Tonkin." Only a few minutes later he then repeatedly stated that Obama had promised to move into Afghanistan. Uhh, don't look now, but I think we have already done that.

I shot some video on my digital camera, although I don't know if I got anything interesting. When I get a chance I will take a look and post it if so. There were plenty of troofers recording there though, so I am sure my ugly mug will end up on some troofer "most wanted" poster. I don't know if I will be going to anymore of their events any time soon. Maybe I am just getting old, but my tolerance for lies and stupidity has worn thin.

As has been requested several times by Bill Giltner, here's the thread at JREF going over the information retrieved from the FDR of Flight 77. IIRC the PfT Truthers like to say that the FDR ends with the plane still a couple hundred feet in the sky and this proves that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Anti-Sophist and several other people explain some of the potential problems:

1) Instrument Error
First, and foremost, if the sensor or instrument is giving the recorder a bad number, it’s obviously not going to record the right one. This type of error must be dealt with on an instrument by instrument basis. Any reconstruction should justify the precision used for each value attained. Please keep in mind that all other errors in this document are due to the recording system, and the lost information in the processed version of its data. The uncertainty caused by the data scheduling into a frame, plus the digital buffering, is in addition to any instrument errors.

False Claim: I already debunked the lagging altimeter nonsense!
(The recording-system errors discussed in this document are in addition to, and independent of, any instrument errors.)

2) Intra-frame Time Error
Since we do not have the frame descriptor, all we know is that N samples are taken during a 1 second period. This means that 1/N of a second is the possible error range for a particular data point. With the frame descriptor, this error would be completely removed if using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The aircraft’s speed at 09:37:14.00 was 305.5 knots!

3) Digital Buffering Latency
One of the most important purposes of the DAU is to buffer digital outputs from things like the ADC (Air Data Computer). It is a reasonably safe assumption that the Air Data Computer updates the DAU at least once per sampling, and more than likely twice. This means that for a 1-Hz sample, recorded into the data stream, the actual measured time could have been anywhere in the entire previous second. This means, combined, a digital reading in the CSV file, like Computed Airspeed, which comes from the Air Data Computer, has an enormous error range, in the vicinity of 2 seconds, although 1.5 seconds is probably a safe estimate (0.5s for the buffering latency, and 1s for the uncertainty of when the sample was actually recorded). More then likely, the raw data stream has embedded the actual measurement times, so this error might be completely removed using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The worst case scenario for the 9:14:14 frame’s airspeed is 9:14:14.00, then!
(Yes, that is the worst case time it could be recorded… not measured).

There's lots more, but it's even more technical. This is one of those cases where I bow to the experts and say "Have at it," because I'm clearly not going to understand the answer at any kind of a detailed level.

On the non-expert level, I just kind of roll my eyes at the thought that the Troofers have that the government faked FDR information for Flight 77 but screwed up and left the plane a couple hundred feet up in midair. What are we supposed to think, that the guy who was assigned to do it is secretly a troofer but doesn't want to lose his job, so he faked the data but left clues that it was fake. Now that PfT has exposed it, wouldn't he lose his job anyway?

As has been requested several times by Bill Giltner, here's the thread at JREF going over the information retrieved from the FDR of Flight 77. IIRC the PfT Truthers like to say that the FDR ends with the plane still a couple hundred feet in the sky and this proves that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Anti-Sophist and several other people explain some of the potential problems:

1) Instrument Error
First, and foremost, if the sensor or instrument is giving the recorder a bad number, it’s obviously not going to record the right one. This type of error must be dealt with on an instrument by instrument basis. Any reconstruction should justify the precision used for each value attained. Please keep in mind that all other errors in this document are due to the recording system, and the lost information in the processed version of its data. The uncertainty caused by the data scheduling into a frame, plus the digital buffering, is in addition to any instrument errors.

False Claim: I already debunked the lagging altimeter nonsense!
(The recording-system errors discussed in this document are in addition to, and independent of, any instrument errors.)

2) Intra-frame Time Error
Since we do not have the frame descriptor, all we know is that N samples are taken during a 1 second period. This means that 1/N of a second is the possible error range for a particular data point. With the frame descriptor, this error would be completely removed if using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The aircraft’s speed at 09:37:14.00 was 305.5 knots!

3) Digital Buffering Latency
One of the most important purposes of the DAU is to buffer digital outputs from things like the ADC (Air Data Computer). It is a reasonably safe assumption that the Air Data Computer updates the DAU at least once per sampling, and more than likely twice. This means that for a 1-Hz sample, recorded into the data stream, the actual measured time could have been anywhere in the entire previous second. This means, combined, a digital reading in the CSV file, like Computed Airspeed, which comes from the Air Data Computer, has an enormous error range, in the vicinity of 2 seconds, although 1.5 seconds is probably a safe estimate (0.5s for the buffering latency, and 1s for the uncertainty of when the sample was actually recorded). More then likely, the raw data stream has embedded the actual measurement times, so this error might be completely removed using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The worst case scenario for the 9:14:14 frame’s airspeed is 9:14:14.00, then!
(Yes, that is the worst case time it could be recorded… not measured).

There's lots more, but it's even more technical. This is one of those cases where I bow to the experts and say "Have at it," because I'm clearly not going to understand the answer at any kind of a detailed level.

On the non-expert level, I just kind of roll my eyes at the thought that the Troofers have that the government faked FDR information for Flight 77 but screwed up and left the plane a couple hundred feet up in midair. What are we supposed to think, that the guy who was assigned to do it is secretly a troofer but doesn't want to lose his job, so he faked the data but left clues that it was fake. Now that PfT has exposed it, wouldn't he lose his job anyway?

Aka, he's nuts:

Tuesday, his attorney Ed Farry told El Paso County District Judge David Gilbert that Sean Fitzgerald doesn't understand the legal proceedings against him and is "incompetent to proceed."

More here:

Based on that report, Gilbert could decide to send Fitzgerald to the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo for a mental health evaluation. Farry says his client is so mentally imbalanced, he does not understand the legal proceedings against him and can't assist in his defense.

But wait a minute! I'm confused! Didn't Fran Shure tell everybody:

"Sean is a very intelligent and sane person."

Aka, he's nuts:

Tuesday, his attorney Ed Farry told El Paso County District Judge David Gilbert that Sean Fitzgerald doesn't understand the legal proceedings against him and is "incompetent to proceed."

More here:

Based on that report, Gilbert could decide to send Fitzgerald to the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo for a mental health evaluation. Farry says his client is so mentally imbalanced, he does not understand the legal proceedings against him and can't assist in his defense.

But wait a minute! I'm confused! Didn't Fran Shure tell everybody:

"Sean is a very intelligent and sane person."

No, no, don't dare call them that! They're just true patriots and anti-Zionists!

Ahem. Over at the Truth Action Forums, where the "responsible" "Truthers" hang out, one of the regular posters has put up a "toons" thread, where people can put up their favorite editorial cartoons. And the selections are quite revealing:









As well as some others that are pretty disgusting.

Cue Jon Gold bitching about guilt by association....

Update: Another Troofer posts a Ted Rall cartoon over there; apparently he's not aware of this one:

No, no, don't dare call them that! They're just true patriots and anti-Zionists!

Ahem. Over at the Truth Action Forums, where the "responsible" "Truthers" hang out, one of the regular posters has put up a "toons" thread, where people can put up their favorite editorial cartoons. And the selections are quite revealing:









As well as some others that are pretty disgusting.

Cue Jon Gold bitching about guilt by association....

Update: Another Troofer posts a Ted Rall cartoon over there; apparently he's not aware of this one:

Or shoot-down, they can't seem to decide which. The latest idiocy from the CIT-heads. How long before their mantra becomes "North of the Elm Tree!"

Or shoot-down, they can't seem to decide which. The latest idiocy from the CIT-heads. How long before their mantra becomes "North of the Elm Tree!"

From the increasingly inaccurately named Veterans for 9/11 Truth mailing list:

The interregnum should be used to put pressure on Obama to do what we want him to: investigate 9/11 properly. If we fail to do this it will be the final proof that the leading figures in our "truth movement" are not on our side at all, but only shills.

Therefore I propose something that no one can disagree with: a new 9/11 Truth Commission headed by David Ray Griffin.

Nothing more or else, because anything more or less would give too many people too many things to argue about and forestall the process. Calls for action must be as simple as possible. Ignore the outcries and specious arguments why this won't work. It will if we do it. If EVERY 9/11 truth group and site takes up this cause 100%, it will happen. Just do it, and watch them show their colors. There is nothing to organize. All you have to do is call for a new investigation headed by David Ray Griffin.

Yeah, that is what we need, an investigation led by someone who has managed to write 7 books on the subject, all without doing any significant investigation or interviews, merely by copying news reports and websites, and someone who admits he doesn't even bother to check his sources, and can't even follow his own argument closely enough:

My point, I thought I made clear, was that although I had not been "intentionally misleading," I had been careless. (I had quoted those statements from secondary sources---three of them from Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate"---without looking them up for myself to read them in context. Also, when I wrote the passage 12 pages later about people "claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane," I failed to realize that the people I had quoted did not specifically claim to have "seen" such a thing but had merely said they thought---as I then falsely believed---that it was either a missile or a small plane.

Yeah, that will find the "truth".

From the increasingly inaccurately named Veterans for 9/11 Truth mailing list:

The interregnum should be used to put pressure on Obama to do what we want him to: investigate 9/11 properly. If we fail to do this it will be the final proof that the leading figures in our "truth movement" are not on our side at all, but only shills.

Therefore I propose something that no one can disagree with: a new 9/11 Truth Commission headed by David Ray Griffin.

Nothing more or else, because anything more or less would give too many people too many things to argue about and forestall the process. Calls for action must be as simple as possible. Ignore the outcries and specious arguments why this won't work. It will if we do it. If EVERY 9/11 truth group and site takes up this cause 100%, it will happen. Just do it, and watch them show their colors. There is nothing to organize. All you have to do is call for a new investigation headed by David Ray Griffin.

Yeah, that is what we need, an investigation led by someone who has managed to write 7 books on the subject, all without doing any significant investigation or interviews, merely by copying news reports and websites, and someone who admits he doesn't even bother to check his sources, and can't even follow his own argument closely enough:

My point, I thought I made clear, was that although I had not been "intentionally misleading," I had been careless. (I had quoted those statements from secondary sources---three of them from Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate"---without looking them up for myself to read them in context. Also, when I wrote the passage 12 pages later about people "claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane," I failed to realize that the people I had quoted did not specifically claim to have "seen" such a thing but had merely said they thought---as I then falsely believed---that it was either a missile or a small plane.

Yeah, that will find the "truth".