Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics

Youtube has up debate between the Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas of Loose Change (writer/director and researcher respectively) plus editor-in-chief James B. Meigs and executive editor David Dunbar (both of Popular Mechanics).

9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

September 11, 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called "Loose Change." Now, a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics, it's called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, we host a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 9/11.

Jak

its kind of a bad debate because the loose change kids are just that the james avery kid argues in a very immature way and the popular mechanics guys are polished and mature about how they present their information...other then that though i give the edge to the popular mechanics guys

I agree. Why did they say yes to debate with the Loose Change guys and say no to the Scholars of 9/11 Truth? I'd say they'd have a harder time debating with the scholars than a couple of early 20 somethings. But, I'll reserve my response until I have seen the debate.

Anything new come out of this?

best exchange in the video is when the pop. mech. guy says that underwriter labs doesnt certify steel...and you just hear crickets from the loose change kids...after i just watched it again it was really stupid of the loose change kids to agree to this debate...there only comeback was that the pop mech guys were lieing...and the pop mech guys even had a response to that by saying this is what a lot of CTers do they yell that you are lieing...

"I'm not calling anyone a liar ... I'm calling you a liar, sir."

certainly doesn't aide in making one's case nor point.

Personally, I don't think either side "proved" anything in this so-called debate. Although I would have to credit the gentlemen from PM with at least maintianing their composure, and not letting their emotions get the best of them.


$.02

I still think they did a good job on the interview. They choked up POP-MECH in the first part of the debate very well. How can POP-MECH set there and say there was proof a plane crashed into the pentagon? LOL

OK, POP-Mech admited that cell phones work at altitude of 35k... LIE!

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Techsnow]

There was something that I notice from the Part 2 video:

Who took that picture of the blast from across the highway? It's in between the 1:45 and 2:10 of the video.

Who would've known to take a picture of the blast from that location? Could it be from video camera? Also, could this individual have a picture of what really hit the Pentagon?

Interesting.

The 9/11 Scholars would have done the exact same thing.

When a valid point is raised by the Popular Mechanics debaters they would scream "Liar!" and then change the subject.

They were talking about evidence of an aircraft hitting the pentagon and the Loose Change kids start brining up the 'stand-down order'? You can't just bring up irrelevant facts. Regardless, the Popular Mechanics debaters debunked it anyway.

And a quote from a YouTube user that I fully agree with:

"...A sure sign of someone who has VERY little idea of what they're talking about and is losing a debate is constant smirking, shaking of the head, and anxiety. Just take a look at that dark headed dumba** from Loose Change."

Originally posted by Techsnow
OK, POP-Mech admited that cell phones work at altitude of 35k... LIE!

No, that's actually the truth.

www.slate.com...

"According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."