9/11- REAL TRUTH; Simplification of situation

I've never even seen Loose Change.. I tried to watch it once, but the narrator's voice made me want to pluck my pubes out, so I turned it off after 4 minutes.

9/11 TRUTH IS NOT BASED ON THE OPINIONS OF ONE NERDY DEUCHE

This article means absolutely nothing

and for any fans of loose change that are suddenly finding themselves confused, here is the documentary you should have watched in the first place...

Cracked is often funny, but to use them as a credible source of evidence for anything is absurd. They are pretty much the pinacle of self-reighteous internet memes deriding other people for not towing the official line of belief. Again they are funny, but you can't use their opinion as proof of anything.

Moreover, I see a debunking of Loose Change, which even CTs agree is flawed. And again the same pattern of painting all CTs as crazy because of what one video says.

Its also pretty annoying that the entire discussion always comes down to Controlled Demolition. Even if the buildings came down how they said they did, there's way more loose ends and convenient coincidences out there that need explaining.

reply to post by MuchTooSerious

I could take this blog more seriously if the guy hadn't posted blatant lies. In addition to the comment pointed out in one response, he also posted this lie:
"Here's why. The entire 9/11 "Truth" movement rests on the idea that the World Trade Center towers were rigged with explosives, a "Controlled Demolition" like you see with old buildings. That's the whole thing. They say the buildings couldn't have come down otherwise."

That's not true either. There are people in the truth movement that believe in a LIHOP theory and a MIHOP theory. Their theories are different but they are in agreement with one thing. That there needs to be a new, independent investigation. That is what scares OS believers; that they'll find out that there was a cover-up at the highest branches.

reply to post by The Baby Seal Club


I'm an OS and I signed the petition for the new independent investigation. Why? Because it'll just reaffirm everything we've been saying and they truthers can stop capitalizing off of a tragic event. Were not scared of the truther movement.

Cracked is a satirical magazine thats gone digital on the internet like many other magazines had to....
The key word is SATIRE people.
Heres a peek into Dick Cheneys Emails via Cracked hack....

www.cracked.com...

These guys know how to really hurt a fellow dont they?
They could become the ideal roast hosts of the century
Because thats their job...roast everything.......
regards s
ps loved the article
but nearly died laughing at the mailbox peek....

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
The thing I wonder about is that supposedly they have the outside of the Pentagon under CCTV watch, yet there is no video footage of a plane hitting it?
If there is, please show me and I'll gladly stand corrected

They have lots of footage of the events at the Pentagon. They just wont show it because.......uhhh....

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Cracked is often funny, but to use them as a credible source of evidence for anything is absurd. They are pretty much the pinacle of self-reighteous internet memes deriding other people for not towing the official line of belief. Again they are funny, but you can't use their opinion as proof of anything.

Moreover, I see a debunking of Loose Change, which even CTs agree is flawed. And again the same pattern of painting all CTs as crazy because of what one video says.

Its also pretty annoying that the entire discussion always comes down to Controlled Demolition. Even if the buildings came down how they said they did, there's way more loose ends and convenient coincidences out there that need explaining.

Maybe Cracked is right.. who knows. Though I do find it interesting that the Avery guy hasn't made any movies since.. hmmm... seems like an "aspiring director" would once he had the money to.

But my point is, sort of like what you were getting to at the end of your comment... even if Cracked is right and he's a liar, even if it turns out Alex Jones and Luke Rudowski are liars and schills, even if it was proven that a plane DID hit the pentagon or whatever, it would really make a difference because there are just sooo mannnyy freaakiiinnggg hooolleess inn the stooorrrryyyyy. Even if all of our thousands of questions about that day BUT ONE were answered, and answered in favor of the official story, it would still be THAT ONE question that proves it's BS. That's the nature of a lie

Originally posted by stirling
Cracked is a satirical magazine thats gone digital on the internet like many other magazines had to....
The key word is SATIRE people.
Heres a peek into Dick Cheneys Emails via Cracked hack....

www.cracked.com...

These guys know how to really hurt a fellow dont they?
They could become the ideal roast hosts of the century
Because thats their job...roast everything.......
regards s
ps loved the article
but nearly died laughing at the mailbox peek....

Ahh that's right... I should have realized when I was reading the part about James Gandolfini. It's funny when satirical articles slip through the cracks... I was damn sure that the whole Lady Gaga's hair dresser-says she's a devil worshiper story thing was satire, but I don't think it was. Very funny story nonetheless (the Lady Gaga one that is)

Originally posted by Talltexxxan


They have lots of footage of the events at the Pentagon. They just wont show it because.......uhhh....

Do they really? Wow! You must have seen this footage else you wouldn't make such a silly and childish claim!

How did you see this footage you say they have "lots" of and you should be able to go to each of the camera sites and show us the FOV that would so definitively show us the crash.

Unless you are just flappin' your pie hole an you know nothing about any footage and all you do is just repeat, by rote and ad nauseum and without any thought, critical or otherwise applied to it, any piece of bull crap you read on some truther site.

anytime i see an article defending zionism and making ad hominem attacks against someone's character and not presenting contrary evidence pretty much sends up a flag to me, and that flag happens to have a big star on it and looks suspiciously like the israeli flag...............

reply to post by MuchTooSerious


Sadly, a humor website has better, more reliable for sources for it's info than most truther sites.

i remember Dylan Avery's completely banal, juvinile, and lowlife mocking of 9/11 victims when it was first broadcast years ago. The sad thing is, he isn't the only one. There are a number of other "truth" spokespeople and groups that have really pushed the boundaries of decency,respectability, and credibility as well. Huffschmidt, Walters, CIT, Nico Haupt, just the memorable ones off the top of my head.

And the Truth movement wonders why people don't take them seriously, or hold them with utter contempt. Maybe when their loudest spokespeople grow up and stop behaving like utter douchebags, then maybe people won't feel like punching them in the mouth everytime one of them opens their obnoxious gobs.

Good find though. Gave me a few chuckles.