tirsdag 16. september 2008

Very, very loose change

Før du ser den såkalte dokumentaren, og går fem på slik jeg gjorde (fordi jeg er så naiv at jeg tror folk ikke lyver...), les gjennom denne listen først (fra Screw Loose Change:

The Top Lies and Deceptions of Loose Change 1-10

Some of these are a bit redundant, since we have already covered many of the topics, but I wanted to produce a list of the top lies and deceptions of Loose Change. As you can tell from reading this blog and the Reader's Guide, there are literally hundreds of things wrong with the movie, but I wanted to compile a short (relatively speaking) list of the ones that really slap you in the face. I will probably post this up as a DOC or a PDF eventually. More to follow... 1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines, Truth: Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place. Source 2. Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock. Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock. Source 3. Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane. Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time. Source 4. Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane. Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source 5. Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves. Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Source 6. Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source 7. Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines. Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source 8. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior. Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. The engine in question is consistent with that of the Rolls-Royce RB211 used by the 757. Source and here 9. Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp. Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response. Source 10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757? Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source posted by James B. @ 5:40 PM
For mer informasjon om den mest populære løgnen i disse dager, gå til Screw Loose Change @ Blogspot