| CODE |
| http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-change-gets-spanked.html |
| CODE |
| http://media2.uploadjar.com/uploads/911_loose_change_vie15a3eb.pdf |
| QUOTE (grandtheftcountry @ May 7 2006, 05:32 PM) |
| There's this guy who calls himself "Conspiracysmasher" that is going around doing damage control for the fed story on several websites that host forums for 9/11-related issues. I first encountered him on the RottenTomatoes.com website and clicked his link for his blogspot page. I checked out the Loose Change Gets Spanked link and there's a downloadable PDF that tries to take an ax to the film in a big way. He does raise a few good points, but most of his arguments are weak as hell, and the entire work is riddled with ridicule and name-calling tactics. The only good thing about this piece is that it puts the facts in check, and actually lends some more information and investigation to the story. So what does this have to do with Mark Roberts? Well, this "anonymously" authored hit-piece contains the username the person uses to login to his computer everyday and even displays the location of the file on his computer [desktop/911 activism]. The name is Mark Roberts. He anonymously wrote this piece "to avoid being harrassed by CTists." [Just so you know, "CT", according to Roberts, is short for "Conspiracy Theorists", which means that "CTists" actually translates to "Conspiracy Theoristsists."] He thought he could blow up Loose Change's spot, but it looks like he blew his own in the process. He says that he spent 6 days working on it so that he could get it to Dylan before the United 93 demonstration. Wow! What conviction! He actually transcribed the movie word-for-word [and poorly, I might add], included screenshots, and even did a lot of his own research. But the piece comes off as if it was written by a professional 9/11 debunker, who resorts to adolescent criticisms that don't hold up. Has anyone else seen this garbage critique? |
| QUOTE (popol vuh @ May 8 2006, 10:04 AM) |
| One more time, for the learning impaired. LC2E doesn't owe anyone any explanations as they- 1) Didn't plan and pull off 911. 2) Didn't aid and abet the coverup/investigation. 3) Don't have a budget of billions of dollars and a staff of thousands to make this film. If Mark Roberts is so concerned about finding flaws in a storyline, I have one he should dig into. Tell him to drop me a line and I'll point him in the right direction. |
| QUOTE (popol vuh @ May 8 2006, 06:04 PM) |
| One more time, for the learning impaired. LC2E doesn't owe anyone any explanations as they- 1) Didn't plan and pull off 911. 2) Didn't aid and abet the coverup/investigation. 3) Don't have a budget of billions of dollars and a staff of thousands to make this film. If Mark Roberts is so concerned about finding flaws in a storyline, I have one he should dig into. Tell him to drop me a line and I'll point him in the right direction. |
| QUOTE |
| He thought he could blow up Loose Change's spot, but it looks like he blew his own in the process. He says that he spent 6 days working on it so that he could get it to Dylan before the United 93 demonstration. Wow! What conviction! He actually transcribed the movie word-for-word [and poorly, I might add], included screenshots, and even did a lot of his own research. But the piece comes off as if it was written by a professional 9/11 debunker, who resorts to adolescent criticisms that don't hold up. Has anyone else seen this garbage critique? |
| CODE |
| http://911myths.com/html/mark_roberts.html |
| CODE |
| http://tinyurl.com/epp82 |
| CODE |
| http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8 |
| QUOTE |
| I love the fact that one of them said how poor my transcription was, when in fact it was cut and pasted directly from the Loose Change site. I just didn't correct their typos and other errors. Somebody please tell them that I'd be glad to defend my work, but I'm banned from their site, so they'll need to come over here for discussion or email me. |