Youtube hype

[sleeplessdwarf]

I logged into youtube to day and got the usual pre 9-11 prediction vid. I am new to the debunking side of this subject so my question is what is the best way to explain this to CTs? The usual "if it was a secret plan, then they wouldn't leak it" doesn't work these days due to Bush not really caring when he plans to do something not quite legal. Examples like torture, domestic spying etc. They are even leaking that he might give a blanket pardon to anyone involved in the above samples, and I doubt he minds much that people know. Now that I often point people to the loose change debunking sites, and other helpful places like JREF, I am presented with all the early indicators to 9-11. From what I can gather it was a popular scenario in hollywood to think that the US needed an attack in order to fund the military machine. From the movie Long Kiss Goodnight, to the crap show Lone gunmen, CTist often use these as a way to at the very least cast doubt. So since I am sure this has been discussed here before, I look forward to knowing the best way to debunk these without just saying "your a nut case." :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

[sleeplessdwarf]

Oh, and my favorite part is the other vids from this poster. Proof that the earth is GROWING? Have I missed something? Guess there is no need for the NWO to control population if this is the case.

[mrbaracuda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

Oh my, what hard evidence have we here? :D
Have they also brought up the passport in the movie "Matrix"? Hehe.

[sleeplessdwarf]

Not yet, but I did see that one over at infowars, along with the simpson's comic cover. :D

[mrbaracuda]

Oh that's such a classic! :D
In all honesty though, after about 7 years and the same claims and additional BS nowadays, I think "your a nut case" is just the right thing to say.

[neltana]

Oh, and my favorite part is the other vids from this poster. Proof that the earth is GROWING? Have I missed something? Guess there is no need for the NWO to control population if this is the case.

Just as a minor derail, Wired did a great write-up of the Growing Earth theories of Neal Adams. I was dismayed to find that this is indeed the Neal Adams of comic book fame.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.03/adams_pr.html

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

[CORed]

I think debunking in Youtube comments is an excercise in futility. The 500 word limit for comments does not lend itself to well-reasoned arguments, and Youtube seems to be a giant idiot-magnet. I tried for awhile there to debunk some of the "run your car on water" and "over-unity" scammers, only to be told that the modern science had proven the law of conservation of energy was incorrect and be accused of shilling for the oil companies.

[fullflavormenthol]

I think debunking in Youtube comments is an excercise in futility. The 500 word limit for comments does not lend itself to well-reasoned arguments, and Youtube seems to be a giant idiot-magnet. I tried for awhile there to debunk some of the "run your car on water" and "over-unity" scammers, only to be told that the modern science had proven the law of conservation of energy was incorrect and be accused of shilling for the oil companies.
Yep. Hey trying explaining things to the moon landing hoax believers. Even after explaining differences in the escape velocities of the Earth and the Moon, and bringing up the lack of air resistance and other factors on the moon; I was still called a government shill by the CT'ists.

[CORed]

Yep. Hey trying explaining things to the moon landing hoax believers. Even after explaining differences in the escape velocities of the Earth and the Moon, and bringing up the lack of air resistance and other factors on the moon; I was still called a government shill by the CT'ists.

"The shadows are at different angles. That proves that there were two sources of light."

Well actually, genius, if there were two sources of light each object would be casting two shadows. (just a quick debunking of my favorite bit hoax believer stupiditiy.)

Actually, I think Buzz Aldrin had the right approach to moon landing hoax believers. He punched one in the nose a few years ago. It probably didn't make the hoax believer any smarter, but I bet it felt good.

[fullflavormenthol]

"The shadows are at different angles. That proves that there were two sources of light."

Well actually, genius, if there were two sources of light each object would be casting two shadows. (just a quick debunking of my favorite bit hoax believer stupiditiy.)

Actually, I think Buzz Aldrin had the right approach to moon landing hoax believers. He punched one in the nose a few years ago. It probably didn't make the hoax believer any smarter, but I bet it felt good.
I almost feel like that. I mean I am not a scientist. Nevertheless after a semester of physics I was able to have my head explode upon hearing these ideas.