Was 9/11 an Inside Job? In depth look at Loose Change and the people who made it.

"It is pretty bad when an article sets out to debunk a claim by stating they never actually viewed the claim.  Which means they must have surmised or been told of the claim(s) by a third party."

Oh, man, Powell.  I could not agree more! Like, in this article, where Wong says, "Meanwhile, I had a good chuckle the first time I saw the Loose Change end credits, where they boast research done by 'Killtown.'"  Who the hell skips directly to the end credits of a movie and writes an article? 

More precisely, who skips directly to the end credits of a movie MULTIPLE TIMES and then writes an article?

Of course, nowhere does Wong actually say he didn't watch the movie, but, as you point out, it's obvious that he hasn't otherwise why mention watching the end credits MULTIPLE TIMES?

I mean, seriously, why can't the humor 'zine Cracked provide point-by-point refutation of Loose Change like thousands of other websites across whole damn internet?

It is pretty bad when an article sets out to debunk a claim by stating they never actually viewed the claim.  Which means they must have surmised or been told of the claim(s) by a third party.

They then proceed to "debunk" the claim(s) not by refuting the presented evidence, but with ad hominem arguments.  Attacking the presenter is not a refutation of the claims, it is a lack of refutation.