Loose Change: Loose with
truth
a second edition of In Plane
Site
9/11 was an inside job, but Loose Change is a hoax
a real conclusion using fake evidence
"What I encourage people to do is go out
and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything
we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors
in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people
discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked
to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia,
things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit
us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your
own conclusions."
-- (ex) Army specialist Korey Rowe, veteran
of Bush's wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, producer of Loose Change
quoted in The Loose Cannon of 9/11, by Michael Slenske, SMITH
Magazine. Posted August 21, 2006. www.alternet.org/story/40476/
"Loose Change really is not a very
fair representation of the 9-11 Truth Movement.
I would recommend 9-11 Press for Truth, 9-11 Mysteries."
-- Dylan Avery, Director, Loose Change
Press for Truth is a good introduction,
but the "Mysteries" film is just as bad as Loose Change.
on this page:
related pages:
A list of films with best evidence of 9/11 complicity is at www.oilempire.us/movies.html
- 911: Press for Truth
- Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and Beyond
- The Truth and Lies of 9/11
- The Great Deception
- The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw
- 9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City, 9/9/2004)
Loose Change, a reworking of the 2004 film In
Plane Site, is the most widely distributed film promoting the
"no planes on 9/11" hoaxes.
Loose Change is based on In Plane Site, but there are three major
differences:
- there are more true claims in Loose Change than in IPS, which
makes the fake parts more believable
- there are new hoaxes (and more of them) in Loose Change than
IPS
- the film is targeted more toward a younger audience (IPS was
not) and is more "hip" and slick in its marketing
While it is usually impossible to know the motivations of the creators
of this mix of real and fake, it is not difficult to discern the intentions
of the mainstream media that focus on Loose Change as representative of
all dissent to the official story. Fox TV, San Francisco Chronicle, Village
Voice, USA Today and other media have
run attack pieces that are free advertising for the film -- since readers
and viewers who have doubts about the official story will assume that
Loose Change is being attacked because it must be telling the truths the
media wants suppressed.
Meanwhile, serious documentaries such as Press
for Truth, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to
Peak Oil and Beyond, 9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City, September
9, 2004), The Great Deception and The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News
Special You Never Saw receive virtually no attention from any newspapers
or television shows, not even to attack their contents.
March 30, 2006
A meal of Fine Food mixed with Dog Shit:
Charlie Sheen, Loose Change and why the media focus on hoaxes.
The 9/11 "truth movement" peaked
two years ago this week at the International
Inquiry in San Francisco. Shortly after that excellent event, the
flood of disinformation and hoax claims
on 9/11 accelerated (probably a response to the success of the Inquiry).
A few months later, the mass media started efforts to discredit 9/11
truth by focusing on the fake claims.
It's an old, old tactic.
If there's any hope for the loose confederation called the 9/11 truth
movement, it would require a shared understanding that the "no
plane hit Pentagon" claim is a hoax designed to discredit us. Fortunately,
the best investigators into 9/11 understand that "no plane"
is not true -- a list of some of them is at www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html Most people who are interested in these issues but unfamiliar with the
details can easily be shown that the "small
hole" claim is fake, that photos of the crash site show plane parts, and that hundreds
of people saw the plane.
There's been some excitement at some websites over the fact that actor
Charlie Sheen has stated he thinks the Bush regime was involved in 9/11.
Sheen was even invited onto a CNN show to talk about this, which has
caused some to think this is a major media breakthrough.
However, this is unlikely to be the outcome. Sheen stated that he didn't
think a plane hit the Pentagon, which in
his case is probably an honest mistake (he obviously did not check the
facts). A follow-up show on CNN with actor Ed Asner and 9/11 author Sander Hicks was abruptly canceled (it's worth noting that Sander's book "The
Big Wedding" mentions how the "no plane" claims are not
true). The media leaders are not dumb - they know that any 9/11 "truth"
coverage should focus on the fake claims and ignore the real ones.
CNN's latest focus on so-called "9/11 truth" is similar to
other media efforts over the past two years. The media would prefer
to ignore 9/11 conspiracy claims, but they have gotten enough traction
(and support) so they cover the story by ensuring that the "no
plane" hoax is at the center of the claims. CNN, Parade, Democracy
Now, The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American and
others have trashed 9/11 activists, focusing
on the hoaxes while largely ignoring the real evidence.
A Greenpeace media guru gave this writer excellent advice a long time
ago: if you are being interviewed and say ten smart things and one dumb
thing, the dumb thing will be on TV. That is the modus operandi of the
media.
It's been sad to watch a number of well-meaning "9/11 activists"
promote the disinformation film "Loose
Change" despite knowing that much of what's in that pseudo-documentary
is nonsense. Loose Change is merely a recycling of the previous hoax
production "In Plane Site,"
a 2004 campaign to distract and discredit 9/11 skeptics before the Kerry/Bush
stolen election. The cover of the Plane Site DVD contained a subtle
admission that it was just a bad joke hidden
in plain sight. The main difference between Loose Change and In
Plane Site is the newer production includes a few more pieces of truth,
since the signal-to-noise ratio in IPS was so poor that many people
understand it was a fake film.
Those who push "Loose Change" ignore the real documentaries
that are high quality: Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11,
The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission
hearing in New York City on September 9, 2004. Links to these and other
films are at www.oilempire.us/movies.html Some of those who suggest that we should promote the fake films do so
because they are free, although there are some real clips on-line that
are free (particularly the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing), although
they don't have fancy graphics or a rock music soundtrack. The fake
film promoters who are sincere seem to assume that while 9/11 was a false flag operation, everyone promoting
"truth" is sincere even if they advocate claims that are absurd
and without evidence.
One political tactic that would be needed for positive change is for
people to learn to "vote with their money" for products made
by people doing good work. Mike
Ruppert and Barrie
Zwicker have done good work to produce documentaries on 9/11, and
they deserve to make back their costs for these efforts.
While no one is likely to be 100% correct in their writings on these
topics, the "no plane" stuff has been debunked for so many
years that anyone still promoting this claim is either uninformed, unwilling
to admit a mistake, or lying.
Mike Ruppert has an excellent commentary today that is must reading
for everyone concerned with the ebbing of the 9/11 truth movement:
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_charlie_sheen.shtml
HEY CHARLIE SHEEN, WAKE UP!
There Are Good Reasons Why 9/11 is Having Its 15 Minutes of Fame Now
– Look at Who’s In the Spotlight
by Michael C. Ruppert
A new website - flight77.info - has an excellent commentary on "Loose Change"
i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective
of people who are skeptical about the official version of happened
on 9/11... but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just
provocative web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their
home page, they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change'
that offers up every crack pot pod missile theory in the book. 'loose change' is out there just to provoke people emotionally. its
substance is in its appeal to teens and twentysomethings.
so why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' aligning themselves with
a tin hat munching 9/11 music video? why are the 'scholars for 9/11
truth' also promoting the no 757 theory? answer: the web site is just
provocative. it's using the blanket (AKA 'big tent'; throwing enough
shit at the wall) approach to attract more people to the concept that
9/11 was an inside job. then by magic, one of these new people will
uncover the proof we need to hang the true conspirators.
what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler?
bueler?
once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish
line, they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people
lose interest. we need to get 'em for 9//11 while they're in office
if we're going to end this endless war on terrorism.
so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall
approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics
into 9/11 goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2
years looking at the same old pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee,
that IS a small hole...' and who will spend endless hours replaying
the WTC video trying to see the missile pods.
what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a
member - but we're all full of shit reciting misinformation?
the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement isn't to have more members
- it's to end the war on terrorism while it's still possible. and
time is really running out.
| 9/11
truth activists debunk Loose Change |
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060706_questions_grave.shtml
THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE
As Sad As It Was Predictable
Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit
Authentic 9/11 Research
by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht
I have watched “Loose Change” and in my expert opinion
it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute
maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: “Disinformation, in order
to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”
Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including
images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly
debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon.
This film is so slickly produced (and on such a large budget) that it
is hard to believe that amateur filmmakers could have made it. Once
the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they
are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense,
and that was the film’s intent.
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/06/if-i-only-had-plane.html
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
If I Only Had a Plane
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell - Lou Reed
It hasn't been a month since Salon's Farhad Manjoo declared case closed
on 2004 election fraud. (The abbreviated argument, via Sadly, No: "There
may have been widespread election fraud in 2004, but what really gets
me steamed is the zany conspiracy theory that it might have affected
the election.”) But he's already back to slay another conspiracy
dragon with "The 9/11 deniers." And yes, that's the implication:
to dispute the finding of the Kean commission is to make yourself a
fellow traveller with Holocaust revisionists. (Though truthfully, we
need to be careful about what company we keep.)
Is Gerald Posner glancing anxiously over his shoulder? The 28 year old
Manjoo seems to be making a run for his title of Alpha Debunker. His
prejudicial deference to authority, his selection and deselection of
evidence, his strawmen and his sarcastic disdain for contrary thought
should grease his way to great success. And conventional wisdom's eager-to-please
houseboy has already come a long way since his 2000 graduation, "with
apparently no advanced degrees in social science or political science."
Predictably enough, Manjoo's representative text of 9/11 conspiracy
is the flypaper Loose Change, which he calls "something like a
film version of a highly contested Wikipedia page." (Suggesting
a certain shallowness of thought Manjoo's wiki fixation runs deep, as
demonstrated by his cut and paste blog, What I Learned on Wikipedia
Today.) Manjoo's critique of Dylan Avery's work is almost wholly borrowed
from Jim Hoffman's "Sifting Through Loose Change", and though
he credits Hoffman, he also studiously ignores Hoffman's far more credible
case for conspiracy.
Following Salon's RFK Jr hit piece, Bob Fitrakis wrote that "Manjoo
is much like the Tobacco Institute or the people they used to send around
to show us film strips about 'Readi Kilowatt' back during the Cold War.
They are individuals who have developed a cottage industry as debunkers
and denialists. And in a society famed for Know Nothings an anti-intellectualism,
of course an opportunist like Manjoo would come forward."
True. And much the same could be said of Dylan Avery. The 9/11 movement
remains a creature of the general culture that rewards style and flash
over substance and reflection. The dumbed down is raised up, and a scattershot
of distortions and faulty assumptions is too often mistaken for argument.
(Avery even shares Manjoo's wikipedia fixation, citing it with authority
in Loose Change.)
Debunkers and disinformation artists aren't always found in the alphabet
soups of intelligence agencies. Often, they're just working for themselves,
trying to establish their names in whatever fields they've staked out
by launching them into the prevailing winds. And frequently, Looking
Out for Number One means you've got the Company's back whether you know
it or not. Manjoo and Avery deserve each other. Now, how about the rest
of us?
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x79026
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 07:49 AM by bronco2121
i know it has become unpopular (for some reason) on DU to criticize
the new direction of the... well, i wouldn't call it the '9/11
truth movement' anymore - it's now more like the 'big tent 9/11 anything-coulda-happened
movement'.
so if you're the kind whose eyes might bleed if you read anything critical
of either the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' or the happy shiny music video
known as 'loose change'... DO NOT view these URLs:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
bronco
flight77.info
UPDATE 3/24/6 - flight77.info
i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective of
people who are skeptical about the official version of happened on 9/11...
but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just provocative
web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their home page,
they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' that offers
up every crack pot pod missile theory in the book. 'loose change'
is out there just to provoke people emotionally. its substance is in
its appeal to teens and twentysomethings. so why are the 'scholars
for 9/11 truth' aligning themselves with a tin hat munching 9/11 music
video? why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' also promoting the no 757
theory? answer: the web site is just provocative. it's using the blanket
(AKA 'big tent'; throwing enough shit at the wall) approach to attract
more people to the concept that 9/11 was an inside job. then by magic,
one of these new people will uncover the proof we need to hang the true
conspirators.
what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler?
bueler?
once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish
line, they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people lose
interest. we need to get 'em for 9/11 while they're in office if we're
going to end this endless war on terrorism.
so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall
approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics
into 9/11 goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2 years
looking at the same old pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee, that IS
a small hole...' and who will spend endless hours replaying the WTC
video trying to see the missile pods.
what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a member -
but we're all full of shit reciting misinformation?
the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement isn't to have more members -
it's to end the war on terrorism while it's still possible. and time
is really running out.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
Sifting Through Loose Change
The 9-11Research Companion to
LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
using an illustrated transcript
SUMMARY
VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
VOLUME 2: THE
PENTAGON
VOLUME 3: THE
WORLD TRADE CENTER
VOLUME 4: UNITED
FLIGHT 93
VOLUME 5: ODDITIES
www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
In 2005, almost a year after In Plane Site was released, a second video
began to be promoted on websites such as TvNewsLIES.org : Loose Change,
a video that pushed most of the same hoaxes as In Plane Site, but in
a different style. Whereas the Von Kleist video, coming from the right-wing
PowerHour, seemed designed to appeal to people in the "red states",
Dylan Avery's video seems to aim for audiences in the "blue states".
The cover of Loose Change contains the following text:
What if:
The Twin Towers were not hit by commercial airliners?
The World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition?
The Pentagon was not hit by a 757?
Flight 93 was shot down?
What if?
This promotion, and the video itself, employ a classic method of disinformation:
sandwiching valid claims between nonsensical ones.
The producers of Loose Change are young and relatively new to the 9/11
Truth Movement. The film draws on an broad array of websites focused
on 9/11 for information. Given how well-established and expertly-marketed
the no-jetliners theories are, it is entirely plausible that Loose Change
represents a well-intentioned but poorly-researched effort to expose
the 9/11 coverup.
It is less likely that some of the people promoting Loose Change have
only the best intentions. Articles in the Village Voice and
San Francisco Chronicle pull out the stops to promote Loose Change,
apparently as a way of eclipsing more credible work exposing the attack
as an inside job.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
Copyright Michael B. Green August 3, 2005
"Loose Change"
An analysis by Michael B. Green
I have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers
who try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget
a simple essential point. Because 911 (JFK, etc.) are not ordinary crimes,
but crimes of state, they cannot be proven by simple forensic means.
The proof of any such crimes requires rethinking our picture of the
means of government from the ground up. People naturally do not wish
to do this, and are propagandized to believe the contrary, so any effort
to get their attention should be with evidence that is simple, clear,
and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious or debatable. I do not
pretend that this is enough. Orwellian "stop think" provides
that "protective stupidity" that allows us to function in
comfort and it is both difficult and painful to abandon. ...
If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the
attention of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for
an hour-long DVD, or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better
use clear hard facts for persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously
supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the crimes
try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating moles
that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical
questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to prove
the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into
pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumm ones, is
to divert its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story
simply and clearly.
... If Mr. VonKleist [the spokesperson for "In
Plane Site"] is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset,
then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles
as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t
draw a salary.
www.911review.com/reviews/sfgate/markup/longlive.html
Critique of the San Francisco Chronicle's
'Long Live The 9/11 Conspiracy! Anyone still care about the heap of disturbing,
unsolved questions surrounding Our Great Tragedy?'
March 29, 2006
This article was published in both print and electronic versions of
the San Francisco Chronicle on March 29, 2006. That was one day before
David Ray Griffin, one of the foremost critics of the official account
of 9/11, addressed an audience of hundreds at the Grand Lake Theater
in Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco. ... Morford promotes
Loose Change, a video that mixes real evidence of official complicity
in the attacks with hoaxes that effectively discredit that evidence
by association.
www.unknownnews.org/06M11-M17d-316grafdog.html
Loose Change comes up short in logic and clarity (a review)
www.unknownnews.org/06M04-M10d-309jh.html
Loose Change and Flight 93's human remains
by Jeff H., Mar. 9, 2006
www.unknownnews.net/cdd052002.html
one of the best articles on how 9/11 was done (from 2002)
| Loose
Change debunking from official story supporters (yet
most of their critiques have merit) |
October 1, 2006 by Rolling Stone
I, Left Gatekeeper
Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind"
sci-fi series read like Shakespeare
by Matt Tabbi
I have no doubt that every time one
of those Loose Change dickwads opens
his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there
were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this
whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove
as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy
hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where
campaign reporters were staying.
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
www.loosechangeguide.com
www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide
Summary of "Loose Change Second Edition" Errors of
Commission
Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25
Total flubs: 426
This review debunks the disinformation in "Loose Change" -
this analysis is mostly correct, but it is too repelled by the nonsense
in the film to examine the credible claims that
9/11 was allowed to happen (and probably
given technical assistance).
A sample problem with the review - it claims that Lee Harvey Oswald killed
President Kennedy, implying that to say otherwise
is an example of how conspiracy theorists exaggerate and mispresent reality.
But if you ignore this sort of naive support for the official view of
history, the review has a lot of excellent deconstruction of this alleged
documentary - perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the review is accurate debunking,
the inverse of the "truth" ratio of Loose Change (which is perhaps
80 to 90 percent erroneous).
| Loose
Change and stolen video images (not "fair use") |
www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/
Two French filmmakers, who accompanied New York firefighters into the
World Trade Centre on 9/11, are threatening to sue the makers of 9/11
conspiracy web documentary Loose Change, claiming the movie infringes
their copyright.
Loose Change, one of the top downloads on Google Video and YouTube, is
an 81 minute long documentary, crammed with TV news footage and still
photographs, which alleges that the 9/11 attacks were not the result of
terrorism, but a series of cleverly executed events carried out by the
Bush administration. It suggests that American Airlines Flight 77 could
not have crashed into the Pentagon, that the
actual collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were
triggered by explosions, and that United Airlines Flight
93 did not terminate in rural Pennsylvania, but landed safely at Cleveland
Hopkins Airport
[note: this last hoax was first published by America's
leading neo-Nazi newspaper, the "American
Free Press"].
Loose Change began as a fictional story about 9/11 conspiracy theories,
but when film maker Dylan Avery, who is in his early twenties, started
researching, he became a believer himself. Edited on a $1,500 Compaq laptop,
using Adobe Premiere and After Effects, the movie was released on DVD
first, then unleashed on the web. Since then, more than two million people
have downloaded the movie. Until recently, it was still available on a
DVD for $17.95. Avery says that over 50,000 copies have been sold. A heavily
edited version is still intended for cinema screening at the fifth anniversary
of 9/11 in September 2006.
Although praised by 9/11 conspiracists, the documentary has also been
widely criticised. Mark Roberts, who compiled the Loose Change Viewer
Guide, says he counted 81 "errors of fact and instances of conjecture
not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not
support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs".
It is a copyright dispute that is currently causing problems for the Loose
Change makers right now though.
In a certified letter sent to Dylan Avery, lawyers for Jules and Gedeon
Naudet, makers of the renowned documentary 9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative
Edition, say they have never endorsed nor sponsored the controversial
views in the film. The brothers captured what is thought to be the only
footage of the first plane hitting the North tower
"It is clear that your intent is not to spread a controversial message
but rather to profit," the lawyers conclude. They have identified
at least 14 videofragments, including interviews with firemen. The Naudet
Brothers, backed by distributor Paramount, are demanding $150,000 for
each act of willful infringement.
Although Avery has removed the movie from his site, and says "he
fully cooperates with the Naudet brothers", he still encourages viewing
the movie on Google Video.
But maybe not for long. Google says it only accepts video uploads from
persons who hold all necessary rights to the uploaded material.
"Our policy is to respond to any notices of alleged infringement
that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)," the
company says. "If we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to
believe that content you submitted infringes another party's copyright,
your account may be terminated and the video removed from Google Video."
A spokesman for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz confirmed the firm was
handling a case for the Naudets, but refused to comment further.
| Loose
Change and the pod people |
911 LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION WITH EXTRA FOOTAGE
By Phil Jayhan and Korey Rowe
1 hr 21 min 50 sec
February 5, 2005
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
www.loosechange911.com
[note: Mr. Jayhan is one of the main promoters of the "pod"
thesis that a missile was supposedly fired at the WTC a split second
before the plane hit the building. In reality, the "pod" under
the plane is just a photo of the normal bulge between the wings, nothing
more. The "In Plane Site" film, which is predicated on the
pod claim, admits this fact by placing a photo used to debunk the "pod"
claim on the cover of the DVD -- it's just a
bad joke hidden in plain sight.]
"This is the best damn 9-11 documentary out there."
-- Dave vonKleist, Producer of "911In Plane Site"
[note: Mr. vonKleist's film In Plane Site
is widely regarded as the worst damn 9-11 documentary. Its conclusion
(inside job) is correct, but nearly every "fact" in the film
is fake. Loose Change is just a recycling of In Plane Site, although
with many more hoaxes than Plane Site.]
Loose Change is an extremely hard hitting, heavily referenced documentary.
It has the best footage that I have seen to date, of all the bombs and
explosions going off at the World Trade Center. He covers each individual
aspect of 9/11 in keen detail, and after watching 'Loose Change' it is
almost impossible to walk away and not believe that 9/11 was engineered,
not by Osama, but by our own Government.
[note: it is just as likely that many who watch the film will understand
that many of the claims are unsubstantiated, and dismiss the idea of
complicity. Some buy the bait without checking and become proselytizers
for the film, which further increases polarization that makes accountability
less likely.]
Heres a quote from Tom Flocco regarding Dylan Avery's brand new 911
documentary
"...The best packaged DVD footage for sharing actual TV coverage
and interviews shown only once during WTC / Pentagon attacks -- evidence
strangely removed from repeat broadcasts ...striking visual and narrative
analysis--shown frame by frame --pointing to government-linked mass murder
and a new Pearl Harbor ...every school class should see!
[note: Mr. Flocco is a promoter of the "no plane" hoax. One
of the lowest point in 9/11 related pseudo-journalism was Flocco's publication
of a story claiming that a victim on Flight 77 was arrested in Europe
for money laundering -- www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html#tomflocco
has the article archived]
"Loose Change 2nd Edition" is the follow-up to the most provocative
9-11 documentary on the market today. This film shows direct connection
between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government.
Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important,
Americans who suffered through that tragic day.
[note: 9/11 was an inside job, but Loose Change is a hoax.]
|
