A message to our Loose Change debunkers

[truthmover]

Your pursuit is rather reactionary. This certainly could be a reputable effort considering that Loose Change has its ambigous moments, and runs with a couple of hypotheses that many in the movement do not favor. Personally, I'm really looking forward to seeing the next version. While I respect the pursuit of truth and which ever direction it may lead, I think this effort to debunk Loose Change is a bit misguided for the following reasons.

First of all, while the movie is our most popular, it is far from the only 9/11 movie that gets peoples attention. After many see the movie they are curious, and seek out other sources for further information. For this reason, attacking Loose Change is not likely to dubunk the whole movement. What do you guys have to say about Press for Truth? This action seems to be the work of people who don't really understand the movement as they respond to it.

Second, debunking Loose Change is easy. Debunking 9/11 is easy. For that matter, debunking just about anything is easy. There is an ever growing mainstream response to the movement attempting to debunk our claims. This in itself signals the rise of the movement. In other words, an anti-Loose Change crew may actually help promote the significance of 9/11 truth. The very premise of your actions may be faulty. Two kinds of people will go to your debunking site. People who happen upon it and then watch the movie as a result, and people who want to find fault with the movie and seek you out. Guess what? The 9/11 truth movement isn't presently trying to convince the people likely to find your arguments entirely compelling. 42% question the offical story, but don't have all the facts. Personally, I don't think this effort will draw many of our target audience away from exporing the issue for themselves.

Third, I will actually be sending people in the movement to your site to examine contradictory arguments. We are not ignoring you. In fact, most likely you are being intensely studied by the 9/11 research community. A great number of people in the movement are highly informed about 9/11, and educated in general. We may know more about you than you do about us. Your effort seems so full of the confidence provided by assertion of the norm. Its kind of like wearing the latest fashion. You will be just as confident as the designer intended.

Finally, while you may feel your intentions to be in the best interest of all, and I would not assume that you had unspecified objectives, you link to a series of websites, very much like a larger cadre of sites that recently hit, just in the last couple of months. Suddenly there are dozens of 9/11 truth debunking sites. Most of them appear to have been authored by people with conservative ideology. There are exceptions. Some of them are undoubtedly the work of counter-intelligence programs. Which ones? The significant point here is that they all showed up at about the same time, and all feature the same bland recitation of the maintream view. Guess what? Everyone already knows the mainstream view. Anyone newly curious about 9/11 is looking for something different.

In any case, I am not presently disparaging the character of any one person or organization. If there is any one thing that everyone in the movement is perfectly clear about, its the fact that our biggest adversary is ignorance of history and geopolitics. The entire system rises to challenge our insight. And yet our movement is quickly growing, gaining a lot more attention than anyone trying to debunk our cause.

The 9/11 truth movement has established PROBABLE CAUSE to SUSPECT that undetermined members of our government, military, and intelligence services were COMPLICIT in the attacks. The previous statement is legally and historically valid. Get used to it, cause you will not be successful in making that truth disappear.

- Jules

P.S. Regardless of whether or not I favor every scene in Loose Change, those guys are majorly kicking ass for the movement. They are generating curiosity and leading people to question their assumptions. My hats off to Dylan, Jason, and Corey.

[greyl]

1. Since Avery said that lies were left in Loose Change intentionally,

have you tried to figure out what they were?

[JackRiddler]

2. Why bother?

LC/LC2 has done a great job as a work of marketing for spreading certain conclusions - for the most part, I must sadly say, using illogic and the wrong evidence. It contributes nothing new to 9/11 research, tends to focus on speculative dead ends or canards, and gets many key points wrong.

All irrelevant.

Those who set out to debunk LC2 can at best only debunk LC2. In no way does an LC2 debunking 1) support the official story or 2) argue against the case for 9/11 skepticism, which was broad and deep long before LC2 arrived.

When I see "debunkers" take on Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, Jim Hoffman and other real researchers, I'll be more impressed.

[FoxOnTheRun]

3. I don't think research is the problem (Jones and others have enough evid.)

,propaganda is what we need. The other side has no facts but all the propaganda. And they could maintain the official story for many people for a long time.

[greyl]

4. I think it's a serious mistake to

paint the 9/11 debates in such black & white terms.
There are many more sides than yours and "the other" one.

When I speak out against avery, rowe, bermas and LooseChange, I'm trying to remove their bullshit from the debate so that other issues may get their due.

[FoxOnTheRun]

5. I must admit I haven't seen Loose Change 2 recut fully

In this world you have to know how to sell your product.

And I think it's the best tool to get people to think.. why isn't the MSM asking the questions etc.

Without the worst movie "In Plain Site" and Bit-torrent, I probably wouldn't have even known about this questions.

[greyl]

6. Avery, Rowe, and Bermas have a horrible view of humanity.

Avery said that lies were included in their movie intentionally.

The 9/11 Truth movement needs to put them on leave.
Sooner the better.

edit: to put it another way, they are false prophets.

[wildbilln864]

7. And they said why they...

left the mistakes in as you well know greyl! To cause people to look into the facts and see for themselves what the true facts are! I believe that far out theories will be discarded as more facts and the truth comes to light. I think they had the same idea! However first people have to learn all the surrounding facts about 911. Checking out the validity of claims made in videos like LC2ndE will help expose the facts that the MSM is ignoring.

[greyl]

8. Make no mistake, they were not mistakes. They were intentional lies.

As you admit, asshole Dylan Avery, the Geraldo Rivera of the 9/11 Truth Movement, has publicly rationalized The Hidden Value of Lying.

Heil Avery!

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Aww, poor greyl. Dylan has really got your goat.

They say you can judge a man by his enemies.

Yours apparently are three talented college age kids who put together a hit film.

Pathetic.

[greyl]

11. Most of my friends are "talented college aged kids".

Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove both love Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas.
None of those five are my friends.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Evidence? I have heard this crap for a long time now, but I haven't seen

any evidence to back that up. What is your eveidence that Karl Rove or Osama bin Laden loves Avery Rowe or Bermas? That is pure crap.

I have seen you using the Neo-con linguistic use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" a lot as an insult. I imagine they appreciate your use of their meme. They put it out in the media, their people put it out in the media, and you put it out in the media. Thanks for nothing.

[greyl]

20. Dylan Avery said falsehoods were intentionally included in Loose Change.

You've agreed to the truth of this in a different thread, trying to explain away the value of lying all the while.

We are through the looking glass here, people.

edit: clarity

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Ha, i knew you wouldn't address your claim; You have no evidence.

Mr. Skeptic makes a claim and can't back it up.

You are a disgrace to all skeptics everywhere.

Diverting the issue doesn't support your claim.

Victory is mine!!

[greyl]

26. #11 and #17.

What claim haven't I addressed?

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Your claim concerning Rove and Bin Laden, obviously. You haven't

addressed it or supported it. You made a claim and now have run from it.

It's a ridiculous claim really. Unless you are Rove or Bin Laden or speak to them on a regular basis, I suppose.

Or maybe you are claiming to be tele-empathic? He he. Maybe you can prove it and win the prize from RJEF.(is that the acronym?)

I'm highly skeptical, though.

[greyl]

34. You are sharp to be skeptical of what I've said.

Let's dig a bit deeper and see if we can discover anything.

I claimed that Jason Bermas, Korey Rowe, and Dylan Avery were loved by both Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden and that none of them are my friends, correct?

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Let's not dig deeper etc.. Cosmic debris aside,

either support your statement or keep running.

"Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove both love Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas." -greyl

This is a bunch of crap.

[JackRiddler]

42. I do wish you wouldn't justify that!

That's such a lame, lame excuse - imagine the 9/11 Commission had said it.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. This reminds me of the Republicans warning the Democrats against

putting Dean in as DNC chair.

Thanks for the advice, now go jump in a lake.

[jmb597]

12. It's so obvious as to what you are trying to do...

How much are you getting paid again?

[greyl]

13. I hope it's obvious.

How much are you getting paid again?

What does love have to do with money?

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Is that Karl's love?

[AZCat]

19. Nahhh...

Karl loves power, not money.

[tenseconds]

63. love & money

In my experiences with the two subjects..a whole lot!

[FoxOnTheRun]

36. Kean is a nice person

"Tonight we're one month away from the fifth anniversary of September 11th. A shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co- chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton , says Americans still don't know the whole truth about their government's initial response to those terrorist attacks that day.... They write ... 'all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue.'.... If all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that's a lie - because they were asserted as the truth by people who knew better or should have..... the fact that they would continue and perpetuate the lie, suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on and what is demonstrably an incompetent and at worst deceitful federal government ..... "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/09/ldt.01.html

[whistle]

61. Can you list some of those other issues?

[tenseconds]

62. trying

You're trying to reduce the debate into some disoriented neutrality.

[JackRiddler]

41. Sure

Propaganda is sadly what's needed. I'm not sure that propaganda on behalf of mistaken notions is going to help in the long run. LC2 has focused popular discussion on some of the more outlandish and unsupported hypotheses, and provides a fat target for the counter-propaganda.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I have to disagree with you JR. Loose Change has accomplished

what all the researchers didn't; Focusing 10s of millions of people who previously weren't paying attention on the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

In the final analysis, this is far more important than what hit the Pentagon (I think it was a plane, but I can't prove it) if flight 93 was shot down,landed in Cleveland or crashed intact, (I don't know) or if the 3 WTC building were brought down in a planned demolition (3 buildings, 3 random events, three stagiated total collapses is too much to swallow. Does not compute)

The movie suggests what Hoffman believes about demolition, and provides real time video of the collapses, eyewitness evidence, and news reports) the movie gives a false flag primer in Operation North Woods, the movie discusses some of the evidence of fore knowledge concerning very strange stock and financial trading, the aversion to commercial plane travel by pentagon and other government official on 9/11, the use of war games as cover and in disabling air defense.

While Loose Change clearly asks more questions than it answers, for this reason alone it gets viewers asking questions. Loose Change is not and doesn't pretend to be the rosetta stone of the movement. So to suggest that is somehow lacking because it didn't set out to be is frivolous.

I see no reason to be sad about that. Loose Change is not the end all be all but whoever said it was? I don't see Thompson attacking Loose Change, and I don't see Loose Change attacking any other researchers.

Think of Loose Change as the media and Thompson and others as researchers and perhaps we shouldn't expect anyone or everyone to play the exact same rolls in the movement, but should instead appreciate everyones contribution for what it accomplishes. Let Hoffman be Hoffman and Avery be Avery and the Jersey Girls be the Jersey Girls and Thompson be Thompson ect. and thank them all for caring enough that they got off their asses and did something. I'm happy they did.

[greyl]

15. bermas, rowe, & avery only open their mouths to swap feet lately.

The Rational & Intuitive Left should turn them loose.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Yeah, that's what the freepers told me about Michael Moore, but I

didn't believe them either.

But thanks, just the same.

[tenseconds]

64. Bermas,Rowe,and Avery

Is that a law firm?

[AZCat]

16. What is this "stagiated total collapse"?

You've used the term several times recently - would you please define it for me?

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Collapsing in uniform or near uniform stages, similar to the effect one

might expect to see in a planned explosive demolition.

[AZCat]

22. Have you coined this particular phrase...

or does it come from a source?

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I'm not sure, but I like it. You are the first to ask for a definition.

[AZCat]

25. No prob.

I just want to make sure we are all talking about the same thing - language and terminology are important to me.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Yes, especially in this medium where misunderstanding and misconceptions

are so much more likely than if people were speaking.

I use that term because controlled explosive demolition really doesn't describe exactly what the visual evidence is. Close but not close enough.

In fact, adding something like "rapid" stagiated complete collapse might be even more descriptive.

[AZCat]

31. Be wary of such terms.

Remember that terms like "rapid" can only be used in a comparative sense, relative to some "benchmark". You would need to define the benchmark prior to attaching the term "rapid" to events, otherwise it doesn't really mean anything.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Um I hear what you are saying but what about

Rapid eye movement, also known as rem.

Or rapid response teams?

[Make7]

27. It's a perfectly cromulent word. ( n/t )

[AZCat]

30. Aaaack!

What the heck is the etymology of THAT!?

[Make7]

33. The Simpsons.

Edited to fix link

Edna: Embiggens? I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield.

Ms.Hoover: I don't know why. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent

:) Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Languages that are alive and growing (such as English) always do this

sort of thing, and it drives the anal elderly bonkers.

English is particularly conducive to fast changes, whether through commercial introduction or just popular usage.

Dead languages are static, like Latin for instance. It doesn't change precisely because no one speaks it.

[Make7]

43. Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I meant.

Edited to add line

1. Cromulent

Used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, and therefore, in reality, spurious and not at all legitimate.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent

When I previously posted "It's a perfectly cromulent word", I was referring to your made-up word "stagiated".

I think it should be obvious that the chances of misunderstandings are significantly increased when the participants in a discussion start using made-up words. Therefore, it is probably best to avoid using them.

- Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

48. All words were at one time made up, therefore,if you don't speak,

you will be better understood.

[Make7]

49. Let me rephrase that since you seem to be having difficulty understanding.

I think it should be obvious that the chances of misunderstandings are significantly increased when the participants in a discussion start using words they have made-up themselves. Therefore, it is probably best to avoid using such words.

I apologize for underestimating your ability to actually comprehend the point that I was making. Hopefully my restating it will clear up any misunderstanding.

- Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

52. Some peope apparently have no sense of humor. If you enjoy

enforcing your viewpoint of the world on others, go for it!

And good luck.

[Make7]

57. That isn't true, I think this most recent reply of yours is hilarious. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Para sevirle!

[Make7]

60. Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

[greyl]

35. Unanswered Question in Post #1.

Heads up.

[truthmover]

37. Do you have a citation???

Please provide a direct quote and citation or link to any statement made by those who produced "Loose Change" indicating a desire to include false information.

[Carefulplease]

44. Rowe lying to educate people.

Korey Rowe to SMITH Magazine, August 21. 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40476

"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. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again."

They lie so as to look bad so that people will not trust them blindly. That's brilliant.

[truthmover]

45. Wow! I'm glad that they no longer take that position! n/c

[greyl]

51. Do you have a citation?

What shitty excuse are they using now for making a movie full of lies?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. That's exactly what the PM guys did...

They wanted to discredit them, and went out and researched the events themselves, and came up with their own conclusions...

...and for doing that, the kids got all redfaced and called them liars.

[FoxOnTheRun]

47. How many pm guys are there?

I once heard one pm guy lie about hijacker dna

[Make7]

50. He wasn't lying.

He actually left inaccuracies in his presentation so that people discredit PM and do the research for themselves. That's PM's whole goal, to make Americans think.

- Make7

[tenseconds]

65. Chertoff

I'm thinking about Michael Chertoff's nephew.

[RedSock]

59. i had missed that!!!!!!!

that is truly insane.

wow.

[Nozebro]

53. No, of course s/he doesn't. Would you settle for another lecture on

how people come to believe certain things? Okay, how about another example of FALLACIOUS LOGIC?

Funny how "they" avoid even the appearance of trying to make a LOGICAL argument for how OBL and his band of 19 cokeheads were able to fool the U.S. into invading two countries and killing 100's of thousands of innocent civilians while scaring many Americans with Nazi-like laws and programs to eavesdrop and spy on them.

[greyl]

54. The link was provided in post #44.

I didn't make anything up.

edit: typo

[Nozebro]

55. More intentional deception. OCT'er getting desperate?

n/t

[greyl]

56. Did you reply before you saw my edit?

The correct post # is 44.

[William Seger]

66. This argument reminds me...

... of the Clinton days when the VRWC was attacking Clinton with everything they could dream up. When you argued with freeper-types about the obvious bullshit in the attacks, they would just come back and say "so what, if only 10% of this stuff is true, then Clinton is a horrible person."

So, which 10% of LC is true?