• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylan starts to get pissy

It's my suspicion that LC:FC is going have a large section for Citgo witnesses who say that Flight 77 went north of the station and therefore couldn't be the plane that took out the light posts. That second plane's explosion misdirected witnesses from seeing that Flight 77 pulled up and over the Pentagon.

I can track this all down, if you give me a few hours.
 
huh..yeah a bunch of witnesses at citgo might have "placed" the plane to the north, but what about the witnesses who SAW the plane actually impact the pentagon? You know, those that were closer to the pentagon?
 
uk_dave said:
I am beginning to wonder whether the 911 'truthers' are somewhat unique in the history of conspiracy theories, in that they are basically conspiracy theorists without a theory.
Click to expand...

No the moon landings were a hoax people are rather like that.
 
We should all remember that when Dylan and his gang say that FC is going to be airtight, he means that he is going to be raking in money with no contempt for the real truth, and will donate a (very) small amount for the 9/11 families, when he claims that he is going to beat out the World Trade Centre film and United 93...

I would also like to say that recently, somewhere on the forums, one of the twoofers was saying that Dylan has his vote should he run for president :rolleyes:
 
boloboffin said:
That second plane's explosion misdirected witnesses from seeing that Flight 77 pulled up and over the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Some new form of misdirection apparently. The explosion "misdirects" peoples' attention to the very building Flight 77 allegedly flew over. Hmm...
 
negativ said:
This is a repost, but from the immensely talented young lad David Firth comes a Flash cartoon that unintentionally satirizes the 9/11 "truth movement" and the Loose Change crowd in particular: Pulch: The Good Times.

Party on this with me, people.

"The Pulch" represents the concept of 9/11-as-an-inside-job.

The random people drawn to the Pulch are the nondescript Truthers you find holding banners at Ground Zero and/or lurking around conspiracy websites. Finally they'd found something that could make their lives meaningful.

"Luxemburg" is Dylan himself. The "reassuring arm" is a composite of Alex Jones, American Free Press, and democraticunderground.com.

"Terry" and his pal represent Bermas and Rowe. They're eager to get all fashionable for their impending walk down the red carpet at the Oscars.

Your vivid imagination can fill in the rest.
Click to expand...
The mandolin guy is Ace Baker, of course.

That's a hilarious cartoon.
 
I will bet $10.00 When the time comes. Dylan will simply say "Gotcha" and argue some great social experiment
 
MG1962 said:
I will bet $10.00 When the time comes. Dylan will simply say "Gotcha" and argue some great social experiment
Click to expand...
I will take that bet. My bet is that he'll start crying after the premiere when he sees that all that were invited walk out of the theatre mid way, save for the few CTer's including Killtown, whose there under his real name!
 
I don't think the Final Cut will ever see the light of day, at least as a theatrical release. Putting together a film for theatrical release is difficult to say the least. This ain't Youtube where you can slap together almost anything in a few minutes. A crappy little image blown up to movie theater screen size is unwatchable.

Then there is the minor issue of using copyrighted material. Everything needs to have clearance or good ole Dylan will be flooded with cease and desist orders and lawsuits.

Whether or not the film can or can't be debunked is very secondary actually. It really is a matter of putting together a watchable film. Even if he claimed that magic fairies blew up the WTC buildings, it wouldn't matter. If it's a good (i.e. entertaining, not necessarily factual) film, people will go to see it.

However, I think Dylan has gotten himself in so far over his head that he can't even see the surface anymore. I don't think he is capable of putting together a watchable full-length documentary.
 
The Silver Shadow said:
We should all remember that when Dylan and his gang say that FC is going to be airtight, he means that he is going to be raking in money with no contempt for the real truth, and will donate a (very) small amount for the 9/11 families, when he claims that he is going to beat out the World Trade Centre film and United 93...

I would also like to say that recently, somewhere on the forums, one of the twoofers was saying that Dylan has his vote should he run for president :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here is what I think he means by airtight, and you can quote me.

1. They will not make any statements of fact without solid proof (ie we will not hear him say that flight 93 WAS shot down, but rather they will suggest what MIGHT have happened.)
2. They will have cut out alot of the contraversial aspects of the MIHOP Scenarios. You will not see STARWARS BEAMS in LC:FC. You won't see CGI issues brought up. You will likely see some reference to Thermite, but only in such a way as "renowned scientist S. Jones has been investigating the possible use of Thermite, an explosive that cuts through steel, in the collapse of the WTCs"
3. They will use more mainstream sources, when listed, and for those that are not mainstream, they will likely go unlisted, or referred to as "Multiple News Sources".

Things I predict will not be in LC:FC are as follows:

1. The "small entrance hole" at the Pentagon site.
2. The reference to a cruise missile hitting the pentagon
3. The pod (gone already, will not return)
4. Reference to the phone calls made on flight 93, except for perhaps a reference to the Dewdy "experiment".
5. Reference to the hijackers still being alive.

And many others

Things I think will be added to LC:FC

1. The Pakistani Connection (more detail than before)
2. The CIA:Al-Qaeda connection
3. Alot more on Foreknowledge
4. The mistakes of the FAA/NORAD/NEADS
5. Jowenko, and alot more in general on WTC7

TAM:)
 
I'll be honest. I kind of feel bad for Dylan.

This talk about a nation-wide theatrical release is pretty obviously, to me at least, an attempt to gain recognition as a film-maker. I think the whole conspiracy is secondary (to Dylan at least).

The kid's been rejected from film school twice and I'm sure there's a bit of an ego in there saying, "I'll show them."

Of course, I don't sympathize with the road he's taken, but in his general "failure" as an honest film-maker. I don't know why, but that career is one I really don't like to see people fail in (maybe because of a hope that new blood = fresh ideas).

Still, he's young and the people he's entertaining now are hardly the ones who would take his career seriously. He can still turn his back on these people and focus on doing better. Maybe he's slowly realizing, or maybe he's actually convinced that there are just "too many" and that he'd be alienating a huge portion of his potential future audience. *shrugs*
 
@ TAM: don't forget about the interview with journalist and local CT (Crackpot Theorist) Barrie Zwicker. I used to believe what he said, then it turned out to be a false belief...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I'll be honest. I kind of feel bad for Dylan.
Click to expand...

I don't, and here's why: Bernard Black, Sr.

Dylan Avery has the GALL (yeah, I'm becoming one of those annoying people that sticks in a capalitized word for effect) to say that Mr. Black put his 11 year-old son Bernard, Jr. on to AA77 knowing it would crash and then what did this Pentagon employee do? Go off and play golf!

Dylan Avery is an outright liar.
 
That was a horrible thing he said. I believe he retracted it. This is too little too late, but it at least shows...I hope...remorse.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
That was a horrible thing he said. I believe he retracted it. This is too little too late, but it at least shows...I hope...remorse.

TAM
Click to expand...

Did he? Then it might have been recently. MarkyX had a clip of Dylan lying about the Blacks on a radio show. I think it was in the thread regarding the CTers "worst hits" of 2006.
 
Last edited:
I am only recollecting, so I cant say with 100% certainty, but I am pretty sure he recanted on that point...not sure where or when, but perhaps a few months ago.

TAM
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Of course, I don't sympathize with the road he's taken, but in his general "failure" as an honest film-maker. I don't know why, but that career is one I really don't like to see people fail in (maybe because of a hope that new blood = fresh ideas).
Click to expand...

If Dylan succeeds, it'll be at the expense of another wannabe film-maker. I'm willing to bet that this hypothetical film-maker is both more talented and more deserving than Dylan Avery.
 
Spindrift said:
I don't think the Final Cut will ever see the light of day, at least as a theatrical release. Putting together a film for theatrical release is difficult to say the least. This ain't Youtube where you can slap together almost anything in a few minutes. A crappy little image blown up to movie theater screen size is unwatchable

Then there is the minor issue of using copyrighted material. Everything needs to have clearance or good ole Dylan will be flooded with cease and desist orders and lawsuits.


Whether or not the film can or can't be debunked is very secondary actually. It really is a matter of putting together a watchable film. Even if he claimed that magic fairies blew up the WTC buildings, it wouldn't matter. If it's a good (i.e. entertaining, not necessarily factual) film, people will go to see it.
Click to expand...


I actually spent a chunk of my weekend in an edit suite discussing the concept of "fair use" with a media lawyer in a news station.

- For tv stations networks it's entirely acceptable to use around 60 seconds of material from another station, provided

A) They've not slapped an "exclusive" aaton onto it.

B) the context of the footage isn't changed.

The latter is incredibly signifigant, any news organisation can sue if for example they "quote mine" a reporter saying something "it looked like an missile"

Furthermore the concept of fair use works off a quid pro quo system, each network benefits from this system. One network has footage of a police chase, and the rest borrow a few seconds of the footage, another
has an interivew with say one of the london suicide bombers (ie Al Jazeera) the other stations can use a bit of it, and claim fair use.

However Dylan and loose change isn't a tv station. And cannot plunder their resources. Why? Because he brings nothing to the table. His film is a patch work of news reports and talking heads, he offers little by way of new information. There's no quid pro quo, there's nothing of benefit for the news station Dylan has ripped off.

Any country which has shown Loose Change on tv is in the clear, because ulitmately the responsibility for copyright in most countries falls on the program maker not on the broadcaster.

However with his claim that he's got over 70 prints in the UK for it's release he's entered hot water. UK (and Ireland they are different countries) libel laws are some of the most stringent in the world (recall the "tom cruise won't get out of the closest" SP episode, his final line is "I'll sue your asses in england" and that was prophetic, because Tommy did sue Matt and Trey in England) means that Loose Change need to stand up to not only the rebust criticism of the UK media, the challenges of a vicious libel suit from any number of people, and the extremely serious potential that any number of a couple of dozen tv news networks suing the little [rule8] for misuse of copyright material.

If I was Dylan I'd be under a blanket sucking my thumb right now, or alternatively wandering around some mexican back water trying to perfect my 'Mi namo Pedro, no comprede "Loose Change", Senior."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom