Merged In Case you missed it Dylan Avery admits he was wrong (sort of)

[Athyrio]

He never said it was "beyond the abilities of an organization that was at the head of the most powerful nation on the planet".
MM

He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration

Scope definition: extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness,opportunity for operation:
What was your take on the use of the word "scope"? You think it was Avery's word or Stahl's?

If the objection isn't about the definition of scope vs abilities then it must be about the second part of the sentence - Bush administration vs "organization that was at the head of the most powerful nation on the planet".

If the Bush administration did not plan or implement the "controlled demolitions" on 9/11, whom do you suppose could have?

 

[Miragememories]

"This coming from someone who can't read? Beachnut said Dylan WROTE the piece as fiction yet you argue that fact by saying it was never RELEASED as anything but a documentary. Little tiny change in the wording that you think will sway the reader.

Again, how's your foot taste?

Look at the facts:

1. Dylan says it was written as fiction
2. It was "revised" I don't know how many times and had pieces removed in each revision
3. Dylan admits he didn't have hardly any information NOR did he actually talk to people

Yet you want to classify it as a "documentary". Outstanding..."

It sounds like you could use some lessons in reading.

http://www.loosechange911.com/about/faq/

"The original “Loose Change” film was developed purely by accident, as the director Dylan Avery, was researching a different project."

http://www.loosechange911.com/about/

"We have always attempted to better our films and ourselves, as both filmmakers and individuals, and refine our arguments wherever possible. We have tried our best to avoid controversial or speculative topics and have made an effort to focus only on subjects we could prove as fact, supported either by hard, physical evidence, massive amounts of corroborating eyewitness testimony or both.....We are not dealing with conspiracy theories. We are dealing with facts. We are asking for the Truth and our requests will not cease until they are legitimately met. Until then, we must continue to ask questions and demand answers."

MM

 

[Triterope]

MM, what the hell is your point? That Dylan Avery can contradict himself over a period of several years?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He never said it was "beyond the abilities of an organization that was at the head of the most powerful nation on the planet".

Uhh, yeah... he did. Not in those exact words, of course, but that's the meaning of "beyond the scope of the Bush administration".

Do have a different interpretation? Please enlighten us.

 

[Gamolon]

It sounds like you could use some lessons in reading.

You're goofy. He started out writing a fictional piece and as time went on, it turned into something else. It wasn't a completely different project like you are leading people to believe. Here is a quote taken from this link: http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-02-14/news/the-seekers/2/

Around the same time, Dylan Avery was completing a job as a helper on the construction of a new restaurant for James Gandolfini. He tended bar at the opening party, and when he got a few minutes alone with the Sopranos actor, he said he'd thought he might like to direct films. "James said, 'If you want to be a successful director, you've got to have something you want to say to the whole world,' " Avery remembers. He set out to write a fictional story about discovering that 9-11 was an inside job. "Upon researching the movie, I began to think maybe it was true," he says.

No matter how you slice it MM, the movie's life began as a fictional piece and evolved into a "documentary". PERIOD. You can spin it any way you like to try and make yourself look right, but you won't succeed.

Read the following that you posted from Corey and Dylan:

"We have always attempted to better our films and ourselves, as both filmmakers and individuals, and refine our arguments wherever possible. We have tried our best to avoid controversial or speculative topics and have made an effort to focus only on subjects we could prove as fact, supported either by hard, physical evidence, massive amounts of corroborating eyewitness testimony or both.....We are not dealing with conspiracy theories. We are dealing with facts. We are asking for the Truth and our requests will not cease until they are legitimately met. Until then, we must continue to ask questions and demand answers."

Dealing with FACTS??? REALLY? If there were 100% facts in their move, why did they have to go back and remove certain claims? How many times??? Facts my rear end...

Get some reading glasses.

 

[Gamolon]

So tell me something MM, according to your posted quote from Corey and Dylan...

..We have tried our best to avoid controversial or speculative topics and have made an effort to focus only on subjects we could prove as fact,...

...does this mean that they were mistaken about those "proven facts" that were removed from the subsequent releases of their film?

 

[Triterope]

He started out writing a fictional piece and as time went on, it turned into something else.

The movie's life began as a fictional piece and evolved into a "documentary". PERIOD.

Wow, is that what MM is arguing? That this isn't what happened? Sheesh. Loose Change starting out as a fiction piece and evolving into a "non-fiction" piece as Dylan Avery came to believe the conspiracy is such a well established part of its history that... my God, I don't even know how to finish that sentence.

Then again, these are people who can argue with a straight face that there were no planes at the WTC site. I guess nothing is too obvious or too well-documented for a 9-11 Truther.

 

[Gamolon]

Wow, is that what MM is arguing? That this isn't what happened? Sheesh. Loose Change starting out as a fiction piece and evolving into a "non-fiction" piece as Dylan Avery came to believe the conspiracy is such a well established part of its history that... my God, I don't even know how to finish that sentence.

Then again, these are people who can argue with a straight face that there were no planes at the WTC site. I guess nothing is too obvious or too well-documented for a 9-11 Truther.

Mind boggling isn't it?

 

[Triterope]

Mind boggling isn't it?

It really is.

When you debate with someone, you make certain assumptions. You assume the basic facts of the matter, and that terms mean what they mean in common usage. Not 9/11 Truthers. EVERYTHING is open to debate and subject to interpretation. The five-page argument about "into" vs. "onto" is an example. MM's denial of the basic history of Loose Change in this thread is another.

The no-planers are the best example. To suggest that no planes were involved in 9-11 rejects the facts on such a fundamental level that you could make the case that such a discussion isn't really about 9-11 at all. Because 9-11, by any sane person's definition, had planes in it. Arguing what would happen in a 9-11 with no planes in it is like, to use Stellafane's great phrase, arguing whether Batman could kick Spiderman's ass.

This is what makes Truthers so infuriating to deal with. You argue with them based on certain assumptions, and they'll go and deny one of the assumptions. You could be in the midst of a reasonable discussion about how a building should react when a passenger jet full of fuel hits it, and they'll start theorizing that the buildings were destroyed by explosives instead. By throwing out one of the assumptions halfway through the discussion, they render the entire discussion moot.

But that's also their downfall. Any uninitiated person who gets into a debate with a Truther quickly realizes it's just an endless game of moving goalposts, with no terra firma to return to.

 

[Miragememories]

Okay children.

One last time and I'll leave you to play in your sandbox.

9/11 was a major world interest event. TRUE

Realizing how great was the public interest, Dylan Avery originally did research to make a fictional story based on the events of 9/11. TRUE

While doing his research Dylan discovered so many anomalies that undermined the Official Conspiracy Theory that he no longer believed it to be true. TRUE

At this point, Dylan Avery decided to abandon the fictional work and make a documentary based on the factual material he discovered during his research. TRUE

MM

 

[NoahFence]

And has been mocked ever since due to the fact that like the typical truther, he has zero clue about any of the topics that could ever be brought up regarding 9/11. TRUE

 

[AndrewBurley]

And has been mocked ever since due to the fact that like the typical truther, he has zero clue about any of the topics that could ever be brought up regarding 9/11. TRUE

Can you name something that "9/11: An American Coup" gets wrong?

 

[NoahFence]

Can you name something that "9/11: An American Coup" gets wrong?

How long do you want me to suffer throu....

I mean watch it?

I've never seen it. But after I hit "save" in this post, I'll go to uuutuuube and watch it. GUARANTEE I find at least 3 things wrong in the first 4 minutes.

And....

go

 

[twinstead]

Okay children.

One last time and I'll leave you to play in your sandbox.

9/11 was a major world interest event. TRUE

Realizing how great was the public interest, Dylan Avery originally did research to make a fictional story based on the events of 9/11. TRUE

While doing his research Dylan discovered so many anomalies that undermined the Official Conspiracy Theory that he no longer believed it to be true. TRUE

At this point, Dylan Avery decided to abandon the fictional work and make a documentary based on the factual material he discovered during his research. TRUE

MM

99.9% of the "anomalies" Dylan discovered are actually not anomalies. TRUE

 

[ElMondoHummus]

99.9% of the "anomalies" Dylan discovered are actually not anomalies. TRUE

99.9% of those anomalies are still cited by truthers as though they're fact. TRUE.

(And yes, if there's any doubt about this, you folks reading this can go through any of the threads over the past several months and compare truther claims to this list: http://emptv.com/research/loose-change. You'll find those claims still being peddled, despite the fact that one of the original authors of those claims has pulled back from them).

 

[NoahFence]

OK - tons of meaningless fluff to begin with. Maybe I should have started my 4 minute clock when they actually start talking about 9/11.

So far when talking about the Reichtag and Pearl Harbor, this does nothing but prove 9/11 wasn't anything like either of those instances.

 

[NoahFence]

Is this idiot going to get to a point anytime soon?

 

[NoahFence]

OK, here's something that they got wrong - after having to fast-forward through a half hour of stupidity that has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11:

"Many people" have unanswered questions.

In reality, a few - a painfully small number - are idiots who feel the need to question for the sake of questioning, and have zero desire to actually have an answer.


I can't sit through any more. It's the same painfully regurgitated crap that has been proven wrong time and again.

Comparing it to Hitler? Please. Immediately after the Reichtag fire, he took total control and instituted a police state. Didn't happen after 9/11. The President who, according to truthers, was supposed to do the same, left office just like every other president after his term.

Comparing it to Pearl Harbor? Really? I thought conspiritards were under the impression that Pearl Harbor was to get the economic engine of America under a full head of steam. After 9/11 - where's this prosperity? Where's the economic boom? I personally got laid off - DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF 9/11. Me and thousands of others.

So you want to know what they got wrong in that video? I'll ask you - WHAT DID THEY GET RIGHT?

 

[beachnut]

Can you name something that "9/11: An American Coup" gets wrong?

everything - but if you like moronic claims, LC claptrap is for you, it is dumbed down drivel for those who can't think for themselves. It only takes a grade school education to figure out American Coup is trash.

 

[Horatius]

Can you name something that "9/11: An American Coup" gets wrong?

Okay, how about the title?

Politically, a coup d'état is a usually violent political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d'état involves control, by an active minority of military usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) military's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'état#Usage_of_the_phrase



Or perhaps you'd like to list the US political leaders who were captured or expelled following 9/11?