Loose Change

[Gravy]

I got an email from a stalwart anti-CT who's been keeping up with the "Parliament screening" story, which I had thought was dead. He asked if I would post this here.

Dylan Avery on the Loose Change site:

"you guys know as much as I can tell you. and I can tell you the
screening will happen, regardless. i just off the phone with the Guardian.

the Monday after next (the 29th I believe) we'll be in there [in the Guardian], and the article will focus heavily on the Parliament screening, and Michael Meacher's decision to host it.

they can't back down. end of story."

Stalwart anti-CT in an email to Meacher's PA :

"I wonder if you could tell me whether the statement today by Dylan Avery
is corrector not?".

Meachers PA in an email to to me:

"After consideration Michael Meacher is not arranging for this film to be
shown in Parliament. If it is going ahead, another MP must be
sponsoring it. However, as Monday 29 May is a Bank Holiday and
Parliament is in Recess, if there is a showing it must be elsewhere."

Regards

Monica Masson
Parliamentary Assistant to Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
020 7219 4532

I think she mistakes Avery's phrase "we'll be in there" as being in
Parliament, whereas I think he means in the Guardian. But the clear
point is that Avery is still claiming Meacher as a sponsor and he
clearly is not. When you post it on JREF, I intend to post your post
on the LC site.

I emailed CBC last night and gave them details of your document. I'm
now off to try and email somebody at the Guardian and,funnily enough,
your document will be starring again. I wonder if he is [b.s.'ing]
about the Guardian as well?

Of course "they" can back down, as they apparently have done. Avery may be thinking that the Guardian reporter isn't going to check his story. He still has a lot to learn about fact-checking.

I don't know who at the Guardian would be covering this story. Any clues? I very much want to have a chat with that reporter.

 

[CurtC]

I had an email accusing me of using logic to argue my points.

[Homer Simpson]
Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true! Facts, schmacks.
[/Homer Simpson]

 

[Dinsdale Piranha]

The Globalist/Henchman Fan Club is now a reality.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1645648#post1645648

For all who have been slugging it out here that I haven't mentioned, let me know. I'll make sure to add your name to *The List*.

 

[OMGturt1es]

guys now I have become involved in a forum with the aussie metal scene in a debate on it, though thankfully, not too many people buy it.

ahhhhh hah! i have been in 9/11 debates in a certain black metal forum, and the whole thing was a joke. i was virtually the ONLY one arguing that loose change was crap in every 9/11 based thread, and it was EXASPERATING. when i finally found THIS thread, it was like a breath of fresh air.

as much as i enjoy metal, i've been so detatched from the fan base for so long that i find it less and less appealing to be involved in any level, but i guess this is probably a problem that i'd encounter within any genre.

 

[dubfan]

"you guys know as much as I can tell you. and I can tell you the
screening will happen, regardless. i just off the phone with the Guardian.

the Monday after next (the 29th I believe) we'll be in there [in the Guardian], and the article will focus heavily on the Parliament screening, and Michael Meacher's decision to host it.

they can't back down. end of story."

This is classic Dylan. I've been reading his blog and noticed some interesting things about his writing style. When confronted by an uncomfortable truth, he'll wordsmith his way around it, so he can't actually be accused of *lying*, exactly.

you guys know as much as I can tell you

Not, "you guys know as much as I know". What can't you tell us, Dylan? Is the Parliament screening some kind of state secret?

"the article will focus heavily on the Parliament screening, and ..."

He doesn't say they're actually going to screen it.

"they can't back down"

Translation: I'm in denial that this MP is not going to show my film, after all.

Here's one of Dylan's blog posts that was really illuminating. Someone named "Dylan Avery" was caught posting some nasty comments at a prominent blog. Does Dylan deny that he and the commenter are different people? Not exactly.

Oh...and it appears someone with the same name as me had some pretty nasty things to say back in 2003. I only bring this up because certain people seem to think this is solid evidence I'm a government plant, or a "Jew Hater."

No, it's just someone with the same name. That is all.

Just someone with the same name, he says.

Here's what the "other" Dylan Avery had to say:

OK.... Before we go calling 9-11 a synonym for Pearl Harbor, I want all you Never Forget pathetic whiners, to go ask A Professional Demolition Expert if the Planes caused the towers to fall. I guarentee you ANY Expert on Controlled Demolition will tell you that dynamite charges were placed in the Twin Towers, he could tell you that the first time he watched them fall. Sloppy job American Government, but then again they didnt think the vivtims families would start asking questions either
(Why did 19 terrorists get "lucky" 19 seperate times on their immigration papers when they presented some of the most flawed documents ever seen, a little too much "luck" if you ask me.) Just remember Osama bin Laden got real lucky when air force interceptors were told four times to sand down long enough for the planes to reach their targets, yet payne stewart had an interecepor to his private plane in the standard ten minutes..????????????????????????
9-11 We Will Never Forget the Corruption
-peace fools

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8095#c0105

All I have too say is......Who else knows.......Why were the innocent people of New York not warned?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8085#c0087

Sure doesn't sound like the same Dylan Avery to me. Just someone with the same name. That is all.

 

[RayG]

heres a video of dylan on the cbc

http://resurrectingthelede.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-change-author-on-canadian.html

Damn! I just sent the following comment to the host of that show before reading Gravy's 'standard comment' suggestion.

George, I just caught your 9-11 conspiracy interview with Dylan Avery via an online blog.

Anyone else notice Dylan had no explanation for what happened to the missing passengers? (keep in mind there were four planes not one)

Or that in explaining his single strongest piece of evidence --the collapse of building #7-- he provides not a single shred of actual evidence that the building was brought down by controlled explosives. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

An opinion remains an opinion unless you can back it up with verifiable evidence.

I recently lost a friend over this 9-11 conspiracy foolishness. It started with an email from him imploring me to join the "9-11 Truth Movement", and he became increasingly abusive when I stood firm in my demand for evidence.

In the content of his emails I was described in the following manner:

'Impossible, hardened, fixed, hopeless, intractable, incorrigible, stubborn, a 'dumby', insulting, naive, a dupe, prejudiced, blockheaded, closed minded, a denialist, dismissive, ignorant, prideful, condescending, a bastard, uninformed,
illintentioned, unintelligent, insincere, out to lunch, and way outta line.'

This seems to be a common tactic for supporters of a 9-11 conspiracy, in part I suppose, because of their frustration at not being able to actually provide any EVIDENCE.

Mr. Avery isn't merely asking questions as he contends, he's making some serious claims/allegations that remain unsupported by any verifiable proof.

Let's not be gullible and follow him along like sheep.

In a remarkable coincidence, Avery Tools, the leading tool supplier to the Sport Aviation Market, denied responsibility for creating the tool named Avery.



RayG

 

[kookbreaker]

OK.... Before we go calling 9-11 a synonym for Pearl Harbor, I want all you Never Forget pathetic whiners, to go ask A Professional Demolition Expert if the Planes caused the towers to fall. I guarentee you ANY Expert on Controlled Demolition will tell you that dynamite charges were placed in the Twin Towers, he could tell you that the first time he watched them fall.

Wow. He wasn't paying attention or doing research back then either.

 

[Gravy]

OK.... Before we go calling 9-11 a synonym for Pearl Harbor, I want all you Never Forget pathetic whiners, to go ask A Professional Demolition Expert if the Planes caused the towers to fall. I guarentee you ANY Expert on Controlled Demolition will tell you that dynamite charges were placed in the Twin Towers, he could tell you that the first time he watched them fall.

Wow. He wasn't paying attention or doing research back then either.

Invisible demolitions experts inside one's head don't count?

 

[brodski]

I don't know who at the Guardian would be covering this story. Any clues? I very much want to have a chat with that reporter.

Mark Kermode already covered "loose Change" in the Guardian he was not supportive of Avery and co. http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1749999,00.html

The guardian does use a lot of freelancers, so tracking down a specific future story may be tricky.

 

[dubfan]

Richard Curtis, of 9/11 Scholars For Truth, gets a full-page Op-Ed to spill the standard CT line in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

9/11 Commission report is a lie

RICHARD CURTIS
GUEST COLUMNIST

Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May 8)

Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete fiction.

Connelly seems to assume that because the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan that we should accept its conclusions and recommendations. But is that true? Is the commission's story credible?

The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is untrue.

First, who were the hijackers? We do not know. None of those named appear on any of the passenger lists released by the airlines. Most important, six of the men named by the government are still alive and have never even been to the United States. We know that because European media (as reported by The Associated Press, the London Telegraph and the BBC) have interviewed them. It is not a matter of mistaken identity not being noticed or someone using a false passport. The commission insists that the people they named were the hijackers but that claim is demonstrably false.

If that most basic claim is false, and the information was available to the commission (which it was), and the commission still claims that it has given us "a full account" of what happened that day based on "exacting research," it's clear that the members are lying. In his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Dr. David Ray Griffin documents all that and concludes the whole report is one long lie.

Second, in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed. Those oral histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005. Only after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them. All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site. Why did the city fight so hard to keep them from the public?

It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?

In spite of Connelly's faith in what commission members say, the report seems to be an obvious cover-up. The question that we all need to ask is: What is the commission covering up? Was 9/11, in fact, an inside job?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/270284_connellyrebut16.html?source=mypi

The op-ed ran in Tuesday's paper. There are currently 148 online comments

 

[Gravy]

Here are some excerpts from a long email from 911truth.org that was forwarded to me. The comments by the author, Les, are pretty hilarious. "40-foot in diameter fuselage!" Turbulence and dust kicked up by a low-flying jet ="contrails!" "The shoe is on the other foot!" Killer material.

Less funny (pun intended) is the fact that Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy of Air America are pimping this CT stuff. I'll be sending them my comments, and I hope you'll do the same. They have real influence.

THE PENTAGON STORY UNFOLDS

Big news. Air America talk show host, Randi Rhodes, spent 10 minutes or so yesterday afternoon talking about the Pentagon footage of the phantom object which should raise more doubt than certainty. She gave incredible coverage of many aspects of the 9/11 deception. She even posted the video on her site at http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/. There are already a lot of posts on her message board.

Here's what Mike Malloy, also of Air America, had to say:

"Well, there you have it, Truthseekers. In response to a lawsuit filed by the right-wing crazies at Judicial Watch, the right-wing crazies at the Department of Defense have released a video showing the moment of impact as a United Airlines jet slams into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Pardon me while I take a tissue to my glasses and look at this “video” again. [I don't know if the next paragraph is Malloy or Les]

Uh-huh. Indeed. A commercial jet flying, um, what? twenty inches off the ground, maybe? Zips into the Pentagon. Boom. Big ball o’ fire. According to Judicial Watch’s website, the right-wing organization originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001, camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department of Defense admitted in a January 26, 2005, letter that it possessed a videotape responsive to Judicial Watch's request. However, the Pentagon refused to release the videotape because it was, "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui."
***
Les:
After nearly 5 years, how are we to believe anything the government shows hasn't been doctored? [Gravy: er, do you mean that it was doctored to not show a missile?]
***
All of these things--the fact that we see no 70 foot high tail, no 40 foot in diameter fuselage but we do see a contrail--add up to proof that a plane DID NOT STRIKE THE PENTAGON.

The shoe is now on the other foot. Only a conspiracy theory nut job could insist that this video is evidence of a plane striking the Pentagon. I would ask such an individual--where is the plane? Why is there that white streak? And wait for the answer. Which would not come. Because there is no reasonable explanation other than to say it was a missile--which does leave a contrail. Because like the Space Shuttle or any other rocket motor propelled device, missiles DO leave contrails.

And please. Tell me why you did not have a Pentagon spokesman to explain where the plane is in the tape. That's the reason they're showing it, putatively, to show the plane hitting the Pentagon. Where is Colin Powell with his pointer? Where's the Pentagon expert to circle the "nose cone" or whatever piece of the plane they claim to have captured on film?

Is anyone here aware of the Pentagon claiming anything about the video just released? Or is Les using less than his full brain power?

Randi Rhodes email: rrhodes@airamericaradio.com
Randi Rhodes Talk Line 866-303-2270

Mike Malloy email: mike@mikemalloy.com
Mike Malloy's producer Kathy Bay: MalloyProducer@aol.com

 

[Gravy]

Mark Kermode already covered "loose Change" in the Guardian he was not supportive of Avery and co.

Thanks, Brodski. I'll see if he knows.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This has reached the level of insanity.

Congratulations, mankind! You never cease to amaze me.

 

[bob_kark]

This has reached the level of insanity.

Congratulations, mankind! You never cease to amaze me.

You mean just now? I still remember with love and adoration when those mischievous scamps claimed that the towers fell at faster than free fall speeds.

 

[Blackwell]

I have no idea if this is parody or not (at the end he says he just had his wisdom teeth removed).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4692467109707634632&q=Loose+Change+2

I noticed this video too, Gravy - along with at least one other that appeared to have been created by the same group (at least they both referenced the same website.)
What I find interesting is that these videos came up after typing "loose change 911" into the Google video search field; either these guys are just simply piggy-backing the popularity of the LC vids to promote their site, or they're attempting to force the LC vids out of the top search results page.
It sure would be a shame if someone were to post a video (using the keywords "loose," "change" and "911") of "Dylan Avery" and friends, complete with black t-shirts, renouncing the LC video and apologizing for their shoddy research...

/off to find my video camera and 2 or 3 college-age actors

 

[fuelair]

Kaged response

I was discussing 911 CTers with my dad and he said that this wasn't like the fact that Bush got all of Osama's family etc etc out of the country right after 9/11. I know this comes from fahrenheit 911 but is this also CT bunk?

Thanks again for all the useful information about this. Given the rabid anti-bush slant of some of my relatives I can expect to come across some of this [rule 8] at an upcoming family event, and it is nice to have the information necessary to shoot down this kind of [rule 8 again].

Other than the conspiracy of Bush Handlers - to prop him up and feed him words he still has trouble with, I don't think anti-Bush is equivalent to C.T. theorist - and I (no surprise ) support your family!!!
But, yes, Bush's people did arrange for and send home not just BinLickins family but a number of other Saudi relations - any number of possible reasons that don't require a conspiracy (paybacks, fear of offending his Saudi pals, tradeoff for better oil cooperation, exhuberant friendliness, being a rectal passage, etc.) Moore is not subtle, but he generally is correct - and this item is widely backed up in news reports.
s

 

[CurtC]

Mark Kermode already covered "loose Change" in the Guardian he was not supportive of Avery and co. http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1749999,00.html

Another lead is Ben Goldacre, who writes the Bad Science column at The Guardian. If you've never read that, it's a hoot.

His email is bad.science@guardian.co.uk .

 

[brodski]

there was a nice piece on the BBCs "newsnight" programme on 9/11 CTs yesterday, you can watch it here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

I would really love to see Dylan Avery interviewed by Jeremy Paxman
(for non UK residents Paxman, who hosts Newsnight, has a reputation for being a very incisive, but incredibly vicious interviews, he strikes fear into most politicians who come up against him, he is not in the clip I linked to)

 

[brodski]

Another lead is Ben Goldacre, who writes the Bad Science column at The Guardian. If you've never read that, it's a hoot.

His email is bad.science@guardian.co.uk .

I was thinking that, but Ben is much more interested in the "science" aspects of skepticism, I don't think that CTs would really fall within his journalistic portfolio, but you never know. And yes it is a fantastic column (it's where I first heard about the JEFF too).

ETA Ben posts fuller versions of the "bad science" column as a blog here ( www.badscience.net ) he has a forum as well.

 

[Kopji]

Ugh. I watched about 10 minutes of the film before I had to turn it off. (Comes in best on Google video). Watching hundreds of people die over and over in various slow motion angles to bad techno music is too much to relive.

The whole "movie" seems to be based on the premise that the high speed impacts don't look like what they expected. So therefore all these thousands of other experts are wrong. The dead are not really dead, or were gassed in some twisted and more diabolical version of the faked moon landing. The planes shot missiles into the WTC before impact...

I suppose that in a free country people can pretty much say what they want, but you people who eat this crap up as truth: you are not only woo's, you are fundamentally IMMORAL. It is this kind of ideo-religion cultivated thinking that causes genocides, riots over cartoons, death sentences for thinking wrong things. You are the same as them.

If nothing else, the "impact to music" is a sign of mental abnormality. The producers are not thinking right. There is something wrong with the brains of people who can show hundreds of deaths to cheery la la la la laaaa music.