The Guardian & Loose Change

[Nero]

Last Friday's Guardian carried a long article all about Loose Change, Dylan Avery and his pals.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1998179,00.html

Whilst the article was not particularly for or against the CT agenda, just giving print space to these fools in a UK national paper is way too generous.

I've written to the editor pointing out the usual stuff. Can I suggest that others do the same?

Thanks

 

[Mashuna]

Just read the article, this part jumped out at me:

[They have] recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant

Well, that's me convinced then.

 

[PerryLogan]

This was very droll:

There's a futility to arguing with them that even they recognise.

Many of our regular visitors here at JREF reveal this attitude. They enjoy the fact that we can't get through to them. They come here to parry our thrusts and cry, "Y'all can't get through to ME! Hilk!"

 

[uk_dave]

Hilk? Are you scottish?

 

[brodski]

Well, I'll give the troofers one thing, this Guardian article is slightly more supportive of their cause than the last guardian treatment of loose change.
That must count as progress right?

Enjoy!
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1749999,00.html

 

[jon]

Last Friday's Guardian carried a long article all about Loose Change, Dylan Avery and his pals.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1998179,00.html

Whilst the article was not particularly for or against the CT agenda, just giving print space to these fools in a UK national paper is way too generous.

I've written to the editor pointing out the usual stuff. Can I suggest that others do the same?

Thanks

I did write to them, as below. Would also encourage others to do the same. They can be quite good at correcting errors...

Dear Sir,

Ed Pilkington's article on the conspiracy theory film Loose Change - 'They're all forced to listen to us' - is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, there are a number of inaccuracies in the article. Pilkington claims, incorrectly, that Loose Change has been shown on Irish state TV: RTE was planning on airing Loose Change next month, but has now decided that the film is not suitable for broadcasting. Pilkington's interpretation of US opinion polls is also very misleading: while a significant number of Americans do believe that US officials did not do enough to stop the 9/11 attacks, this does not mean that they agree with the more outlandish claims made by Loose Change (for example, that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11).

Secondly, the article gives much too much credibility to the claims made by Loose Change - especially given that almost every claim made in the film has been extensively critiqued on websites such as www.loosechangeguide.com. For example, Pilkington refers to "Flight 77, which supposedly flew into the Pentagon". This suggests that the claims made by Loose Change are on a par with the eyewitness and physical evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon; one wonders if The Guardian would treat other far fetched conspiracy theories in a similar way - for example, would an article on conspiracy theories around the Apollo moon landings refer to 'the supposed 1969 moon landing'?

 

[GlennB]

What I did find interesting in that article was the claim that LC started life as a work of deliberate fiction, and that Avery gradually became convinced of its truth.
Is that right?

 

[brodski]

What I did find interesting in that article was the claim that LC started life as a work of deliberate fiction, and that Avery gradually became convinced of its truth.
Is that right?

That's the story which Avery and Co have told many times. As Avery is the only primary source for this claim, I remain skeptical.
It could have happened that way, it may just be "clever" marketing ("see, see I was skeptical, but this film has shown even me THE TRUTH!!1!", or it may be that Avery still knows that 9/11 was not an inside job,. But is pretending that he believes this BS as it is making him a nice little living.

 

[mailman]

I received an anonymously mailed package containing a DVD which purported to tell 'what really happened on 11 September 2001'. The DVD, entitled Loose Change: 2nd Edition, began with a warning that I could be arrested 'under section 802 of the US Patriot Act' for 'possession of this information'

Can someone confirm this quote (taken from the box of the loose change dvd) is correct?

Regards

Mailman

 

[jon]

Mailman - sounds like BS. Section 802 of the (2001) patriot act makes some changes to the definition of domestic terrorism in US law: read it here. Unless the DVD is somehow to be used to endanger human life, to intimidate etc. (very sharp edges?) I don't see how it could fall foul of that part of the act.

For those looking to write to the Guardian, you can contact them at:

Letters to the editor: [email protected]

Corrections and Clarifications and Reader's Editor: [email protected]

 

[stateofgrace]

Email dispatched.

 

[CurtC]

Mailman - sounds like BS. Section 802 of the (2001) patriot act makes some changes to the definition of domestic terrorism in US law:

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

 

[ref]

That photograph title has sparked my creativity.

Photograph title:
"Conspiracy theorists... Loose Change's Korey Rowe (left) and Jason Berman with the laptop they used to make the film."

CT Claim:
"The 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the world of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave in Pushtunistan."

Conclusion based on the two above:
"The Truth of the 9/11 attacks emerged from the world of Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas, Dylan Avery, the laptop, and the basement in Americastan."

 

[jon]

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

Oops, sorry - now will anyone confess to having bought a retail boxed copy of LC

Thanks SOG.

 

[Gravy]

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

It does say that, as does the intro to the "recut" DVD. I think it's meant to be a cheeky comment, but I also think they half believe it. Nothing like starting your "documentary" film off with a complete falsehood.

 

[jon]

It does say that, as does the intro to the "recut" DVD. I think it's meant to be a cheeky comment, but I also think they half believe it. Nothing like starting your "documentary" film off with a complete falsehood.

jeez, they could at least have picked a more menancing or relevent bit of the act...

 

[brodski]

jeez, they could at least have picked a more menancing or relevent bit of the act...

Why bother? Their target audience isn't exactly big on fact checking. But it is a fantastic bit of marketing, it makes the film something forbidden and therefore enticing.
Although threatening UK journalists with prosecution under US law isn't exactly smart…

 

[jon]

Why bother? Their target audience isn't exactly big on fact checking. But it is a fantastic bit of marketing, it makes the film something forbidden and therefore enticing.
Although threatening UK journalists with prosecution under US law isn't exactly smart…

Fair point, I guess. You'd think some viewers would google the act, though, but maybe not

Which UK journo got the threat under US law?

 

[brodski]

Fair point, I guess. You'd think some viewers would google the act, though, but maybe not

Which UK journo got the threat under US law?

In the link I posted Mark Kermode (more of a film critic that a straight journalist really) said that the package he was sent said that his position of the film was in breach of the PATRIOAT act, so Louder Than Words (or whoever sent him the film) was in effect threatening him with legislation which, even if it said what they claimed it said, would not apply to him. A silly thing to do, you may impress deluded teenagers with that stuff, but most journalists tend to know a little about which laws do and do not apply to them with respect to their sources and writings.

 

[mailman]

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

Sorry, I was asking if it really was against the patriot act to have loose change?

It could be a joke BUT I wouldnt put it past the clowns in the 9/11 cult to believe that it really is illegal to own the DVD.

Regards

Mailman