Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I also recommend the BBC's terrific video on The Third Tower.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Greatest. Thread. Evah!

Over at Above Top Secret, a commenter proposes banning all posters who have some form of mental illness. And suddenly we learn that there are more nuts over there than in a Sam's Club jar o of Skippy. It starts with this comment:

People with mental illnesses have a lot more to contribute to society than so called 'normal' people.

More? Come on! I can see arguing that they have something to contribute, sure. As is pointed out in that post, some famous and talented people in history have had mental problems. But they are the exception, not the rule. And it continues:

I have many times OPENLY disclosed my legal mental state AKA Legally Insane on ATS and BTS and Mutter [when it existed] and Chat... people often are shocked by my extreme ideas and are not past posting "Are You Crazy???"

Here's an interesting thought for you...I have openly stated that I hear voices 24/7 somewhere in the thread that is first linked in my signature...in fact, I think I have been targeted for over a decade now.

Should I be banned?

And that one is posted by a moderate over there!

A Truther History of Debates

Over two years ago Mark Roberts from the JREF Forum debated ae911 founder Richard Gage, an event which despite their bravado did not merit a mention in any truther source I could find. Now it finally is brought up in this history of 9/11 conspiracy debates on the ae911 website.

Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.

The article also points out that, unwittingly I presume, that despite Gage's constant claim to be a scientist and not a conspiracy theorist, he stills buys into all the long ago debunked truther kool aid.

Shermer opened saying he thought the government’s official inquiries did a fairly good job and argued that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda said they did it and intended to do it again. Gage, uncharacteristically took the bait this time and countered that the photograph did not look at all like bin Laden and that Bin Laden claimed that he it was not responsible.

Nevermind that this was long ago shown to be an issue of the conversion of the video between PAL and NTSC.

And believe it or not, Gage does a David Ray Griffin and insists the hijackers are still alive.

Coiro asked about the possibility of the planes having been remotely controlled. Gage said it was possible but beyond the scope of AE911Truth. He mentioned the named suspects who turned up alive after being accused of murder and suicide. On this point Shermer revealed a dismissive approach to what Gage was saying. Shermer said Americans easily confuse Middle Eastern names and that those people were all dead. “That claim has been looked into. None of those people have been interviewed,” Shermer said.

BBC, however, carried a story that said an accused hijacker, Waleed Al Shehri, was protesting the accusation in Morocco and has talked with journalists.

The BBC, however, also carried a story in which they corrected their earlier inaccurate one.

Boloboffin Still Doing A Great Job

Over at AE911Truth.info. He takes on Dwain Deets's 7 Problems with Building 7 here. Just keep browsing, plenty of good debunking of Gage's gaggle.

Will These Idiots Make Up Their Alleged Minds?

Over at 9-11 Flogger the latest claim is:

It Fell in Silence: The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Whatever happened to Kevin McPadden's "ba-BOOM!"

Of course, that's not quite what "in silence" is supposed to mean in this particular instance. But why should the Troofers be the only ones allowed to quote-mine?

Good Article on Conspiracy Theories

At (gasp) the Huffington Post.

Many of these popularizers received their lofty titles from "think tanks" or "institutes" that are run out of somebody's PO box or den. Almost none of them have credentials or professional experience in the field they're holding forth on -- and the ones that do have relevant qualifications are more often than not regarded as embarrassments by their colleagues. And so it happens that David Ray Griffin, the leading author of books on the 9/11 conspiracy, isn't an aviation expert, physicist, structural engineer, or authority on terrorism; he's a retired theology professor who asks his readers to take a lot on faith.

Despite the lack of academic or professional cred (or perhaps because of it), the folks who promote conspiracy theories go overboard to put a thick veneer of scholarship on their claims. Books and essays are ostentatiously footnoted; but the references typically link back to even more obscure conspiracy publications with even flimsier evidence -- or else to other works written by the same author, in a self-reinforcing loop.

Yep. Remember that recent DRG article that repeated the claim that several of the hijackers were alive? Well, Grifter has learned from past mistakes; instead of linking the BBC article from 2001, which now has the correction appended, he instead referenced The New Pearl Harbor.

Worth the read.

Mr Deets Goes To Town

Dwain Deets, one of the geese in Gage's gaggle, has launched a site called 7 Problems with Building 7. It's about as bad as you might expect. Problem 1:

No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7). More on no plane.

Ooooh, mysterious! No plane struck St. Nick's cathedral either. Or, you know, WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6. And it doesn't get better; check out #2:

No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.)

No evidence? These retards continually refer to the eyewitness testimony about "explosions", but the minute we talk about WTC-7, suddenly they are not interested in what the firefighters saw.

Or #4:

No mainstream media covered the building collapse other than that first day, when Dan Rather said on network TV, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."

Key word in there: Reminiscent. As usual, the Troofers are unable to recognize analogies when they see them.