Saturday, December 31, 2016

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 the annotated version, which was named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. The creator 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: Because some of our commenters have chosen to act like children, we are no longer allowing comments.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 07, 2016


Several years ago I posted on Deborah Lipstadt's books Denying the Holocaust and History on Trial, so I am rather excited to see the latter has been made into a movie staring Rachel Weisz. I will be standing in line for this one.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The Twenty Eight Pages

The 28 redacted pages of the Congressional 9/11 Report (not the 9/11 Commission as commonly misunderstood) has been under discussion for several months, now it appears it may finally be released.

Twenty-eight pages of a 2002 Congressional report on the September 11, 2001 terror attacks -- a section which contains information regarding alleged Saudi ties -- will soon be released, a Democratic source confirms to CBS News.
The Obama administration must first decide whether or not to declassify the material, according to the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan. But House and Senate leadership then decides whether or not to release the material, and -- if they do decide to do so -- when and how it will be distributed.
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, weighed in on the possibility that the White House could declassify the previously redacted pages within the next couple of days.
My prediction. These pages will shockingly show that Islamists on the Arabian Peninsula were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Has It Only Been Ten Years?

 A little more than a decade ago, I was looking for reviews of the then-current movie by Paul Greenglass, United 93.  As it happened a few writers for the Huffington Post had been invited to the Tribeca premiere and they wrote glowing reviews of the film.  But in the comments section I found numerous references to the internet sensation, Loose Change, which, I was assured would change my life forever.

It was late on a Friday afternoon, and so I watched Loose Change and sure enough it changed my life forever.  I wrote a post about it on my main blog, Brainster's:

Let me put this as bluntly as possible. If you believe the vast conspiracy theory of Loose Change, you are a nut. Ignoring for the moment the debunking provided by Popular Mechanics, consider that you would have to believe in a conspiracy involving hundreds of people concerning the biggest news event of this century so far, and that none of these people have come forward.
 As it happened, James B, a blogger whom I had cooperated with on a couple posts debunking the NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, sent me an email after my post, suggesting that we collaborate on a blog that he had already started, called Loose Change, Loose Screw.  As the marketing genius that I am, I came up with a better title, Screw Loose Change, although I admit, that most people seemed to miss the "Screw Loose" part, and seemed to think that the blog title was only a middle finger to Dylan and the boys.

What came next I certainly never predicted. We ended up with 10,000 hits in our first 24 hours.  It turned out that there was a huge public (and media) demand for a site that debunked the ridiculous claims of Loose Change.  Within the first few months, either James or I was interviewed on at least a dozen radio programs, including the BBC's World News Today.  We were cited in the 9-11 Fifth Anniversary issues of Time and US News and World Report.

In February of 2007, I collaborated with Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times to break the story that a Chandler, Arizona, conference of the 9-11 kooks was being hosted by a holocaust denier named Eric D. Williams.  Stephen was kind enough to six months later get me featured on the front cover of the Phoenix New Times, and no, I still haven't lost the beer belly, damnit!

Reflections, ten years later?  For starters, timing is everything.  Debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theories (and blogging) was hot in 2006, and James and I hopped on top of a wave.  We weren't the first (McKinney Sucks), and we weren't the best (Mark (Gravy) Roberts), but we showed up and got lucky.

Nowadays the conspiracy theories about 9-11 have been relegated to the lunatic fringe.  I'd like to take credit (along with James B, Gravy and others), but realistically they could never survive any kind of hard scrutiny, and they were doomed with Obama's election in 2008.

Thanks to James B, and thanks to the many other debunkers who have done the hard work. For the most part, I admit I have been Nelson Muntz.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Et Tu, Basile?

The Troofers sure seem to be alchemists in reverse; they take gold and turn it into lead.  Remember Truth Burn?  A metal worker created a 9-11 Truth sign which he was going to burn with thermite at Burning Man.  IIRC they raised about $20,000 for that one, and what did he do?  Burn some thermite in a can.

Basile seems quite reasonable by comparison.  He raised $5000 and what did he do?  Well, nothing, as far as I can see:

Mark Basile is no longer associated with the project.
 Please do not send any more donations.
No mention of where the money went (or, for that matter, the dust samples).  Also no mention of who is still "associated" with the project.

Update: Well, that got results.  Now Basile's status reads:

April 26, 2016:  "I am working on it.  I am doing the best I can."

Sunday, April 17, 2016

28 Pages Plus Saudi Lawsuit in the News

There's definitely a linkage between the two stories:

In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.

That’s quite an understatement.

Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.
And the 9-11 Families are hoping that the 28 pages get released because their attempted lawsuit against the Saudi government would undoubtedly get a shot in the arm:

Until now,the Obama administration has so far refused to reveal the contents of the missing pages and looks to be leaving the decision to a Congressional vote.
Speaking to the New York Times, Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on September 11 said: 'It's stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens.'  

Ms. Kleinberg is part of a group of victims' family members pushing for the legislation against the Middle Eastern country, however so far all attempts to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have failed.
 I think the Saudi involvement is much less than billed.  Osama had some credibility among wealthy Saudis after Soviet-Afghanistan war. and he was able to capitalize on that with his purported charity, the rather innocuously named "Social Services".  Some wealthy Saudis, and probably even some royals donated to his group.

But, as Tom Kean pointed out years ago, the usual exhortation to follow the money in this case was useless, because the money involved was peanuts. 

The 60 Minutes report is transcribed here. Note this especially annoying part:

Steve Kroft: And when we say, "The Saudis," you mean the government, the--
Bob Graham: I mean--
Steve Kroft: --rich people in the country? Charities--
Bob Graham: All of the above.
Hey, Kroft, shut up for a second after you say "You mean the government." By continuing to talk  you weakened the argument being made.

Kroft interviews several of the 9-11 commissioners who are in favor of releasing the report.  But, as is typical of advocacy journalism (as compared to real reporting) he omits putting on camera anybody who opposes the release, although he quite obviously paraphrases Philip Zelikow's comments:

Roemer and others who have actually read the 28 pages, describe them as a working draft similar to a grand jury or police report that includes provocative evidence -- some verified, and some not.
I remain in favor of releasing the 28 pages.  But the dishonest reporting by 60 Minutes actually makes me less comfortable with that position.

Friday, February 05, 2016

Mark Basile's Study "May" Be Ready This Year

Gotta give the Troofers credit on this one; they have shown the patience of Job for Basile.

I can tell you that Mark will most likely not be giving us regular updates, in the form of little progress reports, as we had initially planned. It just seems as if keeping any kind of schedule is not really an option for Mark, presumably due to time constraints. He did say at some point a few months ago that he was planning to take a little vacation to sort out the study, but that has not happened yet, as far as I know...

It has always been extremely difficult to reach Mark but in recent months he has been even more reclusive than normal, and I suspect that a series of email/phone calling spamming from people I won´t mention is responsible for that.

We will certainly notify our readers whenever we have something...and I would love to be able to give you some sort of a promise for results within a certain time-frame but I will have to refrain given past experience..

Last autumn Mark sounded like he was about to make a big push to get things done but then some things got in the way, and again he indicated to Richard in Boston that he is about to get things done...but still no news.

Personally I am fairly optimistic that he will have results for us this year, but I am not making any promises.
Let's remember that he raised the $5000 needed for the study over 2 years ago.  He's going to make NIST's report on Building 7 look rushed.