Addressing Some of Our Critics

Over at a Loose Change Forum, we're getting some criticism. Let's address some of the points raised:

Here's one: "At around the 21 minute mark, Loose Change claims that an A3 Skywarrior hit the pentagon, instead of a Boeing 757. This is a change since most of the tinfoil hat crowd claim it was a cruise missile, or a C-130, or a bunker buster bomb, or a learjet, or a truck bomb, or all 5 at once! Conspiracy theories need no consistency or logic, that is what makes them fun."

That's not what Loose Change "claimed."

It offered a POSSIBLE alternate explanation of a cruise missle hitting the building.

In fact, one of the other commenters on that forum came up with the best rebuttal of that point:

So the fact that Loose Change offers completely conflicting propositions, at one point it "suggests" a cruise missile, at another point it suggests a small passenger plane, at another point it suggests an A3 Skyhawk--correction, Skywarrior, is somehow a defense of the integrity of the film? Why don't they add 4-5 other things it possibly might have been, think of how much better the movie would be!

(Later note: James informs me that he posted this comment himself on that forum.)

Let me just add that they did have one more possible cause: the cordite. Correction: There's still another theory mentioned in Loose Change: that it was a helicopter.

They apparently get the idea that one of the commenters on that thread is either James or I; that is not the case. CORRECTION: James tells me that he did indeed post on that forum; my bad for assuming otherwise.

You say April Gallop is now fighting against illegal immigration...how does this disprove anything in LC?

The film claims that April Gallop does not believe a plane hit the building. If that's the case, then why would April Gallop state that her reason for fighting illegal immigration is 9-11? Remember, several of the 9-11 hijackers had overstayed their visas and were illegal immigrants. If April did not believe in the official version of the story including the hijackers, then she would not have joined the anti-illegal immigration movement, right?

They talk about the coroner as well:

You talk about the coroner from flight 93 and how LC only took parts of his quotes to manipulate what he meant. Then you post his entire quote:

"Here's another quote from Miller that you won't see in the film:

All that debris, and the fact that only 8 percent of the human remains could be recovered, mean the site is, essentially, a cemetery, Miller says. "The real story is about what those people did, deciding to rush the [terrorists] and sell everyone else on the idea," says Miller, who spent weeks crawling around on his hands and knees searching for remains and would rather talk about anything else. "Where it landed is not what matters. The most important thing is that they be properly remembered."

This is typical of kook conspiracy theories; one quote by somebody will be highlighted, while other quotes that disprove the theory will be ignored."

How does that quote prove anything in your theory?
How does that show LC manipulating quotes?
I see this as exactly what Dylan pointed out. Miller saw nothing. He could have pulled "8%" out of his ass for all we know.

The quotes from Miller all are chosen to indicate that there were no dead bodies at the scene. But of course, that does not mean, as the film tries mightily to imply, that Miller thought nobody had died there. It just means that there were only bits and pieces of human remains.