House of Cards

There are a lot of blog posts out there on Loose Change from smaller, My Space blogs, that say something like, "I don't agree with everything in this film, but...."

Indeed, this is what a lot of Truthers and even Admins on the Loose Change board say:

Yeah I love the fact that they think since this is the LC board that we have to beleive (sic) or defend every point in it.

LC was made to get people to ask questions and find the answers.

Explain to me how all evidedence (sic) in null and void just because there are some issues with LC?

Actually, almost every part of the conspiracy theory espoused in LC V2 depends on almost every other part of the conspiracy theory.

Think about it for a second. The major claims in LC V2 can be summarized as follows:

1. None of the four planes actually ended up where the official story says they did. AA 11 and UA 175 didn't hit the World Trade Center, AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and UA 93 didn't end up in Shanksville.

2. The two towers of the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition after being hit by drone airplanes, while WTC 7 was brought down solely by controlled demolition later in the day.

3. The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. Or five other possibilities.

4. Flight 93 was used to gather up all the passengers on the other three planes, and was landed in Cleveland, where the passengers were offloaded into a NASA building.

5. All of the cellphone (really Airfone) calls were fake.

That about cover it? Now take one of the assumptions and turn it around. Suppose #5 is wrong and the cellphone calls were real. This indicates real hijackers, which undercuts #1 and #3. Suppose #1 is wrong, and one (or more) of the planes which the WTC were actually the ones we were told. This undercuts #3 and #4 unless Dylan's going to tell us that the passengers were offloaded, and then the planes were remote-controlled into the towers. Suppose controlled demolition of the WTC is wrong. Then weren't the plotters risking that their drone aircraft would be discovered? Suppose the Pentagon was hit by AA 77. Then why didn't they use the real planes for the WTC attack? You can raise an argument I suppose that you throw out #4, and it doesn't really mean anything to the rest of the conspiracy, although it does leave you up in the air as to what happened to all the passengers.

Now, that's not to say that you can't throw out one or two of those main conclusions and still come up with a conspiracy theory that implicates the Bush administration, because you certainly can. Just not Dylan's particular conspiracy theory.