Do-Over Dylan Responds to the Guardian

Over on the JREF forum they posted an open letter from Dylan Avery to the Guardian, complaining about their recent article. The letter, originally from the Loose Change Forum, has since been deleted, but this is too hilarious to avoid addressing:

"The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of housands of people ... People appear on the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. "That suggestion is ludicrous and is not based in any reality or fact. The Manhattan Project cost nearly $2 billion dollars and employed over 100,000 people, and a majority of the details surrounding it remain classified to this day.

Yes, the Manhattan Project remained a secret from most Americans (although not Soviet intelligence) while it was going on. Obviously it was well known after the fact. This is an idiotic analogy though, people kept the project secret, because of patriotism, it involved a major contribution to the war effort, not because they had been intimidated by Popular Mechanics. I can guarantee you that if the Manhattan Project had actually involved the destruction of Manhattan, someone would have blown the whistle.

Then there is this part on witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon (emphasis added)

We've spoken to a number of those people, including Mike Walter. We never said a cruise missile did hit. We merely advanced it as a possible theory. Anything could have happened at the Pentagon, and the core issue remains that the government has controlled the information from start to finish, and has refused citizens' requests at almost every turn.

One of the people who saw the plane hit, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D, has this to say:"... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not
evident.

This part is particularly hilarious. They admit people saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and then cite two people who did! Yet we are supposed to take the cruise missile theory they "advance" seriously, even though the very evidence they cited contradicts it.

Now he turns to engineering:

That statement is false. The actual collapse mechanism for the entire building was never documented by NIST, and they have openly stated that it was not their job. We have footage of them on camera saying so. They cover the "collapse initiation" and state flatly that it leads to "global collapse." The fact that NIST wants us to believe that an entire 90-story structure could have come crashing down at any moment, and the fact that people such as George Manbiot parrot this nonsense, is absurd beyond belief.

Well as Mark Roberts pointed out in their debate, they haven't even read the NIST report enough to know what the collapse mechanism was, which NIST quite clearly described. They never said that was not their job. The part NIST did not describe in detail was what happened after the collapse ensued. The Loosers need to think about what the point of the NIST report was. It was to evaluate the engineering and safety systems at work, not to provide trivia for conspiracy theorists. Once the buildings started to collapse, it was going to continue. The bottom floors could not withstand the dynamic force of 20+ floors falling on them. There was no point to doing an in-depth study of this, any structural engineer could figure this out with 10 minutes of work on the back of a napkin.

What would be the point of studying the results of the collapse? Is any engineer going to design a building so that it collapses slowly? No, they are trying to figure out how to keep them from collapsing in the first place. This logic is like criticising an investigation into an airplane crash, which found that the plane crash was caused by the failure of the rudder controls, which caused the plane to impact the ground at a 40 degree angle at 300 MPH, and then complaining that the NTSB report did not go into detail on the structural effects of the impact of the ground on the passenger cabin!

And finally, Dylan cautions us once again against taking his movie seriously.

Had he taken the extra time to actually RESEARCH, he would inevitably have stumbled upon the research of Paul Thompson and Jim Hoffman, and actually come to some fair conclusions instead of basing it on our film, which we have openly stated does not even begin to cover the entire 9/11 movement.

Dylan hilariously attacks this 1000 odd word essay, because it does not have a "debate on evidence", and then defends his hour and 20 minute movie (all 3 editions of it) because it does not cover the entire movement.