So Who Wanted That Line in the Film?

Here's a rather interesting revelation from Dylan on the BBC's early broadcast of the collapse of WTC 7:

I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?"

He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie."

Hmmm, didn't the film credits say that it was "writen" by Dylan Avery?

This will presumably be part of the BBC's broadcast of Conspiracy Files: 9-11--The Third Tower, which is being presented on Sunday night in the UK. I highly recommend it to our British readers. The BBC have done excellent work on their Conspiracy Files programs, and I am sure this will be no exception to the rule.

Note: The post also clears up who actually jumped the gun on the WTC-7 collapse story; apparently Reuters was the original source for the story, which the Beeb picked up as did CNN.

Loose Change: The Final Cut err... Recut

As Dylan Avery posts on his MySpace page:

The fine folks down at SMT Studios have been spending their free time and energy remixing the movie into Dolby 5.1 Surround. In the meantime, we’ve made some minor cuts here and there to speed up the film a bit, corrected the embarrassing spelling mistake in the credits, and fixed a few other goofs here and there. We’re hoping to have it done and mastered as soon as possible.

Hey, remixing the sound will make it even more truthier!

Loose Change Without a Ripple Effect

We keep getting comments about how we're not debunking Loose Change Final Cut, as in the comments over at 9-11 Blogger:

The Nice Thing About Loose Change Final Cut....

That it puts the Screw Loose Change folks out of a job.

LCFC is a difficult to attack film.

It's also inconsequential. Look, the only reason James and I created this blog was because Loose Change I & II were extremely popular; the most downloaded film in history as Dylan likes to claim. I'm not sure that's true, but LC was certainly downloaded a lot.

But LCFC has not had the same effect. As I've noted, it missed the wave in terms of timing, and it backed off many of the more spectacular charges from the earlier versions in favor of a "LIHOP"-lite approach. There are plenty of indications that it has sunk without a trace. Consider:

Upcoming events:



The Loose Change Blog was last updated in late November. The current Loose Change Forum (their third) had a record 90 users on line in January of this year. The prior Loose Change Forum had a record 959 users online in June 2007. And the original Loose Change Forum had a record 1,225 users online on September 11, 2006. I don't suppose I have to graph that trendline?

According to Technorati, the last two blog posts mentioning "Loose Change Final Cut" came from us, and one of those was fifteen days ago.

We probably should change the logo up at the top; our focus hasn't been Loose Change specifically but the entire "Truther" movement for over a year now.

Tackling the Final Cut: Prologue

I'm going to try to do a full-on debunking of the Loose Change Final Cut. It's going to take awhile, so we'll have to do an organizational post later tying it all together.

Prologue. The film opens with footage of the blackshirts at Ground Zero on 9-11-06. Much of this part is simply Dylan setting the stage for the parts that follow, but there are a couple (admittedly minor) points of interest in this section.

Dylan says "Why was a growing percentage of the world population becoming increasingly skeptical of the events of September the 11th? Was it a natural inclination towards believing the worst about the United States government? Or was it a legitimate concern that only grew more powerful with time?"

Note the false dilemma; either 9-11 Troofery is "natural" or it's "legitimate". No hint that there's a third option; that it's a bunch of conspiracy theory nuttery.

Dylan notes that the 9-11 "Truth" Movement includes "academics" and shows us a video of Kevin Ryan. This is an odd choice, to say the least, of an academic; as far as I know Kevin has a bachelor's degree and is not involved in academia in any capacity whatsoever. Dylan does seem to be introducing some of his featured interviewees here and perhaps he didn't want to say that the movement includes a former manager of a water testing facility? But the fact remains that Kevin's an academic like I'm an academic; we both went to college many years ago.

A little later, the screen reads "Five Years Earlier", leading us to believe that he's going to transition into the events of 9-11. But instead he starts off with a British interview of Dan Rather that took place in May 2002.

Then we get into a few clips of several news reporters speculating (almost certainly on the day of 9-11) that it was an "inside job". As usual with the Troofers we are given no context for these remarks. Suppose a reporter had claimed that a bomb had gone off in the WTC; there were such reports that day. Was the news reporter trying to make sense of that report by talking about "inside job" theories?

We get a clip of Tom Kean saying "People ought to stay out of our business." Again, no context is given, so we can't tell what was being discussed. I was able to locate a discussion of the quote here:

"People ought to stay out of our business": That's what the 9/11 Commission chair Thomas Kean seems to be saying in response to calls for Jamie Gorelick to resign. (I say "seems" because there's always the possibility that he was quoted out of context.) From the Washington Post:

Gorelick told CNN yesterday that she will not resign. "The wall was a creature of statute. It's existed since the mid-1980s," she said.

Several of Gorelick's colleagues on the commission rushed to her defense, characterizing her as qualified and nonpartisan, and complaining privately that she was ambushed by Ashcroft.

"We don't want to get in a fight with the attorney general, and I hope he doesn't want to get in a fight with us," said commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. But "people ought to stay out of our business." . . .

So the issue here was whether Gorelick would resign. I don't want to burden you with too many side issues but the claim was that Gorelick was responsible for "the wall", which prevented the CIA from informing the FBI about information it gathered overseas and vice-versa.

President Bush states "A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught."

Of course, that is not about 9-11, but about Iraq.

FBI Agent Robert Wright is shown a little later at a news conference, saying, "FBI management intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed my attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation to identify and to neutralize terrorists. To the families and victims, of September 11th, on behalf of John Vincent, Barry Carmody, myself, we’re sorry."

Except that you read about that press conference and it was not about Al Qaeda, it was about his investigations of money-laundering for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Chicago-based FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, who worked in counterterrorism from 1993-1999, said the recent trajectory of his FBI career has taken a downward spiral since he complained about two incidents that inhibited his ability to continue terror funding and money laundering probes of members of Islamic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Wright, who is filing a complaint through his counsel Judicial Watch, said in documents that the FBI would not provide him decent computer equipment, a problem that has been acknowledged by the FBI as being a bureau-wide problem.

He also said that he was prevented from pursuing an investigation after an unnamed Muslim special agent refused to wear a wire during a probe because, as the Muslim agent allegedly said, "Muslims don't record other Muslims."

Final Cut Floating

Okay, so the Loosers have opened their third forum, and it's actually getting some traffic. 170 members and a total of 1,532 posts already, looks like an active community.

But what are they discussing? That hot new film in the 9-11 Truth Movement, Loose Change, Final Cut, which is still breaking records in London?

Uh, No:



That's right, there have been a grand total of two posts on Loose Change Final Cut over there. One was the announcement of the add-on chapter on the planes. That got zero responses. The other was an add-on chapter produced by someone other than Dylan Avery; that one got four responses.

No, the hot film being discussed over there is... try not to laugh:

Canadian MTV Promotes Trooferism, Airs Clips from LCFC

I suppose we can expect another group of Jeff Hills, eh?

It's the usual tripe; "Osama isn't wanted for 9-11", "Norm Mineta's testimony", "only three buildings in history ever collapsed from fire". Danny Jowenko's comment about Building 7 being a controlled demolition is replayed, but (of course) not his ridiculing of the controlled demolition theories of the Twin Towers.

Solid urinalism from "Johnny".

Another Call to Action

Dylan Avery posts on his Myspace page calling his minions to action. Apparently he thinks his movie in undebunkable.

With that being said, we could not be more proud of how the project turned out. We have a solid two hours of information that is extremely difficult to dispute. Our debunkers and skeptics have! been virtually silent. The mainstream media has refused to cover it. Their only responses have been, "It's boring" or, "It's too long," instead of actually addressing the information within.

OK, well to say we have been virtually silent is a bit of an overstatement, we have had several posts on the movie, far more than the Loosers have ever written or said disputing the hundreds of errors which have been pointed out in their films. And while I do believe I have said the movie was boring, I never gave this as a reason for not going into the movie more in-depth, the main reason is that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW OF SIGNIFICANCE IN YOUR 4TH VERSION OF THE SAME MOVIE. Pat and I may get around to writing something more comphrensive at some point, but for now I see no reason to bother given that everything in your movie has already been addressed. Of course, because it is so freaking boring and repetitive, I don't doubt that some in the media have used this as an excuse. Hey, it could have been worse, they could have just been honest and told you that your movie sucks.

What Exactly is the Record?

A post over at 911 Blogger bears the headline, "Loose Change Final Cut - UK Theatrical Screenings Attracting Record Numbers" with an explanation that the film is headed to more theaters:

The relentless march of 9/11 Truth gathers pace in England as Picture Houses UK books Loose Change Final Cut for more theaters.

Marc Allenby Head of Marketing for Picture Houses UK said today 'When we were first offered Loose Change Final Cut we were skeptical about its appeal to mainstream British cinema patrons. The films subsequent success in the UK has exceeded our expectations. Our partner cinema's are booking Loose Change Final Cut for wider release in 2008'.

What exactly is the record though? The link to theaters lists a total of one showing each, at 5 theaters over a month long period. Now compared to the total of 3 theater showings they have arranged in the United States, this is relatively impressive, but hardly a record.

Incidently the blog post lists us as a tag, but never mentions us otherwise.

Dylan Blows It Again

Undesired Walrus at JREF does a good job of checking out one small claim in Loose Change Final Cut. Why indeed would Dylan think Saeed al-Ghamdi, aged 21, was an experienced fighter pilot for the Saudis?

Rochester Report

Our commenter Patrick was present for a screening of Loose Change Final Cut and for the apres-film beverages, and gives us the following report in the comments on the last post, which is good enough to pull out to the front page:

My God, what a fun night with the Troofers in Rochester. Dylan and Korey showed up; I stuck with (or, near) them and their local crew the whole night, including the bar afterwards.

Believe me, these freaks are worse than you could ever imagine. (And actually, not to say that about Dylan and Korey; I have to admit they seemed like affable fellows).

I'll post more later, but just some random thoughts ...

After the movie, outside, I passed out a rather innocuous leaflet, just suggesting that people read this blog and 911myths.com and debunking911.com. At the top of the leaflet, I typed the link to Mark Robert's PDF of Loose Change Creators Speak.

I was actually in a rush to do this. I printed it out on my computer; made it half a page to save on waste. I went to Kinko's, copied it, made some really bad cuts with their splicer or whatever the hell that is; in the end, it looked like a completely unprofessional job.

For this, throughout the whole night, I was branded a Secret Service spy.

I haven't been photographed like that since high school athletics and my sister's wedding. At the bar, some ass was waiting in his car, engine running, for my trip outside for my occasional cigarette break. He was photographing me from his car. What a waste of both fossil fuels and human DNA.

Back in the bar, I was getting more than the occasional stare and more than the occasional cell phone grab.

Wait not to mention - I intended to leave after one beer. One of the douchebags seriously stalked me. I double-backed twice, finally confronting him (although I had no intention of doing so). He accused me of having a gun and asked me if I had all the proper licenses and registrations for that gun. He had his hands in his pockets, and I was (hate to admit it) seriously scared of what that nutjob might do, so I ran back into the bar.

At the bar, I met Squeaky Fromme incarnate - apparently the person who organized the Loose Change showing (her name, I was told by the bouncer, is Wendy). During the time prior to her creating physical space discomfort (I'm sure that she, like Squeaky, knows how to do this), I thought, "No, she's not getting into a staring contest with me, that can't be true, I'm making that up," but, no, she wanted a staring contest, had the bartender take some pics of me with her camera and later confronted me with "So what are you doing here".

Now, normally, if a woman said "So what are you doing here" at a bar, I would be flattered, perhaps intrigued. But her words were vapid, empty, disturbing. And hurtful, at least as to how Human Being 1 should be treating Human Being 2. And she kept going, disturbing me with her emptiness and loneliness.

Anyway, after some more fun events, I took a cab home, having become officially cab-drunk and going-back-to-my-car-paranoid.

But ... to leave you with two other highlights.

At the Q&A session after the showing, a gentlemen said something like, "Could you recommend resources that link the Israelis and the Mossad with 911?" I instantly heard the paraphrase - "Could you tell me how to blame 911 on the Jews?" I screamed "HEINRICH HIMMLER". Very funny moment, for me and about 15-20% of the crowd.

And I was struck by the fact that Korey promised that after lawyer fees (I'm a lawyer, I understand), ALL of the money that they were making would go to the 911 truth movement (whatever that means) and first responders (we can verify what that means). Prior to that - during the movie - I saw a big jar with a sticker that said all proceeds go to first responders (and some cash in that jar). Also, this was billed by the theater as a "benefit." So ... was this a charity event? Are all of their events charity events? I knew that, during the Q&A, I would get one question. So I asked if they were properly registered as charity solicitors with the State of New York. He tried to say that they were an LLC (so what) and then that they were a 501(c)(3) (which would be a lie), but then had to admit that they weren't registered as parties allowed to solicit contributions for a charity.

Like, I said, I'm an attorney. But then, very minor. Sounds like a job for the Attorney General!

Sounds very much like they are doing everything by the seat of their pants.

Great job, Patrick!

De Planes Boss, De Planes

This was apparently an add-on to the Loose Change Final Cut DVD, as posted over at 9-11 Blogger. Dylan claims that there were two fighters out of Atlantic City that were making practice runs over the Pine Barrens that could have been sent to New York. I'm pretty sure I looked into this in the past and that there are no fighters based in Atlantic City. Update: Yep.

Eleven days after the attacks, former Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler told the New York Times that the Atlantic City base was shut down in 1999, leaving New York City airspace defenseless.

"Up until a few years ago we had an F-16 fighter wing here in New Jersey that would be capable of intercepting one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center," Schundler said in a follow-up interview with WABC Radio.

"They decreased the number of wings that were available to do that. So the result was that the closest fighter wing that had the capability to intercept one of those planes was in Massachusetts."

Update II: I should have stated that at least per that article there were no F-16s at Atlantic City as of 9-11-01. It appears that there are F-16s now. I am contacting the base to see if I can obtain confirmation either way regarding the situation on 9-11-01. Kudos to commenter Jake for keeping me on my toes!

Bush's claim to have seen the first plane hit the tower on TV gets the usual going-over; never mind that it's obvious he's confusing later events with what happened at the time. He plainly saw the pictures we all saw; the North Tower on fire, after the crash, and only later saw the actual crashes. Kooks like to highlight this but as with everything they highlight, it makes no sense if you try to work it into the conspiracy theory. Did Bush have some operative training a camera on the WTC so that he could watch the attacks via closed-circuit? Did he just forget then that he was the only person getting this special feed? If so, it's another one of those Merry Pason confessions, like "Pull it". We get the nonsense about how Bush should have bailed out of Booker Elementary, because it was obviously a target.

The Science of Bad Predictions

As I have repeatedly stated (plagiarizing my micro professor) the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory is that a scientific theory allows you to make good predictions. A conspiracy theory on the other hand, because of its lack of consistency and falsifiability, does not allow for predictions any more accurate than just a random guess. A fellow debunker pointed me to this example from Loose Change: the Final Insult.

In this case, the truthers have long insisted that reports of molten metal at Ground Zero are proof of controlled demolition. For example, David Ray Griffin, who not coincidentally was the "fact-checker" of the latest Loose Change travesty, once stated:

And it was still in a molten state when people were… crane operators were pulling out the beams and said it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel.

Now I completely disagree with his statement that this is exactly what you would expect, but for the sake of argument we will accept his argument for now. Well, to follow the scientific method, how could we go about checking this hypothesis? Well, one could blow up a building, and then check to see if there is any molten steel in the debris. That certainly would show you something, but let's go for something simpler. Let's see if this allows us to make any predictions about what was observed on 9/11.

If molten steel (or more generally metal) being observed in the debris is indicative of the use of demolitions (and I am not saying it is) then we should be able to predict that these observations would be found in the buildings the conspiracy theorists claim were demolished. OK, well I don't agree with their interpretations of the events, but I will accept that there were people who said they saw "molten metal" in the wreckage of buildings 1,2 and 7.

At the same time though, this should also mean that molten metal should not be observed in buildings which were not brought down with explosives. After all, their argument is that fire cannot melt steel, therefore the only thing which could cause this would be explosives. If molten metal is present in buildings that were not demolished by the use of explosives, than this argument is meaningless. Thus, we should be able to predict that no molten metal would be found in these buildings.

Well, enter Loose Change: The Final Cut, at the hour and 13 minute mark, quoting Ken Holden:

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of a wall from Building 6.

Wait a minute. If molten metal is indicative of controlled demolition, then why are they citing its presence in a building that was not blown up (building 6 was later "pulled" down with cables) as proof that explosives were used?

Once again, conspiracy theories make for bad predictions.

Loose Change--Without a Ripple Effect

If you think you aren't hearing much about Loose Change the Final Cut here, it's partially because we aren't hearing anything about it over there. On the Loose Change Forum thread dedicated to the Final Cut, there have been six total posts since November 14, three days after the film was released, and one of those was from executive producer Tim Sparke (Mercury) trying to flog the faithful.

Dylan and company have gotten caught on the horns of a dilemma. The earlier Loose Change films were successful precisely because they were free. Now that they've spent a lot of money on the new version, they have to charge for it. But the act of charging for it limits the amount of buzz the film gets. Last year at this time we were getting tons of referrals from various forums around the internet; currently we get a very, very small percentage of our traffic via that route.

I do want to compile a list of the errors we've seen in the film as a reference source. But it's more for when they actually release the free version, which if they're waiting until they make their investors whole is liable to take quite awhile.

Blast from the Past

I happened to be looking through old stuff and found this announcement from Dylan Avery as to his planned opening to Loose Change Final Cut:

This will most likely be the only time I'm going to do this, at least for a while, so soak it up. By posting this, I'm not asking for what to take out or leave in, I'm simply sharing the information with you. Take it or leave it. The opening of LC: Final Cut will go somewhat like this:

9/11/2006
Reichstag Fire
Pearl Harbor
Manhattan Project
Nuremberg Trials/Project Paperclip/MKULTRA/Fort Detrick
Northwoods
Gulf of Tonkin
'93 WTC Bombing
Payne Stewart (May or may not)
PNAC
Dov Zakheim, PNAC member and dual-israeli citizen, becomes Pentagon Financial Comptroller
DOD Memo
John O'Neill and W199I
Put Options
Pentagon Missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars

Okay, care to guess how many of those made it into the opening? The answer may tell you why this film was 14 months late.

Update: The answer is that the only part listed here that made it into the opening of Final Cut was 9/11/2006.

Lazy Sunday Afternoon

The only explanation I can give for producing this:

Who Was the Spellchecker?

Well David Ray Griffin was the factchecker, and we all know what a great job he did, but who did they get to spellcheck the movie? From the final credits of the Final Insult:

Thanks to the guys at JREF for finding this one.

London Premiere of Loose Change Final Cut

Is highlighted over at 9-11 Blogger. Clicking to the venue's site, we discover that they managed to book the theater for a single, matinee (12:00 Noon) performance.

Like James, I'm pretty stunned at how far the Loose Change phenomenon has fallen; from a cover story on Vanity Fair in 2006 to almost no attention in 2007. Last year's elections were a major factor; when leftists could claim that the Republicans were rigging the elections, a Hail Mary pass like 9-11 "Truth" might seem worth attempting. In addition, the nutbars were all convinced that getting the Democrats in would result in a new investigation and maybe impeachment. Now that both of those options seem off the table (even Kucinich has not started his proposed hearings), the left no longer seems fertile ground for expanding the movement.

More than anything else, LCFC suffers from bad timing. As Shakespeare noted, there is a tide in the affairs of men that, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Had LCFC been available at the crest of the 9-11 "Truth" movement in September of 2006, it might have been successful at least in terms of making money. Had it been out in September of 2007, it would at least have hit the cyclical interest that peaks around the anniversary. But November seems poor timing. Here are the visits to 9-11 Blogger for the last 15 months:

2006
Jun 120,293
Jul 149,002
Aug 239,946
Sep 322,289
Oct 308,133
Nov 196,429
Dec 200,171
2007
Jan 183,664
Feb 200,708
Mar 265,002
Apr 319,292 (probably Rosie O'Donnell effect)
May 301,107
Jun 238,580
Jul 231,100
Aug 248,584
Sep 337,127
Oct 235,057

So you can see that in the last two years there has been a steep fall-off in readership at 9-11 Blogger following the anniversary. In 2006 it came in November and lasted through February 2007; in 2007 it came in October. We show a similar pattern in our statistics as well; a gradual increase throughout the summer, a peak in September, and then a sharp decline in October.

Phantom Flight 11

I mentioned the other day that the FAA and the military both thought that American Airlines Flight 11 was still airborne well after the North Tower was struck and that there were concerns that it was headed to Washington, and that this was what an Air Force officer was referring to when he said "We chased many phantoms that day" and that it did not refer to "insertions" onto the radar screens of air traffic controllers.

Jason Bermas, on his show yesterday (mostly devoted to trashing our criticisms of Final Cut) claimed that the Air Force was chasing a real blip on the screen. Not true.

The plane's course, had it continued south past New York in the direction it was flying before it dipped below radar coverage, would have had it headed on a straight course toward D.C. This was all controllers were going on; they were never tracking an actual plane on the radar after losing American 11 near Manhattan, but if it had been flying low enough, the plane could have gone undetected. "After talking to a supervisor, I made the call and said [American 11] is still in the air, and it's probably somewhere over New Jersey or Delaware heading for Washington, D.C.," Scoggins told me.

Bolding added for emphasis.

Jason also talked a lot about what we didn't mention, like the fact that two of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant in 2000. Jason, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the things you actually got right. That Khalid al-Midhar and another hijacker lived with an FBI informant is well-established. We could talk a lot about the missed opportunities, and the fact that al-Midhar was not put on a terrorist watch list until after he was in the country, even though the CIA knew he attended a terrorist meeting in 2000. Nobody is denying that mistakes were made; that one in particular was costly.

One of the Problems With Removing Final Cut from Google Video

Is that you open the door for people to upload their own versions.

Loose Change: The Zionist Cut.

In addition, Dylan was so struck by the look of his Loose Change Final Cut title screen that he used it on several videos before the Final Cut came out. Many people have watched the video with the Clock Lady thinking they're seeing the Final Cut.

Let me specify here that I really have no problems with them limiting the channel to those who pay. The movie is their property and they have the right to do with it as they will.

The Sounds of Silence

Now I was never buying into the Loose Change: The Final Insult hype that the Louder Than Words boys were putting out, what with 3,000 screens and a $20 million marketing budget and all, but I was expecting at least a little something. I mean, come on, when you are hyping a movie in Hustler it has got to mean something, right? I thought there would be a little PR to review, and maybe Pat or I would have to do an interview with some media source covering this "controversial" new... err... old movie.

Thus far it has been stunningly anti-climatic though. Not only does the movie present nothing new, in fact it has been so watered down that it is even less revelationary than the first three versions, but it has caused so little of a ripple in the world of popular culture as to be completely ignored. A search of Google News shows that with the exception of Prison Planet, the site owned by Executive Producer Alex Jones, a grand total of 1 news site marked the release of the movie, the Twin Cities Planet, discussing the single US theater appearance of the movie, which Pat mentioned below.

And it is not just fizzling out in the general media, even the Loosers have been less than ecstatic. A poll on the Loose Change Forum, a self selected audience where anyone but the most fervent supporters are immediately banned, shows that to this point only 42% of members "loved the movie". Or to use Truther poll math, even 58% of the most fervent Loose Change fans did not think the movie was that great.