บาคาร่า ออนไลน์ มือถือ_คาสิโนออนไลน์ ฟรีเงิน2019_สล็อตเงินสด_gclub ผ่านเว็บ_การันตีความมันส์

Loose Change: Loose with truth
a second edition of In Plane Site
9/11 was an inside job, but Loose Change is a hoax
a real conclusion using fake evidence

"What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions."
-- (ex) Army specialist Korey Rowe,
veteran of Bush's wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, producer of Loose Change
quoted in The Loose Cannon of 9/11, by Michael Slenske, SMITH Magazine. Posted August 21, 2006. www.alternet.org/story/40476/

"Loose Change really is not a very fair representation of the 9-11 Truth Movement. I would recommend 9-11 Press for Truth, 9-11 Mysteries."
-- Dylan Avery, Director, Loose Change

Press for Truth is a good introduction, but the "Mysteries" film is just as bad as Loose Change.

on this page:

related pages:

A list of films with best evidence of 9/11 complicity is at www.oilempire.us/movies.html


Loose Change, a reworking of the 2004 film In Plane Site, is the most widely distributed film promoting the "no planes on 9/11" hoaxes.

Loose Change is based on In Plane Site, but there are three major differences:

While it is usually impossible to know the motivations of the creators of this mix of real and fake, it is not difficult to discern the intentions of the mainstream media that focus on Loose Change as representative of all dissent to the official story. Fox TV, San Francisco Chronicle, Village Voice, USA Today and other media have run attack pieces that are free advertising for the film -- since readers and viewers who have doubts about the official story will assume that Loose Change is being attacked because it must be telling the truths the media wants suppressed.

Meanwhile, serious documentaries such as Press for Truth, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and Beyond, 9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City, September 9, 2004), The Great Deception and The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw receive virtually no attention from any newspapers or television shows, not even to attack their contents.


March 30, 2006

A meal of Fine Food mixed with Dog Shit:
Charlie Sheen, Loose Change and why the media focus on hoaxes.

The 9/11 "truth movement" peaked two years ago this week at the International Inquiry in San Francisco. Shortly after that excellent event, the flood of disinformation and hoax claims on 9/11 accelerated (probably a response to the success of the Inquiry). A few months later, the mass media started efforts to discredit 9/11 truth by focusing on the fake claims. It's an old, old tactic.

If there's any hope for the loose confederation called the 9/11 truth movement, it would require a shared understanding that the "no plane hit Pentagon" claim is a hoax designed to discredit us. Fortunately, the best investigators into 9/11 understand that "no plane" is not true -- a list of some of them is at www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html Most people who are interested in these issues but unfamiliar with the details can easily be shown that the "small hole" claim is fake, that photos of the crash site show plane parts, and that hundreds of people saw the plane.

There's been some excitement at some websites over the fact that actor Charlie Sheen has stated he thinks the Bush regime was involved in 9/11. Sheen was even invited onto a CNN show to talk about this, which has caused some to think this is a major media breakthrough.

However, this is unlikely to be the outcome. Sheen stated that he didn't think a plane hit the Pentagon, which in his case is probably an honest mistake (he obviously did not check the facts). A follow-up show on CNN with actor Ed Asner and 9/11 author Sander Hicks was abruptly canceled (it's worth noting that Sander's book "The Big Wedding" mentions how the "no plane" claims are not true). The media leaders are not dumb - they know that any 9/11 "truth" coverage should focus on the fake claims and ignore the real ones.

CNN's latest focus on so-called "9/11 truth" is similar to other media efforts over the past two years. The media would prefer to ignore 9/11 conspiracy claims, but they have gotten enough traction (and support) so they cover the story by ensuring that the "no plane" hoax is at the center of the claims. CNN, Parade, Democracy Now, The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American and others have trashed 9/11 activists, focusing on the hoaxes while largely ignoring the real evidence.

A Greenpeace media guru gave this writer excellent advice a long time ago: if you are being interviewed and say ten smart things and one dumb thing, the dumb thing will be on TV. That is the modus operandi of the media.

It's been sad to watch a number of well-meaning "9/11 activists" promote the disinformation film "Loose Change" despite knowing that much of what's in that pseudo-documentary is nonsense. Loose Change is merely a recycling of the previous hoax production "In Plane Site," a 2004 campaign to distract and discredit 9/11 skeptics before the Kerry/Bush stolen election. The cover of the Plane Site DVD contained a subtle admission that it was just a bad joke hidden in plain sight. The main difference between Loose Change and In Plane Site is the newer production includes a few more pieces of truth, since the signal-to-noise ratio in IPS was so poor that many people understand it was a fake film.

Those who push "Loose Change" ignore the real documentaries that are high quality: Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing in New York City on September 9, 2004. Links to these and other films are at www.oilempire.us/movies.html Some of those who suggest that we should promote the fake films do so because they are free, although there are some real clips on-line that are free (particularly the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing), although they don't have fancy graphics or a rock music soundtrack. The fake film promoters who are sincere seem to assume that while 9/11 was a false flag operation, everyone promoting "truth" is sincere even if they advocate claims that are absurd and without evidence.

One political tactic that would be needed for positive change is for people to learn to "vote with their money" for products made by people doing good work. Mike Ruppert and Barrie Zwicker have done good work to produce documentaries on 9/11, and they deserve to make back their costs for these efforts.

While no one is likely to be 100% correct in their writings on these topics, the "no plane" stuff has been debunked for so many years that anyone still promoting this claim is either uninformed, unwilling to admit a mistake, or lying.

Mike Ruppert has an excellent commentary today that is must reading for everyone concerned with the ebbing of the 9/11 truth movement:

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_charlie_sheen.shtml
HEY CHARLIE SHEEN, WAKE UP!
There Are Good Reasons Why 9/11 is Having Its 15 Minutes of Fame Now – Look at Who’s In the Spotlight
by Michael C. Ruppert

A new website - flight77.info - has an excellent commentary on "Loose Change"

i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective of people who are skeptical about the official version of happened on 9/11... but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just provocative web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their home page, they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' that offers up every crack pot pod missile theory in the book. 'loose change' is out there just to provoke people emotionally. its substance is in its appeal to teens and twentysomethings. so why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' aligning themselves with a tin hat munching 9/11 music video? why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' also promoting the no 757 theory? answer: the web site is just provocative. it's using the blanket (AKA 'big tent'; throwing enough shit at the wall) approach to attract more people to the concept that 9/11 was an inside job. then by magic, one of these new people will uncover the proof we need to hang the true conspirators.
what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler? bueler?
once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish line, they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people lose interest. we need to get 'em for 9//11 while they're in office if we're going to end this endless war on terrorism.
so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics into 9/11 goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2 years looking at the same old pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee, that IS a small hole...' and who will spend endless hours replaying the WTC video trying to see the missile pods.
what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a member - but we're all full of shit reciting misinformation?
the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement isn't to have more members - it's to end the war on terrorism while it's still possible. and time is really running out.

 

9/11 truth activists debunk Loose Change

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060706_questions_grave.shtml

THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE
As Sad As It Was Predictable
Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit Authentic 9/11 Research
by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht

I have watched “Loose Change” and in my expert opinion it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: “Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”
Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon. This film is so slickly produced (and on such a large budget) that it is hard to believe that amateur filmmakers could have made it. Once the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense, and that was the film’s intent.


http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/06/if-i-only-had-plane.html

Wednesday, June 28, 2006
If I Only Had a Plane

Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell - Lou Reed

It hasn't been a month since Salon's Farhad Manjoo declared case closed on 2004 election fraud. (The abbreviated argument, via Sadly, No: "There may have been widespread election fraud in 2004, but what really gets me steamed is the zany conspiracy theory that it might have affected the election.”) But he's already back to slay another conspiracy dragon with "The 9/11 deniers." And yes, that's the implication: to dispute the finding of the Kean commission is to make yourself a fellow traveller with Holocaust revisionists. (Though truthfully, we need to be careful about what company we keep.)
Is Gerald Posner glancing anxiously over his shoulder? The 28 year old Manjoo seems to be making a run for his title of Alpha Debunker. His prejudicial deference to authority, his selection and deselection of evidence, his strawmen and his sarcastic disdain for contrary thought should grease his way to great success. And conventional wisdom's eager-to-please houseboy has already come a long way since his 2000 graduation, "with apparently no advanced degrees in social science or political science."
Predictably enough, Manjoo's representative text of 9/11 conspiracy is the flypaper Loose Change, which he calls "something like a film version of a highly contested Wikipedia page." (Suggesting a certain shallowness of thought Manjoo's wiki fixation runs deep, as demonstrated by his cut and paste blog, What I Learned on Wikipedia Today.) Manjoo's critique of Dylan Avery's work is almost wholly borrowed from Jim Hoffman's "Sifting Through Loose Change", and though he credits Hoffman, he also studiously ignores Hoffman's far more credible case for conspiracy.
Following Salon's RFK Jr hit piece, Bob Fitrakis wrote that "Manjoo is much like the Tobacco Institute or the people they used to send around to show us film strips about 'Readi Kilowatt' back during the Cold War. They are individuals who have developed a cottage industry as debunkers and denialists. And in a society famed for Know Nothings an anti-intellectualism, of course an opportunist like Manjoo would come forward."
True. And much the same could be said of Dylan Avery. The 9/11 movement remains a creature of the general culture that rewards style and flash over substance and reflection. The dumbed down is raised up, and a scattershot of distortions and faulty assumptions is too often mistaken for argument. (Avery even shares Manjoo's wikipedia fixation, citing it with authority in Loose Change.)
Debunkers and disinformation artists aren't always found in the alphabet soups of intelligence agencies. Often, they're just working for themselves, trying to establish their names in whatever fields they've staked out by launching them into the prevailing winds. And frequently, Looking Out for Number One means you've got the Company's back whether you know it or not. Manjoo and Avery deserve each other. Now, how about the rest of us?


www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x79026

Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 07:49 AM by bronco2121
i know it has become unpopular (for some reason) on DU to criticize the new direction of the... well, i wouldn't call it the '9/11 truth movement' anymore - it's now more like the 'big tent 9/11 anything-coulda-happened movement'.
so if you're the kind whose eyes might bleed if you read anything critical of either the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' or the happy shiny music video known as 'loose change'... DO NOT view these URLs:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
bronco
flight77.info

 

UPDATE 3/24/6 - flight77.info

i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective of people who are skeptical about the official version of happened on 9/11... but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just provocative web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their home page, they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' that offers up every crack pot pod missile theory in the book. 'loose change' is out there just to provoke people emotionally. its substance is in its appeal to teens and twentysomethings. so why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' aligning themselves with a tin hat munching 9/11 music video? why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' also promoting the no 757 theory? answer: the web site is just provocative. it's using the blanket (AKA 'big tent'; throwing enough shit at the wall) approach to attract more people to the concept that 9/11 was an inside job. then by magic, one of these new people will uncover the proof we need to hang the true conspirators.
what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler? bueler?
once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish line, they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people lose interest. we need to get 'em for 9/11 while they're in office if we're going to end this endless war on terrorism.
so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics into 9/11 goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2 years looking at the same old pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee, that IS a small hole...' and who will spend endless hours replaying the WTC video trying to see the missile pods.
what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a member - but we're all full of shit reciting misinformation?
the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement isn't to have more members - it's to end the war on terrorism while it's still possible. and time is really running out.


casino ฟรี เครดิตhttp://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Sifting Through Loose Change

The 9-11Research Companion to
LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
A detailed point-by-point critique of the film using an illustrated transcript

SUMMARY
VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
VOLUME 2: THE PENTAGON
VOLUME 3: THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93
VOLUME 5: ODDITIES


www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

In 2005, almost a year after In Plane Site was released, a second video began to be promoted on websites such as TvNewsLIES.org : Loose Change, a video that pushed most of the same hoaxes as In Plane Site, but in a different style. Whereas the Von Kleist video, coming from the right-wing PowerHour, seemed designed to appeal to people in the "red states", Dylan Avery's video seems to aim for audiences in the "blue states".
The cover of Loose Change contains the following text:

What if:
The Twin Towers were not hit by commercial airliners?
The World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition?
The Pentagon was not hit by a 757?
Flight 93 was shot down?
What if?

This promotion, and the video itself, employ a classic method of disinformation: sandwiching valid claims between nonsensical ones.

The producers of Loose Change are young and relatively new to the 9/11 Truth Movement. The film draws on an broad array of websites focused on 9/11 for information. Given how well-established and expertly-marketed the no-jetliners theories are, it is entirely plausible that Loose Change represents a well-intentioned but poorly-researched effort to expose the 9/11 coverup.

It is less likely that some of the people promoting Loose Change have only the best intentions. Articles in the Village Voice and San Francisco Chronicle pull out the stops to promote Loose Change, apparently as a way of eclipsing more credible work exposing the attack as an inside job.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

Copyright Michael B. Green August 3, 2005
"Loose Change"
An analysis by Michael B. Green

I have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers who try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget a simple essential point. Because 911 (JFK, etc.) are not ordinary crimes, but crimes of state, they cannot be proven by simple forensic means. The proof of any such crimes requires rethinking our picture of the means of government from the ground up. People naturally do not wish to do this, and are propagandized to believe the contrary, so any effort to get their attention should be with evidence that is simple, clear, and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious or debatable. I do not pretend that this is enough. Orwellian "stop think" provides that "protective stupidity" that allows us to function in comfort and it is both difficult and painful to abandon. ...

If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the attention of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for an hour-long DVD, or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better use clear hard facts for persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the crimes try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating moles that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to prove the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumm ones, is to divert its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story simply and clearly.

... If Mr. VonKleist [the spokesperson for "casino ฟรี เครดิตIn Plane Site"] is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary.


www.911review.com/reviews/sfgate/markup/longlive.html

Critique of the San Francisco Chronicle's
'Long Live The 9/11 Conspiracy! Anyone still care about the heap of disturbing, unsolved questions surrounding Our Great Tragedy?'
March 29, 2006

This article was published in both print and electronic versions of the San Francisco Chronicle on March 29, 2006. That was one day before David Ray Griffin, one of the foremost critics of the official account of 9/11, addressed an audience of hundreds at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco. ... Morford promotes Loose Change, a video that mixes real evidence of official complicity in the attacks with hoaxes that effectively discredit that evidence by association.


www.unknownnews.org/06M11-M17d-316grafdog.html
Loose Change comes up short in logic and clarity (a review)

www.unknownnews.org/06M04-M10d-309jh.html
Loose Change and Flight 93's human remains
by Jeff H., Mar. 9, 2006

www.unknownnews.net/cdd052002.html one of the best articles on how 9/11 was done (from 2002)

 

Loose Change debunking from official story supporters (yet most of their critiques have merit)

October 1, 2006 by Rolling Stone

I, Left Gatekeeper
Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind" sci-fi series read like Shakespeare
by Matt Tabbi

I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.


http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change


www.loosechangeguide.com

www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide

Summary of "Loose Change Second Edition" Errors of Commission

Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25
Total flubs: 426

 

This review debunks the disinformation in "Loose Change" - this analysis is mostly correct, but it is too repelled by the nonsense in the film to examine the credible claims that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and probably given technical assistance).

A sample problem with the review - it claims that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, implying that to say otherwise is an example of how conspiracy theorists exaggerate and mispresent reality. But if you ignore this sort of naive support for the official view of history, the review has a lot of excellent deconstruction of this alleged documentary - perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the review is accurate debunking, the inverse of the "truth" ratio of Loose Change (which is perhaps 80 to 90 percent erroneous).

 

Loose Change and stolen video images (not "fair use")

www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/

Two French filmmakers, who accompanied New York firefighters into the World Trade Centre on 9/11, are threatening to sue the makers of 9/11 conspiracy web documentary Loose Change, claiming the movie infringes their copyright.
Loose Change, one of the top downloads on Google Video and YouTube, is an 81 minute long documentary, crammed with TV news footage and still photographs, which alleges that the 9/11 attacks were not the result of terrorism, but a series of cleverly executed events carried out by the Bush administration. It suggests that American Airlines Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon, that the actual collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were triggered by explosions, and that United Airlines Flight 93 did not terminate in rural Pennsylvania, but landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport

[note: this last hoax was first published by America's leading neo-Nazi newspaper, the "American Free Press"].

Loose Change began as a fictional story about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but when film maker Dylan Avery, who is in his early twenties, started researching, he became a believer himself. Edited on a $1,500 Compaq laptop, using Adobe Premiere and After Effects, the movie was released on DVD first, then unleashed on the web. Since then, more than two million people have downloaded the movie. Until recently, it was still available on a DVD for $17.95. Avery says that over 50,000 copies have been sold. A heavily edited version is still intended for cinema screening at the fifth anniversary of 9/11 in September 2006.
Although praised by 9/11 conspiracists, the documentary has also been widely criticised. Mark Roberts, who compiled the Loose Change Viewer Guide, says he counted 81 "errors of fact and instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs".
It is a copyright dispute that is currently causing problems for the Loose Change makers right now though.
In a certified letter sent to Dylan Avery, lawyers for Jules and Gedeon Naudet, makers of the renowned documentary 9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition, say they have never endorsed nor sponsored the controversial views in the film. The brothers captured what is thought to be the only footage of the first plane hitting the North tower
"It is clear that your intent is not to spread a controversial message but rather to profit," the lawyers conclude. They have identified at least 14 videofragments, including interviews with firemen. The Naudet Brothers, backed by distributor Paramount, are demanding $150,000 for each act of willful infringement.
Although Avery has removed the movie from his site, and says "he fully cooperates with the Naudet brothers", he still encourages viewing the movie on Google Video.
But maybe not for long. Google says it only accepts video uploads from persons who hold all necessary rights to the uploaded material.
"Our policy is to respond to any notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)," the company says. "If we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that content you submitted infringes another party's copyright, your account may be terminated and the video removed from Google Video."
A spokesman for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz confirmed the firm was handling a case for the Naudets, but refused to comment further.

 

Loose Change and the pod people

911 LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION WITH EXTRA FOOTAGE
By Phil Jayhan and Korey Rowe
1 hr 21 min 50 sec
February 5, 2005
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
www.loosechange911.com

 

[note: Mr. Jayhan is one of the main promoters of the "pod" thesis that a missile was supposedly fired at the WTC a split second before the plane hit the building. In reality, the "pod" under the plane is just a photo of the normal bulge between the wings, nothing more. The "In Plane Site" film, which is predicated on the pod claim, admits this fact by placing a photo used to debunk the "pod" claim on the cover of the DVD -- it's just a bad joke hidden in plain sight.]

 

"This is the best damn 9-11 documentary out there."
-- Dave vonKleist, Producer of "911In Plane Site"

 

[note: Mr. vonKleist's film In Plane Site is widely regarded as the worst damn 9-11 documentary. Its conclusion (inside job) is correct, but nearly every "fact" in the film is fake. Loose Change is just a recycling of In Plane Site, although with many more hoaxes than Plane Site.]

 

Loose Change is an extremely hard hitting, heavily referenced documentary. It has the best footage that I have seen to date, of all the bombs and explosions going off at the World Trade Center. He covers each individual aspect of 9/11 in keen detail, and after watching 'Loose Change' it is almost impossible to walk away and not believe that 9/11 was engineered, not by Osama, but by our own Government.

 

[note: it is just as likely that many who watch the film will understand that many of the claims are unsubstantiated, and dismiss the idea of complicity. Some buy the bait without checking and become proselytizers for the film, which further increases polarization that makes accountability less likely.]

 

Heres a quote from Tom Flocco regarding Dylan Avery's brand new 911 documentary
"...The best packaged DVD footage for sharing actual TV coverage and interviews shown only once during WTC / Pentagon attacks -- evidence strangely removed from repeat broadcasts ...striking visual and narrative analysis--shown frame by frame --pointing to government-linked mass murder and a new Pearl Harbor ...every school class should see!

 

[note: Mr. Flocco is a promoter of the "no plane" hoax. One of the lowest point in 9/11 related pseudo-journalism was Flocco's publication of a story claiming that a victim on Flight 77 was arrested in Europe for money laundering -- www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html#tomflocco has the article archived]

 

"Loose Change 2nd Edition" is the follow-up to the most provocative 9-11 documentary on the market today. This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government. Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day.

 

[note: 9/11 was an inside job, but Loose Change is a hoax.]