If he's dropped "the pod" etc out of it then it should be good.

New narrator and less special effects. :)

Btw, thanks for posting the link, guys!

"The Professional"... take a look at this.

Hey Dylan your welcome, excellent work BTW getting that old footage of the plane crash.

Why is the Pentagon thing still in there? Given it's been proven in the last year or so that Flight 77 did in fact slam into the Pentagon, the perpetuation of this no plane/missle theory is kind of shameful. The rest of the points made are good tho(the empire state building inclusion is a nice addition) Just no more pod/no plane/missle/ufo/mysterious flash stuff! :)

Holy crap, I knew those two had the hots for each other.

You're right, sorry about that. It was in fact a B-25

Wasn't making sense to me, the hole wasn't that large.

I don't see what the problem is with including the pod. it looks to me like there is something attached underneath the plane. So why not put in the footage?

it seems to me like theres been a counter movement planted within the 911 truth movement saying the planes were the actual planes. I've noticed several people seem to make good points about the towers falling from explosives but the pentagon was actually hit by the plane. (jim hoffman, and the rigorous intuition blogger guy for example). For the life of me i haven't seen any evidence of the pentagon being hit by the plane. I'm not accusing anyone of being an agent here, but thats what my gut tells me. How can anyone say that it was proven that a plane hit the pentagon? And how can anyone look at the footage of the planes hitting the towers and not see the explosions which appear to be separate events. if there were explosions separate then the planes weren't the real planes. maybe the planes wouldn't have gone all the way through without extra help. the pod theory is not wacko in my opinion. it hasn't been proven either, but it is worthy of discussion, and we should leave open the door of possibility.

I personally think another planted tidbit might be that the PA crash was caused because it was shot down. I'm not talking about the alleged phone calls that dylan showed could have easily have been faked. ("hey mom, this is Mark Bingham") but think, if all the other planes were switched why not this one too? if it was switched why would they have to shoot it down? All they'd have to do is pack it full of explosives and set it off at the appointed time. Then they start rumors of silent white jets with big spoilers, or actually fly them around so people think they shot down the jet. Or maybe that plane was the only one which was not switched on that day. it was a way to rally the country for the wars... ie the lets roll crap.

the people that carried out 911 must have planned their moves several moves in advance. they know game theory. they make the lie so big that even if they are forced to admit that trade center 7 was a demolition, and that they shot down the PA plane, they can say they kept it secret for national security. and it would make them look good in the process.

I think richard clarke is a plant too. he's there for people who aren't satified with the news reports to feel like they're getting the real story about terrorism. clarke says, " terrorism and al quada are real, but bush isn't fighting them correctly" i say bullsh-t. He's a lying double agent, and a very very good one.

just a few thoughts

You could look at any footage from a major event and say 'hey look, that could be a UFO!'. I just think it's a shame that this 'those werent actually planes!' theories are propigated...I'm sure the creator of Frasier's family would love to know where he really is.
My thing is all this pod/missle talk makes it easier for 9/11 truth to be looked at as urban legend fringe instead of what it should be: the biggest scandal in America's modern history. As for proof that has satisfied my end of the pentagon thing:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

pockybot, you mean there's a bigger scam than the federal reserve!?

Truth101... sweet contributions to the discussion on DailyKos... intelligent, well spoken, and backed up with references. Excellent effort! The more of us that participate in this kind of discussion, the more light will shine on the truth.

I have been in discussion with several of my "non-believing" distribution lists over the past several years, and the paper by Prof Jones of BYU really got them thinking that the official 9/11 story might not be the truth.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!

Nice work, and keep it up!

-freshtracks

flight 77 and the pentagon have been a dividing factor amongst a lot of sites.. which is why in general i advocate for just releasing everything related to it.. either way we deserve to have the information.

flight77.info has been running around in circles trying to get any of the footage from near the pentagon.. they just wont release it.

i dont see how a plane could penetrate that far through the building leaving the holes it did personally, but im not going to say others can't have a different opinion.. a few of those that i respect alot in the movement think flight 77 did hit the pentagon, either way it is an opinion.

just release the damn video tapes, and show the wreckage which by law has to be collected and stored in a wharehouse.. is that too much to ask?

btw, good job dylan, looks great :)

Dylan Avery: "...And hey, let me just clear something up right here. Yes, the pod was taken out. But NOT because people bitched about it. The pod sequence was removed in lieu of the opening timeline, which clocks in at just under 8 minutes. Including the pod would clock it up to 11, and we barely squeezed everything in as it is.

The deletion is adressed on the DVD, with a full explanation as to why, and a specific declaration of no disrespect to you or Dave or anyone else who stands by the pod."

It's funny people should suggest that the ones not questioning what planes hit the towers should be part of some "disinfo" campaign. Because equal criticism can and has been made towards "the pod" and all the people advocating that. Basically my position on it is "the pod" etc, even if it is true is not worth spending any time on purely because of the two biggest reasons, the first being that we have other far more credible and persuasive evidence to point at (Building 7 etc). Secondly most people, including myself and so especially people who havenÂ’t even questioned 9/11 yet. All saw planes hit the towers on their TV screens so many times, that to question that maybe those planes were something peculiar like a "hologram", or that the planes "had a pod, and then fired a missile?" Is going throw the people who need convincing way off, and make them assume everything else that is wrong with 9/11, is cast in the same wild extreme light as "the pod" etc. I do however think that itÂ’s possible the planes that hit the towers were being remotely guided into the towers, thereÂ’s a strong argument for that in my opinion.

Also I suppose thereÂ’s a third important reason why "the pod" causes problems. And that's because so many people who are sceptical about 9/11 disagree with it, largely for the reasons I've already mentioned. To me at least when I see what's meant to be the "pod, missile" evidence, I can't see anything remotely conclusive. There does appear to be some kind of bulge under the plane, but if you look under any plane then there's a budge it's called "the centre section" I think. And also light and shadows can make something appear much bigger/smaller etc then it actually is. As for "the missile", again even if that's true it still sounds way to wild for most people. And what's shown as proof for this is a "flash", well instead of a missile, WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTRONICS IN THE NOSE CONE lol?

The Pentagon though is an entirely different kettle of fish to "the pod", there really is no physical evidence at all that an airliner struck that building, and even if it did there's a conspiracy either way because the Pentagon is meant to emit a friend or foe radar, and if the object coming in isnÂ’t friendly e.g., doesnÂ’t have a transponder emitting "friendly" back to the Pentagon, the Pentagon's missile defence fires at the object.

Also discounting the physical facts that strongly suggest no airliner at least hit the Pentagon, the angle that the object came in at was so acrobatic that some of the best pilots in the world say they would have great difficulty pulling it off. Let alone "Hani Hanjour" or whatever his name was, a person described by his instructors as "a terrible pilot". And then thereÂ’s the confiscated by the FBI within minuets video footage of what happened. And the five frames that they released, showing something that's totally undeterminable coming in very close to the ground before striking the building. So personally if I'm going to guess I think it's fair to assume based on the real facts, that what struck the Pentagon was something like either a "global hawk" or a "cruse missile".

The first loose change was good, apart from the pod part that it opened up with tragically lol. This new one IÂ’m sure though should cane it hard, for real!

I just want to say thank you Dylan for all your hard work.

Thanks Mike. I really appreciate it.

I've found that you can't make everybody happy, and when you start trying, you just make things worse for yourself.

hey dylan,

sorry if this is a stupid question, but people ask me what loose change stands for and i haven't figured it out.

Yo what's up Dylan man, nuff respect to you and I'm not dissing Loose Change cus you created something really great there, brilliant work overall! I'm just dissing "the pod", and it's not that I think it's impossible, it's just that itÂ’s unnecessary. And it distracts from far more provable and convincing issues like building 7 etc, that if you think about it, almost every 9/11 sceptic agrees on.

Danstatic,
You'll find out in 2006 what it means.
Dem,
I understand man. I put it in because I thought it deserved attention. I removed it because I replaced it with something I believe is much more effective in drawing in the viewer.
Again, a simple, artistic decision, which is causing a LOT more trouble than it should.
It's just people who bark at me and start calling me disinformation because I included something they personally didn't agree with...
Anyway. Dem, I see completely where you're coming from. Either way, it's done. You guys are gonna love it, pod or no pod.

I second Mike's gratitude.

I'd like to see a new documentary on 9/11 tackle new and updated info that's swirled in the last year. Ptech, Indira Singh, more on Sibel Edmonds, John O'Neil, former Regan, Bush Sr and M15 high level folks calling 9/11 an inside job, Norman Minetta's damming irregularities, and how 9/11 truth has slowly slipped into the mainstream and pop culture subconscious.

Also, having almost worked for the global hawk pilot program for Northrop,I can say with almost complete certainty that there's no way some Lone Gunmen scenario of remote control ovveride took place; as Alex Jones suggests. I agree with most of what Jones said in MArtial Law, tho the theory of remote control I find absurd. And as much as I can see where people get the Pentagon confusion(especially given the FBI aint releasing any videos) I am pretty convinced 77 really hit. Does that mean an elite group of neocons didnt allow 9/11(or worse?) HEck no, but I think it's prudent to update info, recheck old data, and clear up/debunk our own theories. If the case is airtight, gov' mouthpieces like Foxnews, Pop Sci, etc will have a harder time exploiting the more fringe wild conspiracy theories.
(and yes, to 'the professiona;', the privatized corrupt Fed Reserve is one of the biggest travesties in America)

pockybot... it's being worked on.

Yes, I hear there is a spectacular video coming out that takes a look at those topics. I believe it was supposed to be out already, not sure what the hold up is.

Dylan I think I know what loose change means. Is it how much many you started out with when you began this whole project?