@ Andy

Fine - I have not read the piece you speak of so cannot comment

the criticism I am mainly concerned with is Hoffman's

nevertheless if a 'hit-piece' contains criticisms which are actually well-founded then it gains strength

by strengthening arguments and making docs/ papers more academically rigorous wec an take away any ammo that can be used in such hit pieces

@ Anonymous - if you don't believe that academics have rejected Loose Change based on it's faults then fine

the point is that the 'conspiracy debunkers' generally have a higher standard of journalism / academic work than those in the truth movement - did anyone read the piece that tom posted about spontaneous thermite reactions? they're obviously coming up with ways of explaining away Jones' research as it comes out - which is very worrying in my opinion - and to anyone who knows little about thermite the documents seems very convincing - THIS is the reason I stress the need for academic rigour in work

leave the activism to the activists and the arguments to the academics

as for me being a 'shill', that kind of paranoid accusation is frankly embarassing to the movement

for the record I live in London and I hand out WTC7.net flyers and copies of Dem Bruce Lee Styles' DVD on the tube network every day

so there

haha

someone posted this in the wrong thread:

Hey, other Anonymous, you, like Salon, just wrote a cunning & devious hit piece on Loose Change.

What are some of the "ludicrous crap" & "critical flaws" in Lose Change???

Furthermore, "cutting out speculative crap like passengers being allowed to de-plane, or (forgive me) "the missle theory", or what have you.

This "speculative crap" you refer to came within an inch of being reality via Operation Northwoods over 40 years ago! Oh, but the NeoCons of today wouldn't pull that sort of stuff?

What the hell is your problem with Loose Change?

Anonymous

Frauds just love to write hit pieces about Loose Change. Just let people watch it for themselves to decide. (These hit pieces are intended to discourage people from watching the video.)

The 9/11 Commission Report in laughable in its entirety.

(reposting from elsewhere, more relevant here...)

Hilarious that Salon of all news sites is running a story whose moral appears to be "Trust your government" - when that very message is almost entirely at odds with so much of their editorial and journalistic reporting.

I don't know that I'd quite call it a hit piece, however. Frankly, Avery deserves to be called out for some of the ludicrous crap he included in "Loose Change 2". One can only hope that the "Louder Than Words" gang are paying close attention to the valid critiques of people like Hoffman, and are revising their film accordingly. For good or for bad, "Loose Change" seems to be the most effective piece of 9/11 Truth media out there. The stakes for "Final Edition" thus could not be higher. (For my money, it should have a LOT more about Building 7, and earlier- and a lot less about the Pentagon, among other things.)

And I must say, I was not encouraged when watching the footage of the "Louder than Words" guys from the Chicago conference (posted online). It seemed so full of vanity and posturing. I pray that that footage wasn't really from the Final Edition- otherwise, it seems like every version of Loose Change is going to have critical flaws.

If it turns out to be another tragically flawed gem, the burden may be on 9/11 Truthers to re-edit a "highlight" edition- cutting out speculative crap like passengers being allowed to de-plane, or (forgive me) "the missle theory", or what have you.

I think you are a mole/patsy anon2.

Thank you for your own great video "9/11 Revisited", Dustin!

Thanks anonymous.. I appreciate that!

Craigslist is a good forum to link to 9/11 media. Theres been other people joinging in the posting of 9/11 truth in the san diego board with me and fewer bush loving crazies.

Farhad Manjoo is the same guy who tried desperately (with completely flawed arguments) to debunk RFK jr's research about the 2004 stolen election in Ohio. 'nuff said

Farhad Manjoo is the same guy who tried desperately (with completely flawed arguments) to debunk RFK jr's research about the 2004 stolen election in Ohio. 'nuff said
Anonymous | 06.27.06 - 6:17 am | #

Thanks for sharing this fact. Enough said indeed. Fuck all these fake liberals. Fucking cunts.

http://sadlyno.com/archives/002890.html

theres a pic of our enemy

Im finding some interesting things just googling that guys name. check this out

http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2006/06/13/who-the-hell-is-farhad-manjoo/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

Im not tired and its really hot so heres some more links.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/rfk_responds/index.html

'a disinfo agent' summed up my feelings very well

Loose Change is the most wide spread and effective doc in the movement - for that it should be held in high regard and given due praise

But for the same exact reason it is imperative that all the arguments contained within it are as sound as possible and presented in a concise clear manner

Hoffman's critique of LC2E is a rigorous and fair piece which one hopes will be taken into consideration for the final edition

It is crucial that both arguments presented and research undertaken meets the highest of academic standards

Those people who assert that any criticism of LS2E amounts to 'hit-pieces' written by 'shills' are guilty of McCarthy-esque witch hunt tactics - criticism can be used for academic refinement, not just character assassination

Dylan, would you be so kind as to comment on whther or not you have read Hoffman's piece? - I would understand if you don't want to

All the best

the hate never stops..........

Has anyone mirrored this article on another site? I am NOT paying to read BS.

-Culhavoc

I totally agree with 'a disinfo agent'. Documentalist should do a little more research and stick to FACTS.

About that white strap on the lawn of the pentagone weeks before 9/11; is't just a path left by pedestrians going to a sidewalk overpassing the highway. Just Google Map it!

Again, when I heard thinks like whatever hit the pentagone should have gone through six reinforce concrete walls... The first two floors are covering the three outer rings, so it will make only two reinforce concrete wall to go through (you got to have your facts right). That being said, the exit hole still makes absolutely no sense to me regarding a jetliner. In fact, that is this impossible pentagone 'punch out' that get me on the truth wagon couple of months ago.

Peace.

"Sifting Through Loose Change" is specious junk.
For example, it claims that:

"Even ignoring the fact that a 757 is not a "jumbo-jet," and that the plane was not "incinerated," the idea that even severe fires render bodies unidentifiable is not supported. The 2003 Station Night Club fire in Rhode Island killed 97 people, but did not prevent their identification. Even if the conditions of a jetliner crash created especially severe fires, the flames would not be uniformly distributed, and bodies, which are 70% moisture, would tend to outlast aluminum, which burns fairly easily.

Hoffman, or whoever wrote this^, dishonestly left out the fact that the purported airliner exploded & smashed though concrete walls @ 530 mph!!!

HTF are you going to ID people (DNA methods or otherwise) that were subjected to such enormous forces??? THEY WOULD'VE BEEN OBLITERATED!!! It was impossible!!! The DNA "results" were a fraud to bolster the lie that it was AA77 that stuck the Pentagon!!!

Posted this to Salon:

About three months ago I stumbled upon Prof David Ray Griffin's article about the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7. I read the whole lengthy article straight through in a state of shock. Griffin showed me how to rally my own folk understanding of the physics of medium sized objects and my own common sense in order to evaluate the official explanation of the collapse, which before I'd taken for granted. Well, having put in the imaginitive effort demanded by the paper (yes, reading a scholarly paper requires effort!) the official explanation was rendered not so much unlikely as completely absurd. I next read the classic paper by Prof Steven Jones, which compliments Griffin's paper beautifully by taking a more technical approach to the same broad set of questions. Reading just these two fundamental pieces of 9-11 research brought about something like a change of aspect (in the sense of, for example, the duck-rabbit drawing, where you can switch from seeing one aspect of the picture to the other) in how I viewed the video of the collapsing towers. Where before I saw two enormous buildings crumbling under their own weight, now, armed with some knowledge about the construction of the towers, the extent of the structural damage caused by the plane impacts, and the nature and extent of the resulting fires, I could only see two enormous buildings being blown to smithereens.

That's the power of a scholarly article assembled by a critical and analytical mind. Unfortunately, the makers of "Loose Change" do not have the critical and analytical skills to assemble the sort of sustained and patient (and ultimately devastating) argument presented in these papers. The video jumps from one topic to another almost as fast a modern music video, and includes much material that is irresponsibly speculative and some that is demonstrably specious.

My question to Mr Manjoo then would be why, if you are an intelligent journalist writing for an intelligent audience, would you choose to write an article about "Loose Change" rather than one about the most provocative and unanswered questions raised by the most scholarly research into 9-11? To say that these are serious allegations is an understatement. But where you're not making a transparently self-conscious attempt to sound "balanced", your tone is flippant and condescending. I don't believe that anyone who really had "pore[d] over the work of Steven Jones", could take that tone. A serious journalist would have tried to summarize some of the main points raised by genuine scholars like Jones and Griffin and then either gone on to try to answer their points, or else note soberly that no serious attempt has yet been made to do so.

- Hani Hanjour could not have flown back from the Kentucky/Ohio border to D.C.

- Hanjour could have not made that incredible maneuver in a B-757 to hit the renovated section of the Pentagon.

- A B-757 would NOT make a hole the size of a missile in the Pentagon.

- 80 videos of whatever hit the Pentagon are being withheld for no damn good reason except to cover-up. The only video released looks like a missile or a drone!

- There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that smashed into the Pentagon @ 530 mph. The fictitious DNA results were made to bolster the official story.

That's the power of a scholarly article assembled by a critical and analytical mind. Unfortunately, the makers of "Loose Change" do not have the critical and analytical skills to assemble the sort of sustained and patient (and ultimately devastating) argument presented in these papers. The video jumps from one topic to another almost as fast a modern music video, and includes much material that is irresponsibly speculative and some that is demonstrably specious.

Jack, LC2E is a powerful introduction to the 9/11 BIG LIE. It is not a scholarly thesis paper. IMO, it is 95% accurate in it's details & 100% effective in opening peoples eyes to the truth!

anon2 said:

"Also, there maybe the possibility that the creators of "Loose Change 2" are creating a "Trojan Horse" to destroy the 9/11 truth movement. Has anybody seriously researched these individuals to find out if they are government moles or patsies?"

Excellent question that others have also.

thinker, that is just ludicrous!

ah yes we're trying to destroy the movement. that was my whole plan, since may 2002, when I was waiting tables to make this movie.

thinker, you need to go outside.

fact:LC2E has caused more people to look closer at the crimes and cover-up of 9/11 than any single documentary to date.love it or hate it, you cant deny that is a very good thing.you people have to understand that the average american doesnt need this film to be perfect like you seem to, they just need to see that some serious questions remain, and LC2E does its job very well in that respect.

^ Chris, I agree

and this is the exact same reason that the argument/ 'facts' asserted in the film must stand up to the highest level of scrutiny - or else we will see more and more popular mechanics-esque debunks that will hinder the movement somewhat

Loose Change will never be bad for the movement but actually how good it is depends on the academic scrutiny it undergoes

It would be nice if it underwent a peer-review process before release similar to the papers of Griffin and Jones

peace

ben, LC2E is no a Ph.D dissertation.

It would be nice if it underwent a peer-review process before release similar to the papers of Griffin and Jones

Yeah, sure. Let's waste about 10 more months doing some sort of peer review. Think before you write.

10 months?

Well over the last few months I have seen hundreds of people reject Loose Change outright on different forums because of the attack pieces which have come out which focus on the innacuracies and speculation

These are the same people who were put off 9/11 truth by the Popular Mechanics article which used the exact same technique

I won't be told to think by those who don't take the time to

Jack Allen is right. How could any serious journalist ignore such a serious critique of the 9/11 report and the concerns and findings of Prof Jones ? The focus of the Salon article is wrong. I was a fence-sitter for ages. I did look at the time-line of events and much appreciated the people that worked so hard to bring all that detailed information to the net. My problem was lack of faith that anybody with enough clout would step forward and speak out. Once that changed I felt the MSM would have no choice but to follow. They know that more and more of us are looking at the glaring gaps in the report. The fact NIST does not appear willing to hand over all their data so that other scientists can evaluate it, the fact the collapse of Building 7 is still waiting to be explained. These are issues nobody can duck.

Am a Brit in France, but have family and friends in US. For my part really not happy with the changing explanations from NORAD, not at all happy with NIST's explanation for the collapse, not at all happy with the fact that people were not warned about just how toxic the dust from the WTC was. My husband wrote to the UK Independent to ask them to look at what Prof Jones has found. Time for us fence sitters to speak.

M, the Brit in France, has a particularly useful suggestion.

We should all be petitioning our media to respond to the work of Steven Jones.

We can all make a difference- we don't have to be producing documentaries or analyzing residue to change minds.

I recommend people call talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity and say things like, "I'm having a hard time convincing my conservative friends that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. They keep talking about Steven Jones and building 7 and conclusive proof of thermite being used to destroy the thing, and I don't know what to say to them." (For most of us, I think this statement would be true. At least a lot of my conservative friends have questions, to say nothing of my liberal ones...)

Overtly confronting the host with 9/11 Truth data will just get you punted by the screener. But elliptically presenting it and asking for refutation will get at least some minds wondering, "Who is this Steven Jones guy? They found THERMITE?"

Inevitably, the conservative host will suggest that this is all the work of liberal America haters who want to impugn the administration with kook-theories... But a counter to that is, "Yeah but these aren't liberals- I'm talking about conservatives who think this. How do I shut them up?"

They might float the "Popular Mechanics" article as a rebuttal- but again, elliptically one could say, "Yeah I tried that but they said the article was written by Michael Chertoff's cousin, which I guess it was, so they think it's a part of the coverup."

This kind of approach lets the subject get aired to millions- and lets the host reveal his ignorance of the facts. This can be exploited to create uncertainty in the listenership- which can prompt more free inquiry via the internet, and change more minds...

Just a suggestion.

and a good suggestion it was...

That's Colbert's gig.....he's the master of pretending to be one of them. They always fall for it too..hehehehe :)

ben--"Well over the last few months I have seen hundreds of people reject Loose Change outright on different forums because of the attack pieces which have come out which focus on the innacuracies and speculation"

Who are you kidding? You're probably one of the fruads writing those hit pieces.

Those people who assert that any criticism of LS2E amounts to 'hit-pieces' written by 'shills' are guilty of McCarthy-esque witch hunt tactics - criticism can be used for academic refinement, not just character assassination

All the best
ben | 06.27.06 - 7:20 am

Theres a diference between legitimate critique and a hit piece. This article was a hit piece. The guy who wrote it is a total shill. He wrote a very inaccurate dishonest article about RFK's election fraud article and was totally debunked as lying and ommitting info, just what he accussed RFK of. He doesn't love this country. Hes just some piece of shit immigrant who cannot accept that fact that the government of the country he chose to migrate to is corrupt and evil. Id fight that guy if I ever saw him.

The Salon article is excellent and should instruct you on why you are all, in fact, 9/11 Deniers of the first order.

The more MSM press coverage you seek, the more truth like this article you will get. Perhaps you will then begin to realize what we've all been telling you all along. You're hopelessly mired in irrational conspiracy thinking.

Let's hope for your sake that you come to your senses.