Salon.com Issues 5 Page Article Pointed at Loose Change

The 9/11 deniers - salon.com

According to Dylan Avery, a 22-year-old filmmaker in upstate New York, no terrorists hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and no passengers heroically revolted. The plane didn't even crash in that Shanksville, Penn., field, he says, but instead landed safely in Cleveland. And not only that. As Avery sees it, the true 9/11 attackers brought down the World Trade Center in a controlled demolition, most likely to get at $160 billion in gold bars he believes were buried under the towers. As for the attack on the Pentagon, Avery insists it was hit by a cruise missile, not a terrorist-commandeered Boeing 757.
..

This article also briefly covers Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Phil Jayhan, and others. Be sure to check it all out, and post some comments.

Thanks Anonymous for the heads up!

@ Andy Fine - I have not

@ 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

Hey, other Anonymous, you,

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?

someone posted this in the

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

FYI: Dylan just recently

FYI:

Dylan just recently said that he was at that Cleveland Airport and people there confirmed with him that 2 planes did land there. They wouldn't go on camera, but that's what they said.

Frauds just love to write

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 author of that Salon

The author of that Salon article is an ass. Though, I must agree, "according to Wikipedia" is the most laughable quote from Loose Change.

The 9/11 Commission Report

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

Hoffman does a nice critical

Hoffman does a nice critical review of "Loose Change 2" and based on his review, this movie deserves a lot of cleaning up. 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?

(reposting from elsewhere,

(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.

Well... all I can say is at

Well... all I can say is at least they are talking about it. I have no doubts that it will get at least few people thinking, and out of curiosity they will watch it and be shocked... then they will find the huge 9/11 movement that is right below the mainstream surface.

Does anyone honestly expect them to have an article praising Loose Change? First there will be attack pieces, then it will be praised.

Even bad publicity is good publicity... in my opinion anyway :-)

I think you are a mole/patsy

I think you are a mole/patsy anon2.

P.S. Loose Change is just a

P.S. Loose Change is just a movie that is suppose to make you think and research 9/11 for yourself.. which it has done for a lot of people.. it's not meant to be taken as "gospel" ;-)

Thank you for your own great

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

Actually, the proper title

Actually, the proper title of the DVD is: "September 11th Revisited: Were explosives used?"

Thanks anonymous.. I

Thanks anonymous.. I appreciate that!

These hit pieces really

These hit pieces really irritate me because they are full of barefaced lies on a most imperative topic!

Dustin, I gave your video to

Dustin,

I gave your video to my pastor over a month ago and he has been very stand offish as of late.

Don't get me wrong... they

Don't get me wrong... they annoy me too.. but they are talking about the other side of 9/11.. which is a good thing! There are still many people that have no clue there are even any questions being raised about 9/11.. I actually didn't have a clue until about a year ago when i stumbled onto it by accident when i was reading blogs on myspace.

Hey T-Bone.. thanks for

Hey T-Bone.. thanks for spreading the word. I have faith that your pastor will come around! It's tough when people first learn about this info... I know it was really hard for me!

I wonder if it is because I

I wonder if it is because I asked him to consider organizing a viewing of it to the church?

That could be the reason.. I

That could be the reason.. I would suggest you give copies to other people in your church and ask them to watch it... it will get people talking.

It is being shown in other churches right now and even on military bases! I have been contacted by religious people that watched it just because David Ray Griffin is in it and he is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology at Claremont School of Theology

Post a response to the salon

Post a response to the salon article.

I just posted some responses

I just posted some responses to the Salon article. Come on guys, put some posts up there. There are not enough 9/11 Truth posts there.

I've burned 45 copies of

I've burned 45 copies of "Loose Change 2nd Edition" and always tell the recipient:
"They make allot of assumptions and connect allot of dots that I don't agree with, but they point out the logical errors in the official story, the things that aren't based on simple physics or FAA/NORAD protocol or common sense. Watch it and decide for yourself"
Let the basic facts speak for themselves. "Loose Cahnge" is a good tool and overview.

I think it's a fairly good

I think it's a fairly good article. It uses Hoffman to debate the points in Loose Change. What can be better than that? Whomever the reader decides is right is still a Truther!

Even the quotes from the Commission are good. They mention they didn't receive enough funding for the investigation and they're not 100% sure their conclusions are accurate. The story also says that the official version is a conspiracy theory.

I don't like the title or the byline, or some of the crazy quotes they got in there from some segments of the community. I wish some of those people would stop saying crazy stuff. It makes it look like there is far less consensus in the movement than there actually is.

Lots of good links in the article too. I wonder if they posted it because Mike Malloy recently bashed Salon for not covering 9/11. Quite an impressive rant in that show.

--

BTW, great work on your movie, Dustin. It's one of my favorites, precisely because it avoids speculation and gives you the straight news reports from that day. Your movie and 9/11 Eyewitness are the 2 movies that I usually show my friends.

anyone else having trouble

anyone else having trouble reading the full article? I can't see the sponsor logo to click on for some reason (have javascript enabled) - any help appreciated..

Try going

Try going here:
http://tinyurl.com/hys3x

You might need cookies enabled.

posted several comments.

posted several comments. Alot of limited hangout lihoppers spouting their silliness.

"Loose Change 2" is a

"Loose Change 2" is a riveting film- and certainly is, despite its flaws, the most compelling 9/11 conspiracy film out there right now. But how many of you accept the whole of their arguments and speculations without taking any exceptions? Those of you who believe the film is without errors have deluded yourself. There are legitimate critiques of the film out there- from people who are within the orthodoxy of the Truth movement. A few here have problems with Hoffman, and it's true he has, in a few communications, come across as a bit prickly. Nevertheless, his "Sifting Through Loose Change" critique (cited by Salon but familiar to most of us already) is a very helpful, fair-minded review of the strengths and weaknesses of the film.

I would argue- as I suggested by many- that WTC Building 7 is absolutely THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE OF 9/11 INSIDE JOB EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS, and that is saying something, given how many compelling bits of evidence are out there. Yet the subject of Building 7 is given disappointingly little screen time in the film.

It has been said so many times by so many different people - on this message board and other Truth boards - that the strange, inexplicable collapse of WTC 7 was what led them to question the official story. It was the wedge that pried open so many of our closed minds and allowed us to consider what the possible implications might be. There is no evidence more powerful than the footage of that building's collapse... Hit by nothing, small fires burning, drops like a rock and nearly free fall speeds... And later "confessed" to by Larry Silverstein himself, courtesy of PBS.

Unfortunately, what the film lacks in WTC 7 coverage it more than makes up in Pentagon-related speculations. And this is- in my opinion- is gravely in need of correction before their "Final Edition" comes out.

"Loose Change 2" - however powerful it is, is at great risk of being blown into pieces if- as many apolitical voices in the 9/11 Truth movement fear- the Pentagon WAS HIT BY a 757. Right now- the jury is out- and there are reasonable people arguing both against the possibility (Fetzer, Griffin, etc.) and for the possibility (Hoffman, Jones, etc.) Many have met in the middle and opted to believe it was a small military craft that FIRED a missle at the last possible second (Tarpley, etc.) The fact is- the vast preponderance of eyewitness accounts describe a large jetliner- not a small plane and not a missle. It is also a fact that the FBI and Pentagon have the video evidence of the attack that they refuse to release. Is it because it will forever destroy the credibility of the official account that they do not release the videos? Maybe. But- as many have warned before- we MUST ALLOW for the possibility that they may not yet be releasing it because it is the ace up their sleeve which will completely destroy the credibility of the Pentagon-focused contingent of the 9/11 Truth movement. And we must also allow for the possibility that we are being encouraged to focus on the wrong piece of evidence at the exclusion of the true smoking guns. That is why I said before and will repeat- "Loose Change" needs a helluva a lot less Pentagon footage, and a buttload more WTC 7 stuff.

That "Loose Change - Second Edition" sometimes wastes time asking suggestive (yet irrelevant) questions like evidence of things like "why do satellite photos taken four days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon four days later?". The path, as noted by Hoffman, is separated by at least 10 degrees from the true attack trajectory. But that notwithstanding- what exactly is the point of the question? Are these marks from dress rehearsals, where they fired dummy missles at the pentagon a week before 9/11? Did military jets run the flight plan several times and get too close to the ground and kill some of the grass a few days ahead of time? Why submit this little curious tidbit as evidence of something- when it seems very likely to just be a kind of minor coincidence.

A far more compelling line of Pentagon-related inquiry is, as noted by Griffin, Fetzer, and so many others is Mineta's Testimony to the Commission on 9/11- in which he recounts the goings-on on the morning of 9/11. One desperately hopes to see that very compelling piece of circumstantial evidence properly contextualized in the next iteration of the film.

Sincerely,
a disinfo agent

Any idea if LC Final Cut

Any idea if LC Final Cut will be any cleaner than LC2E? I agree with an earlier poster that LC2E did not cover WTC7 near enough. Most agree that this should be the focus because it's something all truthers can agree on. I sort of use it as a test...I show people the WTC7 video, namely the "What's the Truth" video around 18 minutes where they show how a controlled demolition works and show the cutter charges quickly travel up the side of the building. If the person I present this to doesn't think this was a controlled demo, then they're likely so closed-minded that now amount of evidence short of a conviction will even matter.

I can just say that loose

I can just say that loose change 1 and 2 are a lot closer to the truth than anything that has come out of mainstream media or any official investigation.

"Has anybody seriously

"Has anybody seriously researched these individuals to find out if they are government moles or patsies?"

So ridiculous it's hilarious.

:D

People, stop telling me how to make the final cut. Seriously. Use your breath for something useful, like making your own film which will be better than mine.

""Has anybody seriously

""Has anybody seriously researched these individuals to find out if they are government moles or patsies?"

So ridiculous it's hilarious."

That is rediculous. That would been the most retarded strategy for covering up the truth. Most people exposed to the truth see Loose Change first. It is the most effective 9/11 Truth film. It doesn't discredit the movement just because its not 100% accurate. Notice how the salon article was only capable of insulting half the country? All he did was call us all crazy morons but like all hit pieces was wholly incapable of backing up the official story with facts. Its total yellow journalism, IE citing the FEMA and NIST report, the 9/11 Commission and the rediculous Loose Change debunking page that cites the popular mechanics article. And of course the selective citing of Jim Hoffman's work. Selective being the key word.

Alex Jones Terrorstorm talks about 2 London journalists that lost their jobs because they were outed as government propagandists. Thats probably what this guy is. Like Charlie Sheen said, when they attack us personally and avoid our questions they only damage their own position.

T-Bone .... I've had quite

T-Bone .... I've had quite the interesting spiritual journey since 9/11. And if you investigate this crime to the top and then investigate the top (secret societies and eventually Satan), you'll find that 99.999% of the churches out there have been created by these very same people who have brought us 9/11, 7/7 and all the wars of this planet's history. The easiest way to cut to the chase with your pastor and church is with the 4th commandment. The Sabbath day is what makes God's law above anything man can claim to be law. So obviously Satan and his earthly minions would work feverishly to deceive the masses into accepting the opposite of what God wants. Have a look at the calendar and see where the "Seventh-day" lands. Do a little research on the words Saturday and Sunday along with ancient Sun worship and the origins of today's evil bastards and their secret societies. It all becomes very clear that the entire world is one big deception and heading for the nwo they've been working at for a couple thousand years.

Here is a video from my church on 9/11 that might be helpful towards your spiritual journey....and maybe even your pastor's http://www.stoplying.ca/media/veith911.wmv

Dustin's vid rocks!! :)

For a spiritual perspective

For a spiritual perspective of what it means that 9/11 was an inside job, come to www.watchmanreport.com

Craigslist is a good forum

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

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

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/0

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

theres a pic of our enemy

Im finding some interesting

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.democraticundergro

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/

'a disinfo agent' summed up

'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

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

Has anyone mirrored this

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

-Culhavoc

I totally agree with 'a

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

"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

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

- 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

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

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

thinker, that is just ludicrous!

ah yes we're trying to

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

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

^ 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

ben, LC2E is no a Ph.D dissertation.

It would be nice if it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.