A message to "Loose Change" debunkers

Your pursuit is rather reactionary. This certainly could be a reputable effort considering that Loose Change has its ambigous moments, and runs with a couple of hypotheses that many in the movement do not favor. Personally, I'm really looking forward to seeing the next version. While I respect the pursuit of truth and which ever direction it may lead, I think this effort to debunk Loose Change is a bit misguided for the following reasons.

First of all, while the movie is our most popular, it is far from the only 9/11 movie that gets peoples attention. After many see the movie they are curious, and seek out other sources for further information. For this reason, attacking Loose Change is not likely to dubunk the whole movement. What do you guys have to say about Press for Truth? This action seems to be the work of people who don't really understand the movement as they respond to it.

Second, debunking Loose Change is easy. Debunking 9/11 is easy. For that matter, debunking just about anything is easy. There is an ever growing mainstream response to the movement attempting to debunk our claims. This in itself signals the rise of the movement. In other words, an anti-Loose Change crew may actually help promote the significance of 9/11 truth. The very premise of your actions may be faulty. Two kinds of people will go to your debunking site. People who happen upon it and then watch the movie as a result, and people who want to find fault with the movie and seek you out. Guess what? The 9/11 truth movement isn't presently trying to convince the people likely to find your arguments entirely compelling. 42% question the offical story, but don't have all the facts. Personally, I don't think this effort will draw many of our target audience away from exporing the issue for themselves.

Third, I will actually be sending people in the movement to your site to examine contradictory arguments. We are not ignoring you. In fact, most likely you are being intensely studied by the 9/11 research community. A great number of people in the movement are highly informed about 9/11, and educated in general. We may know more about you than you do about us. Your effort seems so full of the confidence provided by assertion of the norm. Its kind of like wearing the latest fashion. You will be just as confident as the designer intended.

Finally, while you may feel your intentions to be in the best interest of all, and I would not assume that you had unspecified objectives, you link to a series of websites, very much like a larger cadre of sites that recently hit, just in the last couple of months. Suddenly there are dozens of 9/11 truth debunking sites. Most of them appear to have been authored by people with conservative ideology. There are exceptions. Some of them are undoubtedly the work of counter-intelligence programs. Which ones? The significant point here is that they all showed up at about the same time, and all feature the same bland recitation of the maintream view. Guess what? Everyone already knows the mainstream view. Anyone newly curious about 9/11 is looking for something different.

In any case, I am not presently disparaging the character of any one person or organization. If there is any one thing that everyone in the movement is perfectly clear about, its the fact that our biggest adversary is ignorance of history and geopolitics. The entire system rises to challenge our insight. And yet our movement is quickly growing, gaining a lot more attention than anyone trying to debunk our cause.

The 9/11 truth movement has established PROBABLE CAUSE to SUSPECT that undetermined members of our government, military, and intelligence services were COMPLICIT in the attacks. The previous statement is legally and historically valid. Get used to it, cause you will not be successful in making that truth disappear.

- Jules

P.S. Regardless of whether or not I favor every scene in Loose Change, those guys are majorly kicking ass for the movement. They are generating curiosity and leading people to question their assumptions. My hats off to Dylan, Jason, and Corey.




i agree but we should work to make loose change final cut more immune to debunkers. Less talk about an a3 jet at van nuys, destruction of fuel depots, the pentagon is very prone to be debunked , what we should emphasize is that there is not convincing evidence that a plane hit due to the lack of debris, the small amounts of debris there were not stored and investigated by the ntsb and cameras confiscated,unless they can prove a 767 hit for sure with videotape and a real ntsb debris identification then there is no conclusive proof it hit.

we need more expert testimony in our favor (stephen jones, fire engineerringand real representations of the official story (novas doc and nist conclusions) david ray griffin is really good at explaining that in the book and how the official explanations of the collapse are a joke.

That dutch special that tried to debink loose change was sucessful on several fronts, they argued that the debris could belong to a 767 and the rest disintergrated bc of the collision and used a fligght could make those turns w an ok pilot w/o "falling oout of the sky" their tactic is "If its possible then thats what happened" our response should be just because something is possible does not mean there is direct evidence it happened(video tape, forensic examination of the debris that could rule out smaller aircraft.)

More stepen jones, more of david ray griifin arguments on the collapses

Kudos Jules, well said

Kudos Jules, well said