Guardian Covers Loose Change

There is a big piece in the Guardian today on Loose Change. You can find it here:,,1998430,00.html

It is not a hit piece, but of the three or four points the article mentions, most people here would probably only agree with 1 of them: explosive demolition.

It is very disappointing to me that the other two, no-plane at the Pentagon and no-plane in Shanksville, get a mention, but many of our better arguments get ignored. What about Saeed Sheikh, Able Danger, the "hunt" for Osama, Sibel Edmonds, the fact the NSA was tapping one of the hijacker's phones for 3 years before 9/11, the dust, the visas, the fact that the hijackers thought they were being followed, the Malaysia meeting, all the warnings, war games on 9/11, bojinka, "3 individuals have been followed since Millenium and Cole", Jarrah in Dubai, David Schippers, etc., etc.?

A person who knows nothing about 9/11 truth and reads this article will think that we are all no-planers. It's not really the Guardian's fault (because Loose Change features these arguments prominently), but I can't help wishing the LC crew had been a bit more careful, at least. Oh well, I suppose I should just be glad they got rid of the "pods" from the second edition.

That makes it disinfo.

So it - is - ,clearly, a hit piece.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Show "It's going out in Ireland," by brianv
Show "A bird in hand is worth two in the Bush!" by brianv
Show "AMERICA911.COM" by Amanda Reconwith

So what?

So what?

Well done Louder Than Words...

Good luck with the "Final Cut" and your time in Hollywood...

My only advice is to keep your feet on the ground, watch out for the manipulators and stick together....

Don't sanitise too much and Dylan should do the narration, it's what made LC1 and 2 passionate for me !!!

Best wishes, let's roll....

Dylan will not be narrating

Dylan will not be narrating this time around.

Thanks fhb...

I did hear this a while back...

I was hoping he would reconsider :)

Good luck

Show "9/11 decoy" by middike

Blog this, mate!

If you've been in media for as long as your user profile indicates, you've got to realize that would be the best format for rambling that doesn't directly address the blog you're in or the comments around you. Everyone can do it--click "create content" under "my account" to your left.

We don't mean to be mean by rating you down--you're just clogging the thread unnessecarily.

Oh, and posting it word for word in multiple comments threads is considered bad form. There are exceptions--but this is not one of them.

Cheery bye.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Lets hope they make the corrections the debunkers so love

Final cut will hopefully be good, i really do hope that they do take out all the contentious points they put in and replace them with other verifiable sources.

For more than 150 documentaries on various subjects go to:

the best we could have hoped for..

from such a major new outlet, the Guardian is an extremely well respected news corporation.

Even though he is confortably skeptical about it, he gives them plenty props for their ingenuity, and balls, and doesn't for one moment try to just label them as idiots.

This is just the start of the unescapable media coverage that will come when this hits cannes.


Jason Berman?

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


The Guardian is famous for them. More typos that any other 2 major news outlets put together. It's a proud tradition for them.

hahaha, poor Jason. this is

hahaha, poor Jason. this is about the 5th time ive seen him called Berman. Hustler did it too i think.

Most people here, eh?

Kevin, I think most people here know quite well that no Boeing hit the Pentagon, and that no Boeing crashed into that tiny hole in Shanksville. Your suggesting that we'll be thought of as "no-planers" as a result is strange--"no-planers" are those who promote disinfo that no planes hit the towers, which is obviously false. I haven't read the guardian piece, but it sounds like they did a fine job. Though I somehow doubt they mentioned the dancing Israelis, which you also don't seem to think is very important judging by your list of ommissions, all of which seem to be "facts" that support the existence of hijackers. Indeed there are no facts that prove the existence of hijackers, just the old tired claims of those who created the ridiculous cover story of box-cutter wielding foaming at the mouth evil Muzzle-'im terrists.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Kevin, don't try to plant subtle disinfo here that AA77 hit the

Pentagon, and that UA-93 crashed in Shanksville.

How could a Boeing 757 disappear through a 16-foot initial impact hole at the Pentagon?

What happened to the 2 huge engines, 250 seats, luggage, & passengers' bodies @ the Pentagon?

How did they ID 63 of 64 passengers if the plane itself was obliterated by slamming the Pentagon @ 530 mph.

How did Hani Hanjour & his fellow screw-ups fly hundreds of miles visually, way back from Ohio, & perform acrobatics, and hit a small, renovated wedge of the Pentagon!

How come none of our military jets intercepted, challenged, photographed, nor even saw AA-77 as it flew all over the Eastern USA over an hour?

Why was AA-77 allowed free reign to fly all about the country 35 minutes after "hijacked airliners" slammed into the WTC?

Why does the government flatly refuse to release any clear video of what struck the Pentagon? Why does the video released look like something other than a Boeing 757?

It's not disinfo

"How could a Boeing 757 disappear through a 16-foot initial impact hole at the Pentagon?"
The hole was 90 feet, not 16, that's just Meyssan's crap.
See here:

"What happened to the 2 huge engines, 250 seats, luggage, & passengers' bodies @ the Pentagon?"
They went into the Pentagon.

"How did they ID 63 of 64 passengers if the plane itself was obliterated by slamming the Pentagon @ 530 mph."
It wasn't "obliterated". There were pieces afterwards.
See here:

"How did Hani Hanjour & his fellow screw-ups fly hundreds of miles visually, way back from Ohio, & perform acrobatics, and hit a small, renovated wedge of the Pentagon!"
They didn't fly visually back from Ohio, the autopilot was on until 9:29. The issue of whether Hani could do it is irrelevant to whether there was a plane at the Pentagon or not.

"How come none of our military jets intercepted, challenged, photographed, nor even saw AA-77 as it flew all over the Eastern USA over an hour?"
This issue is irrelevant to whether there was a plane at the Pentagon or not.

"Why was AA-77 allowed free reign to fly all about the country 35 minutes after "hijacked airliners" slammed into the WTC?"
This issue is irrelevant to whether there was a plane at the Pentagon or not.

"Why does the government flatly refuse to release any clear video of what struck the Pentagon? Why does the video released look like something other than a Boeing 757?"
Does the government have clear video? The object in the videos could be anything.

Show "I've looked at loads of initial impact holes at the Pentagon," by Colombo

(No subject)

(no Boeing)

Man, I just wasted 3 minutes looking at 9-11 Research's Pentagon page and all I can say is boy they leap to some grand conclusions on scant evidence. On top of that, they also don't think Hani Hanjour piloted the plane that crashed tehre. Their problems with the no-AA77 fact is that "AA77 would have had to have been disposed of elsewhere", which is pure bunkum. What proof is there that anything called AA77 actually was in the air that day? Radar blips? Transponder signals? Impossible phone calls? Uhhh, how about anything that couldn't easily have been simulated in one of the several war games involving fake hijackings? NOTHING. There is no evidence that AA77 flew, so no need to explain what "happened to it". Nothing happened to it. AA77 is a flight, not an aircraft. It simply did not happen on 9/11, unless it can be proven otherwise why should we believe it did? Well, I suppose if you wanted to protect the people who pretended to die on that flight you would want to preserve the myth.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"What proof is there that anything called AA77 actually was in

the air that day? Radar blips? Transponder signals? Impossible phone calls? Uhhh, how about anything that couldn't easily have been simulated in one of the several war games involving fake hijackings? NOTHING. There is no evidence that AA77 flew, so no need to explain what "happened to it"....

Exactly! Right on!

The phone calls were not

The phone calls were not impossible. Why do you focus on the least reputable evidence? Those flights happened and the people on those flights died.

The wordings of the Betty Ong call & the Mark Bingham call

sounded staged, like they were reading a script for a drill. Same thing with the Barbara Olson call--made on a "cell phone" (sure) or an airphone without her credit card. Her Neocon husband could explain none of this.

you seem so sure

but why? what evidence is so compelling to you, knowing that otherwise these people cannot be trusted on anything?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"knowing that otherwise

"knowing that otherwise these people cannot be trusted on anything?"

What people? The people who died on those planes?

I find the cell phone call evidence to be compelling because I have no reason to doubt the evidence. Most of the calls were made on Air Phones, those that were not made from Air Phones were made at altitudes which did not preclude regular cell phone usage, and there is no evidence of tampering.

not the people who ALLEGEDLY died on the planes

The people who assure us that those people died on the plane. The Pentagon. The media. Bush. THOSE people. I figured that would be clear enough. We have EVERY reason to doubt EVERYTHING submitted as evidence in this case. A passport found on the streets of New York is alleged to be evidence that Atta hijacked flight 11. I don't find that evidence particularly credible--most INcredible in fact. And so I am forced to wonder what else they might be lying about. The phone call stories are mostly very weird. That's enough doubt for me. But to each their own!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


The difference here is that

The difference here is that you're doubting the testimony of the bereaved, like Mark Bingham's mother. Also we can't reject all the official evidence just because it's official evidence. That's the kind of thinking that leads us to 'no-plane' arguements and such. No the official evidence is useful because we can discern what is obviously true in it, what is ommitted, and what is fictious. The NORAD timelines, for instance, are clearly fabrications as they contradict themselves and do not match with other witness testimony, established procedures, taped evidence, and so on. The miracle passport and other evidence implicating the Atta and friends appear to have been planted.

On the other hand, the eyewitness testimony of the Pentagon crash and the cell phone calls appear to be genuine.

Why are you so attracted to conspiracy theories that point to victims like Mark Bingham?

as I said, to each their own!

I guess you like the idea of the heroic Bingham and Beamer Flying Circus--that's your prerogative. I really think Flight 93 is a marginal issue, since no one actually was killed by that alleged flight. The towers' obvious demolition and the murder of hundreds in the buildings, and the non-plane induced destruction of federal property (i.e. MY property as a tax-paying citizen) by corrupt Bush admin officials is where I will focus my energies.

Your role in all of this, "Misterguy" seems to be to dicourage people from questioning the lies about the Pentagon strike and about the fake flights/deaths. Good luck with the campaign, buddy, and keep pushing your watered down LIHOP theories! I think you're convincing lots of people, hee hee... :)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"No one actually was killed

"No one actually was killed [on flight 93]."

Wow. Tell that to the family of Elizabeth Wainio. Or was this employee at a Discovery Channel store in on it?

A memorial to the passengers that died

I think it would be a great idea for you(or someone) to blog a memorial to all the passengers who died in the crashes--probably in several parts. You could do a follow up on how their families are doing, what they think about 911Truth, or if they are satisfied with the government's account.

The first step, of course, would be to get the passengers lists, as well as the coroner's reports(death certificates, etc.). I'm sure the authorities would be happy to help with such a memorial.

you are [distorting my words]

I said no one was killed by that flight. See, there's a difference between 93 and the other alleged flights. All the other flights were allegedly involved in the murders of people on the ground. People in the Pentagon were killed, and in the towers. Flight 93 didn't kill anyone. It stands alone outside of any real verifiable connection to the real verifiable evnts on 9/11. Have YOU spoken to the family of Elizabeth Wainio? How about the family of Zigbert Muffledink? Have you spoken to them? Poor Zigbert, a dedicated employee of Wal-Mart, was killed by an alien ship that instantly vaporized him with a space beam. And if you dispute that you should know that you are dishonoring Zigbert's memory and the entire Muffledink clan's grief. SHAME, misterguy! What a heartless monster you must be! Just because I have no evidence proving that Zigbert Muffledink was killed by aliens doesn't mean you have a right to question my account of his death or of his family's grief. You don't know how many people have tried to shut me down when truthing in the street by claiming to have known someone on one of the flights. One of them couldn't even identify the flight number his good friend allegedly died on (it was 77, in fact, as I informed him.) This is a time-honored tactic of the official story shills. What a great way to make people hesitate to look into these issues--"Well, I think it's fishy, but I don't want to upset grieving family members!" I wonder, misterguy, do you think poor Lizzie died when the plane was flown directly into the ground by terrorists, or do you think that an ace fighter pilot blasted her and the others out of the sky, contradicting the official account? Do you think that the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent folks in the middle east who we've killed as a direct result of 9/11 would mind terribly if we inconvenienced the grieving Wainio's by inquiring into the real circumstances of her alleged death? Do you think that would be OK? But please do state where you stand on the actual fate of Flight 93, I'm deadly curious as to the extent to which you trust the official story...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I don't know for certain

I don't know for certain whether the plane crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down. The evidence I've seen is inconclusive. Flight 93 is not a central issue for me. Do you want to tell me why flight 93 is so important? Do you want to tell me what you gain by suggesting that the people on 93 are still alive? Even if the plane was shot down the people on board were still killed. What gives here?

The prospect of you "truthing" in public is disquieting to me. If your "truthing" included denying that the people on the planes died then I imagine you've done some significant damage. It also becomes clear that "truthing" is something other than telling the truth as you know it. You claim that only shills are offended when you deny that the passengers died, but I would point out that it is a time honored technique of COINTELPRO agents to push the most offensive and divisive rhetoric forward and that it was Jim Fetzer who got on national radio and claimed that Barbara Olson was still alive and who insulted callers who claimed to have had family members die on 9/11.


But, misterguy, the victims' families were played a tape of their loved ones' last moments, confirming to them that they died as heroes, not shot out of the air. Are you... are you saying that the victims' families are idiots living in a fantasy world? What do you MEAN you don't know if it was shot down or not? Of COURSE it wasn't. It was flown straight into the ground when the heroes breached the cockpit, just like in the movie. How dare you suggest otherwise.

And compare me to Uncle Fetzer all you want, since I know that's part of the script. Because the other role of COINTELPRO is to then have a second agent "disagree" with and "condemn" the offensive one, at the same time throwing out the bits of truth that the first agent had professed. Then the truth can never be taken seriously, because it was advocated by an agent. Man this is like basic disinfo, and you think it's so clever!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


My uncle was on the passenger list for Flight 93

Unfortunately, that's the most definitive thing I can say about what happened to him.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Sorry to hear that, YT.

I knew you had a relative who was a victim but I didn't know the specifics. I'm sorry about your uncle.

I'll just ask it again. Why

I'll just ask it again. Why is it a good idea to insult the family members? And how is Flight 93 the pivot? What evidence do you have to suggest that the people on those flights are still alive? Do you have anything at all? Anything?

an FBI agent, friend of the family, has told my family....

that 93 was shot down. this was mid 2002 when this was stated.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

People knew.

What does it take to know a plane was in the air?

1) Scheduled flight. People knew.
2) Plane at gate. People knew.
3) Fueling of plane - fuel records. People knew.
4) Baggage handlers, loaders. People knew.
5) Reservation agents. People knew.
6) Main ticket counter check-in, baggage check-in. People knew.
7) Security check-in, tickets checked. People knew.
8) Passenger loading, tickets checked. People knew.
9) Passenger count. People knew.
10) Gate back-out on clearance from tower. People knew.
11) Ground control directing plane to take-off runway. People knew.
12) Tower clearance for take-off. People knew.
13) Hand-off to Departure Control frequencies. People knew.
14) Crew scheduling long before flight. People knew.
15) Unretrieved passengers' cars in parking lot. People knew.
16) Communications by radio with ground control over different frequencies, other pilots on same frequencies hers. People knew.
17) Families of passengers knowing travel plans. People knew.
18) Consistent accounts from unconnected eyewitnesses who saw an American Airlines passenger jet approach and hit the Pentagon. People knew.
19) Physical evidence:
20) Hundreds of local rescue unit people recovering remains of people and debris. People knew.
21) Hundreds of passengers' family members who do not doubt they buried their loved ones. People knew.

Where is the 9/11 Truth Movement interviews of all these people? Are you afraid to interview them knowing none has ever come forward claiming AA 77 did not fly that day?

Have you ever taken a moment to consider the consequences and implications of your claims?

No, of course not. Trying to prove AA 77 did not fly that day and did not hit the Pentagon requires that you deal with facts and evidence.

Shill King, ever Google "Operation Northwoods"? A Government

plot 45 years ago to cause mayhem & death to innocent people in a false-flag attack against us by Cuba--utilizing drones painted as airliners, fake/impostor passengers, phony funerals afterwards, etc.??? It came within a stroke of JFK's pen, but he refused to sign it.

Try to answer the question.

Why are you afraid to answer the above question? Are you interested in the facts or do you just want to keep pushing your political agenda?

The evidence overwhelming shows AA77 flew that day and hit the Pentagon? If you can disprove it, do so. Whining does not take the place of evidence.

What do these many hundreds of people that would have had to known about AA 77 have to say about AA 77?

people knew what?

Shill King (thanks Colombo!) could you point to any actual evidence of anything on your laundry list there? Because you know, I can make a list of things that, if true, would prove that Elvis is alive inside of an alien ship orbiting Saturn...

1) Don't be Cruel heard near rings. People knew.
2) Alien abduction seen by (the late) Zigbert Muffledink. People knew.
3) Weekly World News article. People knew.

et cetera...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


best Pentagon pic=Tom Horan of AP

90 foot hole? Where exactly? No, really, Kevin Fenton, how can you look at the above pic and keep on with the official BS? Yet you seem so sure of what you're saying--I think it's fair for people to question your judgement and/or intentions.

Everyone genuinely concerned to find out the whole truth about 9/11 should realize that even the most sincere sounding people might be up to no good. Some will call that divisive or paranoid on my part--but I could care less. Those are the exact accusations made against anyone who even begins to question ANY aspect of the official BS. At every level of skepticism, there are legit people and water-muddiers. Don't fall for the trap--keep the disagreements civil but don't ever feel cowed from expressing disagreement with people who seem to be "well-respected"--think of how YOU would design a disinfo campaign, and presume that the real one is even more sneaky and dishonest and manipulative!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Anybody who thinks a twin-engine jetliner hit the Pentagon is a disinfo agent. I've heard it all before. Check out the Hoffman essay - the hole's on the ground floor in the section that collapsed and to either side of it. I looked at the no-plane stuff and I don't buy it at all.

Have you looked at the work of... - [ Pilots for 911 truth Website ]

Their research is based on the FDR data supplied by the NTSB.

You can watch their latest presentation at :

Good luck

who, that we would trust, has authenticated that FDR data?

Flasifiable evidence is in this case not evidence of anything. you may say I'm being too skeptical but come on, what have these people ever told the truth about?Why should I trust NTSB any more than I trust NIST? Or B-U-S-H?

I'll believe things when I see hard evidence only. The most obvious evidence that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon is the obvious inconsistency with the damage visible in the photos post "strike" and what any rational person would expect to be the case. Circumstancially of course the whole thing is rotten stinky to high heaven, so the bar is, I'm afraid, very high for the perps to pass off their story as the truth.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Actually only evidence that

Actually only evidence that is falsifiable is real evidence. What you meant to say that evidence that could have been faked has to be assumed to be fake. That's not a logical conclusion. The photos of the crash at the Pentagon are not inconsistent with the explanation that a plane hit the building. Go look at the link I provided above for a second time.
Finally you say that the bar is set very high for the perps, but I'd point out that the people who died on 9/11 are not the perps, and neither are the witnesses of the Pentagon attack.

OK on the falsifiable point

You are right to clarify my meaning there. BUT I think that the photos are NOT consistent with a Boeing flying the way it was purported to into the base of the Pentagon. A plane sure, but not a Boeing 757. I 've looked at the link several times, over a year ago and just now when you linked to it--not convincing. Just confidently stating your interpretation of the available evidence is not convincing, and that is all they do on 9-11 Research.

Finally, not sure what you think I have against the real victims of 9/11, but first you have to prove to me that someone WAS a victim, and that hasn't been done in the case of the passenegers on those planes. Sure it's possible that the people did die somehow, but then it's possible they did not and faked their deaths instead. I offer conditional sympathy, and that is all I can do. As far as witnesses, how do you know which ones are not lying about what they saw? How about if we got all of these eyewitnesses into court and had them testify and see what we're left with?

I'm never going to succumb to any feelings of shame or guilt over demanding evidence before trusting an eyewitness or offering condolences to someone alleged to have died, if there is reason to believe that people involved may be lying. That's a cheap tactic that the perps were counting on, but it doesn't work with people who aren't easily cowed by what others think.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


It's one thing to have

It's one thing to have questions about the Pentagon crash, it's another thing to ignore all the evidence that is available, to claim that it's all phony, in order to hold onto your pet theory. Finally it's quite another thing all together to suggest that the witnesses of the Pentagon attack are all perps and liars.

If I had a day in court on this I would not waste my time on the 'no-plane hit Pentagon' theory but would instead focus on the wargames, the ISI connection, the foreign intelligence warnings, Able Danger, Mineta's testimony, Norad's various accounts, the destruction of evidence (both inside the FAA and from the World Trade Center sites), the August 6th memo, Tenet's meetings with Rumsfeld and Rice, the Collapse of WTC 7, and the lies of the Bush administration on the subject of perparedness ("Nobody could predict that planes could be used as missles."). Hinging the case on the Pentagon case would give the defense the opportunity to bring forward scores of witnesses from different walks of life who saw the planes. I certainly wouldn't make the accusation that Deb Anlauf was in on "the conspiracy."

Here's a list of witnesses:

again, you sound like an OCTist!

I am not ignoring ANY credible evidence. I am departing from a very valid skeptical point of view, and I don't see evidence for a Boeing crashing at the Pentagon, or for AA77 to have been anything other than a false radar blip on some air traffic controller's scree.

If *I* had a day in court, I wouldn't waste time with dubious claims about foreknowledge (foreknowledge of WHAT is the point) I would begin with the most obvious STILL unexplained fact that building 7 collapsed, then look at the evdience that the towers were demolished, then ask how a Boeing could have made it to the Pentagon without being shot down and without leaving a telltale debris field. Then on the basis of these highly bizarre claims I would subpoena like hell everyone and everything pertinent. Records from the airlines, building schematics of the twin towers and building 7, every available witness to anything pertinent--in other words I would actually investigate and prosecute and not take anyone's word fior anything just because "I have no reason to doubt". Because we have EVERY reason to doubt EVERY claim made in the last 6 years by anyone connected with the Bush admin, Congress, the media, Silverstein properties, and a slew of foreign governments and agents.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


If you had your day in court

If you had your day in court you'd lose.

The defense attorney would bring in his own experts, have a field day pointing to the competing theories, and then allow the jury to fade into sleep as you presented your schematics and records which, he would easily demonstrate, you don't comprehend yourself. Then he would put a Bingham's mother up on the stand and you would badger her and the jury would turn against you. Finally the defense attorney would put Silverstein on the stand and let you have a go at him. That would be the final nail in your coffin.

nice fantasy

Anyway, I think it's clear what you think of most people in the truth movement. And frankly, the feeling is probably QUITE mutual. Have fun chasing down those Pakistani funders of the evil Muzzle-'im terrists, Misterguy! With "truthers" like you, who needs CNN?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


That's all you've got? Come

That's all you've got? Come now. Tell me how you'd win your case without alienating the jury.

By the way, you are not 'the

By the way, you are not 'the truth movement' so you don't get to claim that I don't respect 'the truth movement' when the fact is that I just don't respect your position.

come now don't be modest

You think controlled demolition is a waste of time. You think the Pentagon was hit by AA77. I'm not sure what movement you think you're a part of, but positing silly predictions as to what a jury would think about my case? What the hell does that even mean? Are you seriously suggesting that that's how this will all end up, with a single case in court and no prior investigation? That is just so bizarre, that it has to be just a tactic on your part to make some point or other. If and when we have a real investigation, that will only occur if enough people become aware of the obvious holes in the official story (or lack of holes as the case may be), we will have an airtight case against LOTS of people, for obstruction of justice at the very least. But whatever, if you're actually a truther (I have my doubts) and you really think that we should be thinking (what will win over a jury) then you're not just missing the boat--you are nowhere near the pier. So go ahead and do whatever it is you do, and I'll do what I do. Unlike you, I know that I'm in the majority on every issue on which you disagree with me.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Have you ever heard of a man

Have you ever heard of a man named Jim Garrison? Have you ever heard of the court of public opinion?

I don't think investigating the CD hypothesis is a waste of time, and I wish Jones the best of luck. I hope he can produce a report that can be falsifiable, that is peer reviewed, and that is reproducable.

It was you who said "if I had my day in court" you'd present a staggering case. I simply pointed out what would really happen.

The difference between us is that I'm living in the real world and you think you can simply create reality if you swagger and pose.

It does not work that way.

Real Truther claimed:

"....but first you have to prove to me that someone WAS a victim, and that hasn't been done in the case of the passenegers on those planes."

You have not refuted the evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. You have a lot of work to do as I just indicated. We do not have prove anything to you; you have to prove everything to us.

The onus of supporting your claims in the face of clear and monumental evidence from hundreds of sources against you is on you.

Have you actually watched it RT ?

Just wondering, cos I think you'll be suprised with the FACT based outcome.

i watched parts and wondered what the point was

of analysing something that could easily be faked. but why can't you just say what conclusion they reached if it's interesting?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Watch it ALL when you have a chance...

Good luck

I don't bother with things...

that the people who promote them can't make a case for before I waste my time. without demonstrating how the authenticity of the FDR data has been ascertained, it's kind of a pointless exercise!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


your choice...

But you are missing some important info.

I won't say another word to you about it...

Good luck

the secret of the Pilots - forbidden knowledge! mums the word!

Am I wrong to think it's weird when someone says I should watch something but won't tell me why I should? You tell me I'm missing some omportant fact--if you're a genuine truthseeker, why not just help out a fellow truther by telling me what that fact is instead of playing a game of--oooo.... you don't know what you're missing. Is that supposed to entice me? It doesn't. It makes me think that whatever it is won't seem so exciting once you reveal it, so you won't reveal it.

For the record, if ANYONE knows what important info is revealed by the "Pilots for truth", and is willing to break the vow of silence, please do the movement a favor and reveal--reveal the secret of the Pilots!!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


All you have to do is give us the evidence.

Start with the many hundreds of people I mentioned above and give us their accounts that day. I would like you to demonstrate that you actually have evidence that AA77 did not fly and did not hit the Pentagon.

It is rather silly for you to keep making unfounded claims without providing all the necessary evidence to back you up.

You must realize that you have to cover all the bases which means you have to have testimony from all of those people.

why is the onus on us? (no pun intended)

Shill King, you are Level One disinfo, so this is hardly worth my time, but I'm curious--why do you think it's such a great tactic to demand evidence from me, when you have zero evidence yourself that what you are saying is true. I'm getting tired of digging up poor Zigbert Muffledink's decaying corpse, but look, here it is. He was killed by aliens because he witnessed them tampering with a Milwaukee parking meter. There are hundreds of witnesses, people like Bob Smendlik, Joe Pratt, Wendy Small, Lawrence Plunk, and Wilfredo Sanchez. Are you calling all those good people liars? I guess you are, but where's your EVIDENCE? Fun, isn't it?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


In my opinion a plane hit the pentagon

Disinformation: Deliberately misleading information: 

The plane hit the pentagon.  It’s not disinformation.   

200 quotations of individuals who witnessed the plane hit the pentagon.

It’s one thing to speculate and call these people liars.  It’s another to prove it with evidence. The dubious no plane hitting the WTC theories have the exact same problem.  Eyewitness testimony is very reliable when details are corroborated again and again and again.  Specific details repeated can not easily be dismissed as massive hypnosis.  

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

“Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook.” 

"It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking." 

“. . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." 

“...came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon." 

“He wanted to head down the hall toward the A ring...but because he couldn't see anything he had no idea which way to go and he didn't want to head in the wrong direction. (...) Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.” 

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." 

“The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum. He saw one chunk painted with the letter ``A,'' another with a ``C.'' It didn't occur to Braman what the letters signified until a man in the crowd stooped to pick up one of the smaller metal shards. He examined it for a moment, then announced: ``This was a jet.'' 

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane, Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here." 

I highly recommend that everyone examine Jim Hoffman’s analysis of loose change dealing with the pentagon strike.  It is very clear in my opinion that a plane did indeed hit the pentagon based on the given evidence.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

The "no plane hit the

The "no plane hit the Pentagon" hypothesis is consistently focused on in order to discredit people who question the official story. The reason why it's used is because, at present, there is no concrete evidence one way or the other. What people who are serious about this subject should focus on is the fact that anything could hit the Pentagon, especially after the WTC had been hit twice.

sorry, but...

When it comes to huge planes crashing into buildings, absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. For anyone to worry that we will be discredited for demanding to know why claims are made that a Boeing hit the Pentagon when it most evidently did not is absurd. I question the credibility of anyone who looks at the Tom Horan picture and claims to be think the issue is up for debate.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Actually the hole in the

Actually the hole in the Pentagon and plane debris is evidence that a plane hit the building. What we don't have is the video footage that ought to be available. This is a honeypot issue. I know you're fond of them.

Proves nothing c/b panted debris, A-3 Skywarrior debris?


C'mon Colombo

Are you seriously suggesting that someone could have planted a few old plane parts in the Pentagon before detonating a bomb in it to make people think that a plane crashed there? Or that maybe what really hit was not AA77 but a winged missile or pilotless drone aircraft? Why, you CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! No one could have imagined anything of the sort!! EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS HAPPENS JUST LIKE THEY SAY IT DOES!!

Right, so anyway, keep skepticism alive folks! Demand evidence--HARD evidence, before accepting as true any claims made by obvious and proven liars.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


It's not just about the plane (I don't think a 757 hit)...

You have reports of multiple explosions around 9:32

Sporadic fires hundreds of feet away from the "impact point".

Hit point coincidng with apparently refurbed section (due to open around 9/12), that housed the financial budget team.

Loads more for another day...

PS... That "smoking" generator could have been a good place to stash a bomb or two.... Who knows...

PPS... The Pentagon incident is the only event on 9/11 that can be directly linked to the administration, so expect extra propaganda and disinfo !!!


That's actually more evidence that it wasn't AA77, given that there are witnesses who place the explosion at the Pentagon before Aa77 allegedly struck it. So yes, let's not get bogged down in pointless arguments when we have yet to explore the Pentagon issue completely!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "No evidence has refuted that it was AA77" by S. King

Prove to me Shill King that Zigbert Muffledink is alive!

What would Zigbert's family have to say about your ridiculous claims? No one on earth has been able to refute my claim that Zigbert Muffledink was murdered by aliens. What's the matter Shill King? Prove me wrong! By the way, please say hi to Davin Coburn, tell him we miss him greatly since he was forbidden to speak to the public about Popular Mechanics' 9/11 book after he blew their cover on the Charles Goyette show! So let's see if you know Shill King, what DNA did the government match the hijackers' DNA with at the Pentagon?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


We are waiting for your evidence.

Why be such a chicken?

What do the many hundreds of people who would have had to known of AA 77's existence or absence that day have to say about it.

Cat got your tongue, Real Truther? Or is your job as a disinfo agent at stake?

Show "Agreed" by Kevin Fenton

you think al Qaeda attacked America?

That's cute. So, what convinced you that these evil Muzzle-'im terrists boarded those planes? The absence of their names on the passenger manifests? The lack of evidence of any ticket being purchased? The lack of video showing them at the airports in question on the alleged dates of travel? So a bunch of Arabs ran around the US being followed. What is illegal about that? And what about the fact that Mossad was also "onto them", living just a few houses down in two cases from the alleged hijackers? Any opinions on that Kevin? Puh-leeze. You want to focus on the stuff that proves nothing. You all have been at this since day one. No, no, don't talk about building 7 it used to be. No no don't mention the Pentagon. No no, controlled demolition is a dead end. And yet invariably you all are proven wrong, most recently by the immense popularity of 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions.

So whatever, keep making your case, and we'll keep making ours. You see how many people you can wake-up, and more power to you if your way works. I'll stick with focusing on the obvious links to obvious wrongdoing, not on minutiae pointing to inconsequential facts that mainly serve to buttress the completely false "Muzzle-'ims hate you and your freedoms and are bloodthirsty dogs" fantasy.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"We should also focus on how

"We should also focus on how known al-Qaeda operatives could possibly operate that openly in the US without US intelligence noticing."

They couldn't. Next question?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

They could

But they needed protection. Without that protection, they couldn't.

Yes...that's what I

Yes...that's what I said.

Re-read your statement, follow it with my reponse:

"How could they have operated in the States without intellegence knowing(paraprase--if I click back I lose what I'm typing)", My response, "They couldn't(implied: couldn't operate in states w/o intelligence knowing)"

You know chum, I TRY to edit myself for brevity(and snap!) as much as possible otherwise I could just ramble all day.

Mind, this doesn't mean I agree with the rest of your position in this thread.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Just checking

No offence taken. Seen this yet?

I mean the entry for 9:53.

Mr. Fenton

I suggest you read Michel Chossudovsky's America's "War On Terrorism" and you'll find your answer.

FYI - al Qaeda was created by the ISI and the CIA; the "hijackers" were convenient patsies, most of whom were scheduled to return to their home countries just before 9/11/01, which they did, in fact, do. The FBI has admitted on two occasions that they have NO IDEA who the hijackers actually were.

As far as the Pentagon goes: NOTHING should have hit it, end of story.

There are literally thousands of questions that need to be answered regarding 9/11. This is why we need a full, complete and truly independent investigation.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

This is...

A "hit piece." Albeit a subtle one.


  • It began as a tiny internet film attacking the 'lies' surrounding 9/11. (Lies is in quotes)

  • More commonly, they are referred to as conspiracy theorists.

  • And this openness to - even need for - alternative explanations has come at just the moment when the internet has made it possible for such theories to be disseminated rapidly and widely. (Again, focusing on the bogus psychological "need" for alternative explanations.)

  • The list of those who would have to have been party to the plot is implausibly long for it to have remained secret, from Bush himself to Rumsfeld and Cheney and the FBI and Pentagon ... and on and on. (None of us believe that.)

  • So far though, no British channel has been rash - or as the film-makers would see it, brave - enough to bite.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

at least...

They invited the reader to watch the film and offered a link.

Personally I thought it was not too bad and I have seen far worse.

Good luck

It's not bad...

And I have seen way worse as well. Just pointing out the little "hit piece" qualities about it.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


The bit that made me laugh was the setting of the scene...

As the road winds upward, the terrain thins out into wooded hills dotted with bungalows, with rusting Cadillacs parked outside. At this time of year, the area should be buzzing with skiers from the city, but El Niño and global warming have put paid to that. In the absence of snow, this famously beautiful part of America looks depressed and down-at-heel.

At the end of the journey is a white clapboard cabin surrounded by muddy fields and a couple of dilapidated sheds.

I was waiting for the "evil dead" or "wrong turn" slasher music etc :) - or that guy with the clown face who chops up the bodies...

I know what ya mean though...

Good luck and best wishes

Yes, that's another subtle bash of the Loose Change guys. They

make their home of Upstate NY sound like a scene out of the movie Deliverance. (The mountains & lakes of Upstate NY are some of the most picturesque in the world, btw.)

Hey, I'm not crazy about it...

... but there's a world of difference between this and, say, Professors of Paranoia or the article by Cockburn.

I wish they'd done 9/11 Press for Truth, rather than LC, but then I'm horribly biased on that point.

That movie...

Doesn't exist in the media's eyes.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Press for the TRuth is too dangerous

LC is an easier target to hit because it has so many inaccuracies and theories about missing planes and switches and stuff.

If PFT...

Were shown on National Television, I can almost guarantee this fight would be over within a few months.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

with more celebrities coming out on this issue

you would hope and pray that one of them would help facilitate getting media to move its focus. celebrities have tremendous pulpits for advocating what is politically 'hot' or 'not'

just something as simple as getting Press for the Truth shown in theaters - the same way other documentaries are making the rounds - would be a huge win.

this movement needs someone with some industry pull - and money - to help us.

many of these celebrities are vastly wealthy. they give money to all sorts of causes to help stray animals and underprivilaged children and such. Charlie Sheen alone makes $1 million per episode for his current TV show - on top of the numerous movies he has starred in.

what would $100,000 be to Charlie Sheen? What would $100,000 be to Barbara Streisand?

we all appreciate the sound bites from these folks.

but - hello - World War 3 is looming on the horizon - and the 911 Truth movement has PROVEN ITSELF to have captured the public's eye. the demographics are there. the numbers are there.

only these people can take this movement to the next level.


I'd love to see someone like Barbara do a concert to benefit the first responders who are not getting funding for necessary health care.


Instant Headlines that they can not ignore.

They would have the money they need and we will have publicity that we desperately need right now.

Barbara Streisand Benefit Concert for the Care of First Responders....... in Central Park!!!

VIP $750.... Choice Seating $250..... General Admission $50 to 75..... you'd have a packed park!
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Great Idea....

Get loads of other stars to participate, like a mini "live aid".

Might even get Bono and U2...

Eminem and other great NY performers.

Good call

"The EPA lied, the Government won't help, will you ?"

Show "Gold, you mean if Loose Change were shown on national tv," by Colombo


I meant Press For Truth.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Show "I'm beginning to think that Gold & Albanese may be disinfo." by Colombo

I am disinfo.

Ask anyone.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Only a fool

would accuse people of being cointelpro simply for voicing opinions.

Not when your opinions sound like COINTELPRO, or to bash some

.of our best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.


I hadn't noticed before!--pushing a movie that won't alienate people already haveing trouble coming to terms with 911and will help them start to think about the unthinkable while identifiying with ordinary greiving people who just want to have a murder properly investigated--- That's a dis-info tactic if I've ever seen one!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

This is not a competition

Stop treating it as such

Press for the Truth is not based on the incompetence theory. it CLEARLY is not. I am unsure why you would seek to misrepresent this film in such a way.

Albanese, you made a 9/11 video that didn't even spare 10

seconds to show WTC-7 imploding, so I think you may want to sit this one out.

It's a shame he did that...

Because no other movie does.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Can someone tell me why Albanese (& sometimes Gold) make

very dubious statements about our physical & physics evidence ? I find this irksome.


Physical & physics evidence? You from a different movement or something? I just think too much emphasis is put on the physical evidence as opposed to the circumstantial evidence.

Can someone explain to me why Colombo, who signed up 3 days ago, is starting arguments, and making accusations on this site?

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


this is not a fundamentalist church where everyone must believe and espouse the same beliefs.

if you pick any subject associated with 9/11 - Pakistan - Israel - the money trail - the Pentagon - Shanksville - you will find that you will not get a 100% concensus on ANYTHING.

What you are really saying is that anyone who makes a statement that YOU do not agree with should be accused of being cointelpro.

i severely doubt that you have all the answers. no one does.

all we do know and agree upon is that the official story is a lie - and there is a massive coverup - indicating a strong possibility of government complicity.

i suggest you stop acting so boorish and accusing people for not reflecting your own personal belief system.

it is my opinion - and always has been - that physical evidence is a dead end. we can speculate about the Pentagon for decades without finding an answer. there is by no means any consensus on this issue.

furthermore - it appears to me somne of the most OBVIOUS disinfomation in this movement ALSO relies on physical evidence as well. space beams. mini nukes. no planes. teh government just loooooves keeping us speculating.

what children like you fail to grasp is that Press For The Truth is a call from the victims families to end the media blackout and hhold this government accountable for their lies. some of us believe this is a very mature and balanced approach. live with it.

"what children like you fail to grasp is that Press For The

Truth is a call from the victims families to end the media blackout and hold this government accountable for their lies. some of us believe this is a very mature and balanced approach. live with it."

Of this govt has LIED! Question is, what LIES are we holding them accountable for. That they lied to cover their severe "incompetence" or that "9/11 was an inside job"??? (Big difference between the two.)

Show "Albanese, your talking like an ass now. What inaccuracies &" by Colombo


PFT doesn't promote any "theory."

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


presents evidence of MIHOP. maybe it was over your head.

PFT merely hints at suble clues & innuendos that everything

may not have been what the gov't told us re: 9/11. It's not going to change anyones mind who doesn't believe already 9/11 was an inside job (like watching Loose Change does).

Not true

Our NC 9/11 Truth group has screened PFT for people many times to people and it has changed their minds. Its one of the most effective videos out there.

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

What is it about PFT that makes ordinary folks think 9/11 was

an inside job? To me, it just seems to make the Bush regime look foolish & that they are covering-up their lies & incompetence. Please explain.

I tend to agree

And I've learned to let it slide around these parts because it inevitably starts a flame war. I have to say though, that while I don't think PFT is very good on the nitty gritty, it DOES open up a lot of people's eyes, by focusing on very sympathetic and credible people (the Jersey girls) and also by presenting a critical account of the creation and execution of the cover-up committee. People whose eyes are opened are invariably going to have their minds opened, and that can only help our cause. What we must guard against is the potential for when we are gaining steam for the powers that be to compromise by offering up some LIHOP version of the "truth", thus preserving their racist fantasyland populated by dark and evil forces of Muzzle-'ims out to eat our young and those of our loyal and trusted ally, the ever-victimized and lily-clean Zionist state of Israel.

Anyway Colombo, I just wanted to make sure epople knew that your position on this issue has a lot of support!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


It shows, with concrete

It shows, with concrete reports that people can trust, the obvious deliberate lies about the entire official conspiracy theory story.

I disagree.

But then again, I saw the flick, and I'm familiar with Paul Thompson's work. Did/are you?

press for truth

is not nearly as good as loose change.

i think its possible that a jet hit the pentagon but unlikely. We just dont know.

Real Truther has a real hard time providing evidence.

He appears to be frightened to having to provide evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

All those people who would have had to know of AA 77's existence or absence that day......

Emailed Ed...

Dear Sirs!
Dear Ed!

As the Louder Than Words guys took care of most of your "distrusting" arguments, why 911 can't be an inside job,
I'll put the last one to rest:

"Much of the supporting evidence in the film was taken in the first minutes and hours after the attacks, when confusion reigned."

To use this as an argument against the truthiness of the supporting evidence is invalid.
Ask any crime researcher: The evidence in the first hours is always the best, the memorial the freshest, without planning or other distractions (like fear mongering FBI agents) overlayed.

This argument was brought up by David Coburn and James Meigs of "Popular science", and it was just plain stupid from the beginning.

Besides that, click "early conspiracy theories" to learn who brought you the right conspiracy theories to regain mental order just in time:


"Popular Mechanics"

was the name of the shit...

fog of my ass

I find this "fog of war" argument very disingenuous on the part of disbelievers. They know they can't deny the veracity of dozens of eyewitnesses describing (and sometimes experiencing) massive secondary explosions in the towers, so they try to dismiss these accounts as the "confusion" of the moment.

It would be one thing if there were only a few witnesses to these secondary explosions, or if the witnesses were all amateurs, but in this case there were multiple expert witnesses (police and firefighters, for example) describing MASSIVE secondary explosions (not aerosol cans exploding).

In addition, the disbelievers might have a case if the eyewitness accounts were not backed up by evidence, but this is not the case. Not only did many people see and hear massive explosions, but the video and physical evidence supports what they reported.

What LC needs to do is purge the obvious examples of people who WERE confused, like the faulty eyewitness allusion to "no planes" at the beginning of 2E.

"and recruited a theology

"and recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant."

that is an interesting quote from this article.. anyone heard this before? is griffin helping out on this?!


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Show "I've heard that rumour before" by Kevin Fenton

You say your not crazy about Griffin? Who the heck are you?

DRG is one of the best truthers in the world!

That is a very disengenous way to describe DRG, if that's who

they are referring to. (Why not mention that DRG is a top truther & author, not some proofreader they just hired)?

20 million ????

Does anyone now were the loose change guys came up with over 20 million dollars to finance the movie?(Hustler) They say follow the money trail.

that was an incorrect quote

that was an incorrect quote in the hustler magazine..

you can hear dylan talk about this briefly on alex jones a couple days ago here:

he has also addressed it a few times on the loose change forums and elsewhere..

Hahahaha, check this out!

Mark Roberts - Gay Spy


This is the sort of shite I'd get up to on CrossBall if I was as adept with vids as you. See, I could be a MORE obnoxious sarcastic bastard than I am!

Cheers for the laugh!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


This is the unfortunate result of mixing bad info with good in the world of disinfo and cointelpro. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, however, cointelpro or not, the result has the exact same effect. Loose Change began with pods and "no plane" theories, virtually parroting disinfo from In Plane Site. They cleaned it up a bit with the 2nd edition, however kept the bulk of the bad info. Let's hope that they will get it together with their so called "Final Cut". We will see.

Keep in mind...

Loose Change was made by dumb kids that were trying to answer the questions those who should, refuse to do. It had a lot of questionable information, and the media jumped on it for that very reason. Their intentions were good.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

dumb kids?

WTF? They made a movie that brought the issue of 9/11 truth to millions of people...

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

i agree that's a little harsh

what Jon meant is that, with the american media and journalists utterly abandoning us in a crisis - it has been left up to the public and people like myself to educate the public.

but i have absolutely no training as a jounalist. i am an amateur. i do not have professional researchers on my staff. in many respects you can say i am just a dumb kid too (if i wasn't such an old fart)

I meant no disrespect...

It's a "figure of speech" when referencing normal joe schmoe kids. It doesn't mean they're "dumb". It means they weren't as mature in their analysis as they could have been at the time. It means they weren't as knowledgeable about what to focus on and what not to. It means they had less life experience than others of us in the movement. Regardless, Dylan himself has described himself as a "dumb kid."

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

i tend to think it was

i tend to think it was jumped on by the media because it was far and away the most viewed 9/11 video online. that would naturally make it the biggest target for the media.

Gotta agree

I am hoping and praying that the next version steers clear of theories and makes the best case for exposing the lies - coverup - and facts behind 911. It is my opinion that the physical evidence wing of this movement has taken us down a culdesac of sorts -with people like Woods and Fetzer capitalizing on the phenomenon by adding outlanding theories to the national debate. and - lets face it - unless some key evidence emerges - no one at this point is EVER going to be able to prove anything about missing planes. The evidence is gone - and all we are now left with is speculation and theories.

meanwhile - no one is even TRYING to hold this government accountable for all of the demonstrable lies they have told us. no one is even TRYING To petition the goverment to answer questions.

Wrong again, Alabanese. Some physical evidence still exists &

plenty of P-H-Y-S-I-C-S evidence will always exist on the photos & videos!!! Wake-up!!!

Horses for Courses...

Both PFT and Loose Change are GREAT !!!!

I would recommend both are essential viewing.

Loose Change was the first film that made me go, "now we are getting somewhere".

I sincerely hope that they continue to present Northwoods, plane switches, Pentagon questions, controlled demolition, drills and a lot that is in LC2.

If they listened to all sides and debunkers the film would be 2 minutes long.

Go get em Louder Than Words... May the FORCE BE WITH YOU !!!!

we can't

all be rocket scientists like you. but - given your 3 days registered on this board - and your accusations of "cointelpro" against jon Gold and myself - i hardly doubt you are worth debating any further.

You & Gold need to stop disparaging our physical evidence

It's bad enough people watched two enormous towers erupt, explode, eject debris upwards/sideways, come down into their own footprints at nearly free-fall speed, find molten metal in the basements when the fires never approached temps high enough, etc.

Then WTC-7 a 47-story massive, modern, steel-framed building (having about the same square footage at each tower) implodes in a classic controlled demolition! It had some flames coming out of a FEW of its thousands of windows! It was 350 feet from the closest tower! The over-insured landlord Silverstein, made up some cock-and-bull story that he & the fire chief "pulled-it."

There is just no way to get around this irrefutable physical evidence demonstrating that and inside job was involved!!! Stop ignoring it!!!

Hey Colombo...

Are you here to instigate fights? How much do you want to bet I have more threads posted about Controlled Demolition on my site than you do on yours?

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

there is definitely something seriously wrong with this guy

its like he's engineering fights where they do not exist.

i wouldn't talk to this guy anymore. he seems to want to mischaracterize what we believe.

I forgot to mention the 6 inches of powder that burried Lower

Manhattan like a snowstorm.

LC2E is 90% solid fact & 10% good, educated guesses


LC2E "kept the bulk of the bad info" No, you are the bad info.


LC2E Contains Lots of Speculation


The reality is that Loose Change 2E, while a powerful movie, is full of speculation, as well as incorrect information:


Our movement succeeds in two ways:

1) We try to find out as accurately as possible what happened before, on, and after 9/11. This means that we approach 9/11 with an open mind and an evidence based approach. It also means that as new information becomes available, we need to change our views and incorporate said information, not deny it as being fake, disinfo, etc... and

2) Get this accurate information out to the public in the most credible form possible. 9/11 Press for Truth does exactly that, by showing that the families themselves want more investigation and that there are all these unanswered questions. Quibbling about the LIHOP/MIHOP scope of the film is pointless, as the most difficult aspect of getting people to sign on to the movement is the idea that the government or other non Al-Quaeda entities would do such a thing. Getting someone to MIHOP from LIHOP is then trivial. The point is that Press For Truth as a tool for REAL change is infinately more powerful than LC2E. Once someone is receptive to these arguments, then show them LC2E (with caveats) as well as Improbable Collapse, 9/11 Mysteries, DRG, etc...

I am not bashing Loose Change but its flaws detract from its overall goal: Finding the truth and spreading the word. While LC is still a gateway for many truthers, it does not mean we can't criticize LC for what it is and try to improve on it. All I care about is getting the highest success rate for people watching their 1st 9/11 video, and PFT eases them in, while LC is throw shit at the wall and see what sticks approach. BTW I reserve judgment on LC Final Cut and hope that it sticks to the best facts and arguments. If so then we have another tool at our disposal to help spread the word.

without any speculation you

without any speculation you would have about a 15 minute slide show. speculation is good. speculation is all we can do for the most part based on how hollow the official story is. Loose Change speculates a lot and has caused millions to question the official story exactly because it has done so. 9/11 Press for Truth has its crowd and does its job well but it doesnt tell the whole story and watching ONLY PFT just isnt enough usually. you think LC2E needs caveats? well personally, when i point someone to PFT i give a caveat as well. i make sure to tell them that its much worse than it seems. watch LC2E,Terrorstorm and DRG for a fuller picture. to each is own i guess, but i just dont see the harm in speculating, especially when it causes other people to question 9/11 which the proof shows it clearly has.

ya know...

guys, we don't write the articles. we just answer the journalist's questions and they publish them.

we love press for truth as much as anyone else.



The CIA salary up to these days? I asked Janice Matthews, and she said it's barely covering expenses.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

We appreciate the compliment

However, if the final cut rectifies some of the problems in the second version, that would be a help generally. Which direction are you going to take it in?


We're not "dumb kids" anymore and I resent that accusation.

Kevin, just wait and see. You all give us entirely too little credit.

I didn't mean...

Now. Or have you forgotten my "maturity" remark during your debate with Mark Roberts on "Hardfire?" It was NOT intended to be an insult for crying out loud.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


Anyone was offended by my "dumb kids" remark, then I apologize. It was not intended to be an insult.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

I know you meant no insult,

I know you meant no insult, Jon--but that's because I've read your other posts on this subject.

I think it's one of those things that, had you said face to face, no one would have misunderstood. Unfortunately, reading cold with no context, it comes off stronger/harsher than you meant.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Wasn't me...

... never called you a dumb kid and I wouldn't dream of it. I usually say something like "The LC crew should have been more careful." You did lots to popularise the movement, but there are a few things in LC that have caused various problems - I'm sure you know what I mean, so there's no point in rehashing it here. I hope the Final Cut is as factually accurate as it is well made.

"We're not "dumb kids"

"We're not "dumb kids" anymore and I resent that accusation.

Kevin, just wait and see. You all give us entirely too little credit."

dylan i have mucho respect for you, be careful out there! be careful where you buy your smokables, you never know how the government will try to stop you guys.

(the beheading hoax guy)

I agree about Dylan

I think Dylan and his crew are honest young men (not kids, even though Dylan refers to himself as one) who have done their research and like all of us, evolve over time with life experience. So give credit where it's due. They've made great videos, albeit flawed, and perhaps the "Final Cut" (a bit presumptuous with that title, but whatever) will clear all the murky water away.
The one thing that DOES seem a bit peculiar (and this is *not* a subtle backhanded attack) is Dylan's story of HOW he got involved with 9/11 truth. He said he wanted to make a documentary, a FICTIONAL one about 9/11 being a planned U.S. operation. This is when he still believed the official theory. So while he was believing the official theory, he fantasized about 9/11 being what it inside job and wanted to make a movie on it. Now, does that not strike some as a tad...well, odd? If Dylan's reading this, I'm not saying you're being anything other than honest, but your story, to say the very least, is QUITE unique.

One way to tell for sure that the information war is on...EVERYONE is suspect. Well, just about everyone. I can count on 1 hand how many people in here I know for sure are honest truth seekers. Stay strong people.

Please let's not do this

Speculating about people's motives and backstory is counterproductive. Although I think LC contains some errors, I would not speculate about their motives. I do not agree with them, but I think they are genuine. Hell, I wouldn't even speculate about Judy Wood's motives.

Judy Wood and her 7 year "coma" says quite a bit...

And I agree with TJTruth--trust no one and nothing. I also thought the örigin story" of Loose Change was odd. My own paranoid theory is that they will at some point "admit" that they were in fact making fiction all along, that they did it as "honest patriots" in order to show how "gullible" people could be, and now won't everyone please stop insisting 9/11 was an inside job.

Now, I could well be wrong, and probably am in that suspicion. But my point is that good disinfo isn't always going to be as obvious as Uncle Fetzer and the video-fakery™ crew. Obvious disinfo like that serves a real purpose--it makes more subtle disinfo harder to spot, it makes some people think AHA! THAT'S the disinfo--everything else is legit, and it gives the subtle disinfo agents an easy target to attack in order to build up credibility. Remember--we are not incompetence theorists--we know that the perps are quite capable of sophisticated psy-ops. It would be a big mistake to take the path of least resistance--meaning piling on clowns like Fetzer and Nico and in the process "bonding" with real disinfo agents who do the same.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Dr Jim Fatzer alert

I can use some support here. Dr. Jim Fatzer is in the house posting on this blog:

He is slinging a fair amount of mud at me, and i can use some support.

Come on kids - lets tell Fatzer what we really think of him.

Don't call him "Fatzer". It

Don't call him "Fatzer". It makes you look bad, not him.

John, I do support you, but

John, I do support you, but why do you even bother wasting your energy and especially time arguing with obvious disinfo artists? Isn't that in itself a victory for those covering up the truth? Look at it as what it is, a distraction from real work.


It is our job to educate the public.

Show "Loose Change is a smoke screen: 911 was a ZIONIST JOB" by Concrete man

very sad :( people like

very sad :( people like this are actually real people.

no wonder penn and teller chose the guy who made painful deceptions to discredit

very sad

Penn and Teller are disgusting, culturally and morally depraved individuals. This is evident by the disgusting level of their "comedy" which qualifies as Hate Speech much more than anything the Holocaust Revisionists could ever have come up with.


I got some heat for my 'disinfo' comment at the beginning of this thread. I need to qualify (and I am sorry to get back to this so late but I had patients all day). I admit I did not read the article closely and was thinking 'no planes' generally which was an error.

However, I also have to acknowledge that I do not think much of a plane hit in PA. But I am very unsure about the Pentagon. I refer any who care to where Hoffman argues quite convincingly against buying completely into the Pentagon no plane story...
IF you are relatively new to the issue you should read it.

But anyway, great thread here. Although I couldn't read all of it.

Bad karma pentagon

I might as well weigh in on the fruitlessness of bringing up the Pentagon crash into any discussion of 9-11 trtuh. I have been studying and analyzing the evidence from 2002 on. I tended to believe that a smaller plane and/or missile could have been involved, but I couldn't prove it.

And I can't prove that AA77 didn't strike the building either. As to the pilot, who knows? Was it a capable suicide attacker, someone other than Hanjour, or was it a remote controlling Air America covert agent? This issue is unresolved, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The evidence is weak, mostly because all of the photos are obscured by smoke.

There is a 16-20 ft. hole that some people claim is the entry hole. Others on the scene claimed that there was a 90 ft. wide hole below that on the first floor, and I can't see enough of the building to determine who's correct.

Since I can't prove it one way or antoher, and because the evidence is highly disputed and endlessly argued about, I have decided to ignore this issue in favor of more solid evidence.

Those screaming so self-confidently about what hit the Pentagon are a bit clownish. They can't prove it either. The evidence they think is airtight is not so strong as they believe.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at--

Show "Penn and Teller please slay this Carter-Hitler dragon!" by Concrete man

Pentagon Disinformation

For those of you who still think that no plane hit the pentagon maybe this will help change your mind:

Jim Fetzer claims that no plane hit the pentagon

The Scholars for 9/11Truth and Justice Website does not assume this and links to the research of Jim Hoffman showing that a plane hit the pentagon.

Don’t be surprised if Fetzer starts yelling the videos are faked when the pentagon finally releases a video showing the plane crash. You heard the prediction here first. Fetzer also attacked Hoffman when he disputed his "no plane hit the pentagon" theory.

I urge you all to look at this issue more carefully before shouting “disinformation”. You might just be the ones promoting the disinformation.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Great. Good advice. Also,

Great. Good advice.

Also, remember some of us have very good reasons to not believe a JUMBO JET hit the Pentagon, and we had those reasons the first week after 911, long before "In Plane Sight" et al. In other words, our doubts are not because we're "victims of dis-info".

Just saying.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


I was among those who thought a plane did not hit the pentagon until I saw Jim Hoffman's research. Please take his research seriously and look at what he has to say about this issue. It changed my mind.

As well. Jim Fetzer has strongly promoted the no plane at the pentagon theory. He has also promoted other disinformation/misinformation quite prominently. Think carefully about that.

In particular he has promoted bizarre straw-man arguments like "it was impossible for the plane to fly that low to the ground to hit the pentagon". He has also promoted other deliberately false arguments about the Pentagon. Now why would he do that? In my opinion he is part of the strategy to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

And about the no marks on the lawn: there was debris on the lawn--if you look at close-up photos. The plane did not crash ON the lawn--see the eye-witness testimony.

How can you explain the light poles? Something knocked them over, and eye-witnesses saw this happen. Are they liars too?

The hole is not too small to fit a plane--you just have to look at the right photographs (see Hoffman's research). Not photos taken out of context. What else could make a hole that big in that kind of a shape without massive peripheral damage (like a bomb)?

If you have some theory as to how they could fake that I'd be interested to hear it.

It is my opinion that the no plane at the pentagon is intentional disinformation promoted by the government. They are going to try and use it against the truth movement. My opinion is that Fetzer was part of this strategy by promoting deliberately false arguments about the pentagon strike as well as other topics.

Take the time to look at the research carefully.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."