"The Canadian" covers Loose Change phenomenon

New documentary film suggests 9/11 was a staged Neo-conservative psychological attack against the American people

Compiled by Susan Lee

It began as a tiny internet film attacking the 'lies' surrounding 9/11. Now, millions of people have heard its message. Like it or loathe it, you can't ignore Loose Change, says Ed Pilkington in the British Guardian Newspaper.

Dylan Avery is the director and creator of Loose Change, the most successful movie to emerge from what followers call the 9/11 Truth Movement. The film alleges with presented evidence that the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, were not the work of Osama bin Laden, but of neo-conservative elements, who are pursuing a "New World Order" . They reject the term "conspiracy theorists", arguing that if you accept the official line on 9/11 you have in any case signed up to a theory about a official "conspiracy" anyways, that has been falsely attributed to "al-Qaida masterminds".

The movement of 9/11 sceptics has had an astonishing success in sowing doubt across the US. Recent polls suggest more than a third of Americans believe that either the official version of events never happened, or that U,S officials knew the attacks were imminent, but did nothing to stop them.

That's an impressive statistic in itself. Now look at the success Loose Change has had. Google Video acts as a portal for the movie, where you can also see the running tally of the number of times it has been viewed since last August. It stands more than four million.

On top of that, the movie was shown on television to up to 50 million people in 12 countries on September 11 last year; 100,000 DVDs have been sold and 50,000 more given away free.

Then there are many more who have watched the film but are never counted, as a result of the active encouragement the film-makers give their supporters to burn the movie and distribute it to their friends. Avery says 100 million people - "easy" - have seen it. That may be an exaggeration, but it's fair to say that the documentary has become very popular, like as a result of many people across the United States and internationally, being fed-up of 9/11 propaganda in spread by various elite owners of the mass-media.

The Loose Change story begins in May 2002 on the opening night of a Mediterranean restaurant in Oneonta where Avery, then aged 19, is working as a dishwasher. A friend of the owner, James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano), is a guest at the party and Avery gets chatting with him. "We started talking about movies and shit," Avery recalls. "Gandolfini told me, if you want to do something that matters, you have to talk to the entire world. You have to have something to say."

The first edition of Loose Change, running at 30 minutes and produced on a battered Compaq Presario laptop (price $1,500), was finished in April that year. The second, longer, edition - the one currently available on the internet - came out in September 2005 with the help of a third partner and fellow Oneonta resident, Jason Bermas, aged 27.

And so to the message: The Twin Towers in New York didn't fall as a direct result of the planes hitting them and the fire that ensued; they were brought them down in a series of controlled explosions. The British Guardian reports that "George Bush's brother, Marvin, sat on the board of a company that insured the towers."

"I think what happened to the World Trade Centre was simple enough," Avery says in the film. "It was brought down in a carefully planned controlled demolition. It was a psychological attack on the American people and it was pulled off with military precision."

Flight 77, which supposedly flew into the Pentagon, could not have flown at that speed without going into a tailspin. There is no sign of any parts of an aeroplane in footage of the crash site, and the building looked as though it had been hit by a missile. Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld was safe on the other side of the Pentagon.

Flight 93, said to have come down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, never did crash there. Instead it landed in Cleveland airport shortly after the airport had been evacuated. The emotive phone calls by the so-called passengers to their relatives before they "died" were staged.

"You can't stop this, you can't hold us back," Jason says. "Many outlets have tried to ignore us, but in the end they are all forced to listen to us because their viewers are demanding it." He is right. The exponential growth of Loose Change is gradually forcing the film on the mainstream media. Though it began as an internet phenomenon, its biggest spikes have come, significantly, after the film gained airplay on old media platforms such as Air America and Pacifica radio stations, local Fox TV outlets and on stations around the world, including state outlets in Belgium, Ireland and Portugal. So far though, no British channel has been rash -- or as the film-makers would see it, brave -- enough to bite.

"This is unlike anything I have worked on," says Tim Sparke of Mercury Media, which handles international distribution for the film. "It has forced millions of people to question whether they can trust big media, and by bypassing the broadcasters through internet distribution it has altered the media power balance profoundly. With a little money and passion, anyone can make an important film."

The final test for Avery and co is yet to come. They are putting together Loose Change: the Final Cut using an upgraded Power Mac G5 (price $US 5,000). They have filmed original interviews with Washington players, employed lawyers to iron out copyright issues with borrowed footage, commissioned 3D graphics from Germany, and recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant. The end result, they hope, will be seen at Cannes and have a cinema release in America and across the world on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

If that happens, they will have squared the circle. The underground film-makers will have come up for air, exposing millions more people to their argument -- and themselves to intense scrutiny. Stand back and enjoy the fireworks.

Very interesting coverage because Lee said...

"successful movie" "impressive statistic" "astonishing success" "very popular"

There was no outward endorsement of the substance of LC but there was no BS debunking either.  Only the assumption that there will be those that will put Dylan and Co. under "intense scrutiny."  I say the more scrutiny the better.  It can only help bring awareness.

Though Ms. Lee tried to appear fair and balanced, this is obviously a major pro-Truth Movement - and anti-MSM - piece.  Perhaps next time she will take it a little further and include some of the Truth Movement's legitimate questions. 

This also reinforces the notion that the entire world, not just the US, is interested in 9/11.  Perhaps the pressure from our allies and neighbors will be the straw that breaks the neocons backs? 

The murderers who planned and executed the events of 9/11, whoever they are, must be feeling an awful lot of heat right now.  I must say, this makes me a bit nervous.  You know, the cornered wild animal thing...

Please check these crits

Ken, and all: do also notice some weak points here in this generally excellent coverage in The Canadian.

Look at this quote: "George Bush's brother, Marvin, sat on the board of a company that insured the towers." I hope that one is accurate. I have seen the same brother mentioned (erroneosly?) as running the security company for the Twin Towers at the time. Factual errors harm us since they can be so easily contradicted, thus harming the whole case. Presumably this fact is correct? Let's not get burned.

Too bad, when covering the evidence, they led with the Pentagon angle. Haven't we noticed yet? The government itself seems to want us to focus on those anomalies, with the five security camera frames they released, and flight data recorder data. Both these contradict the official version. So why do the officials supply these sources of data? Wait and see why.

Then, this 'flight 93 landing at Cleveland' stuff is not a good second paragraph of evidence. We have much firmer evidence than this guess or hunch or theory. This one too, perhaps, can and probably will be easily contradicted. They seem to be assembling those kinds of straws, don't they? And by 'they' I mean those in charge of the government disinfo campaign. And someone is definitely in charge of it.

The point that the Loose Change crew has now "recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant" is VERY good news.

On the whole, despite my critique here, this is a wonderful development.

I sent Susan a complimentary note, and guess what ?!

" Dear Editor,
not finding a link for Susan Lee, I'm sending this to you in hopes that you'll garner your share of praise and send it on to her.
It is a rare publication that provides as thorough and fair a presentation as the story cited above. The BBC has failed the world and joined the ranks of the bought and sold news right up there with Fox and Co, along with most other media outlets.
So I was compelled to just drop you a note to affirm your editorial responsibility as the fourth estate, and encourage you to continue performing as the public trust deserves and expects;
giving clear insight into the smoke and mirror parlor tricks effected by the manipulators in chief/
Please send this to her because she ( and you ) may enjoy the vast resource I have compiled to present 9/11 material to newcomers and veterans alike.
Currently 747 links by story title, linked photographs and petitions; all on one page for easy cntrl F searching.

Best to you,
Rev. MV Goldsun
http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html "

The editor responded with a very tempting offer;

Dear Reverend Mike Goldsun,
Thanks so much for your very reflective comments and shared
critical observations. We indeed seek to further support a more
critically informed international public on 9/11, and related
quality-of-human-survival issues.

It is unfortunate that managers of BBC World and other
mass-media outlets have chosen to apparently sell out humanity, in
pursuit of greed driven crass materialism (i.e. Mammon), control and

We respectfully invite you or any of your colleagues who may
wish to editorially contribute to our collective investigative
journalistic and social intellectual media-related efforts.

Thanks for your consideration. Merci.
John Stokes
The Canadian National Newspaper

Ya gotta think, KEWL !!
This guys on the job !!
So have at it fellow researchers, write up a paperstrom !

they at least mention what's wrong with the "conspiracy" label

People are so indoctrinated, they don't know that the government's story itself also involves a conspiracy. One with many many holes.

I always try to get people to define the term "conspiracy theory". If they manage to do it, it usually comes down to any theory that is not promoted by the government or a major media outlet, It is usually a theory that makes them uncomfortable to think about. Even when it is reported by a major media outlet it is sometimes still called a conspiracy theory!

Take note all you LC supporters:

I hope the people that wrote the following letters to Mike Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com won't mind my posting what they said, but since I agree with them whole-heartedly, I want everyone here to read it too (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/letters/):

"READER: I saw something today on 911blogger.com that's rather alarming: http://911blogger.com/node/6438

It turns out the asses from Loose Change have gathered so much support behind them that they are vying for a nationwide cinema release on the 6th anniversary of 9/11. This should be a red-flag to ANYONE in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Obviously, the no-plane scenarios are nonsense. But so is Loose Change's success over other documentaries and realistic evidence. You don't see Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime getting this much attention, do you? Does this strike ANYONE (besides Mike) as odd?? If they've come this far, someone's helping them and this cinema release might very well happen. If it does, it's game over. We lose the 9/11 Truth Movement and we lose this country!!!

To all you Global Hawk fools out there who write to Mike Rivero and tell him he's wrong, or that he's a "government plant," consider this: I hold a degree in Aerospace Engineering and I can tell you without a doubt: if a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon at a minimum of 250 mph, there'd be nothing left of it! NOTHING!! Not to mention: Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you're trying to prove a plane NEVER hit the Pentagon. That's proving a NEGATIVE!!!! Even if you're right, you're attempting the impossible! You will NEVER succeed without a full-fledged confession from the Pentagon, which you AREN'T going to get!!!!

Now, for the rest of you, if you think Loose Change's assessment of the Pentagon crash is relatively harmless, you should know that they also claim that Flight 93 never crashed in PA! They use the same silly-ass notion of "no wreckage" to back this one up, too! Nevermind all the evidence that it was shot down! Nevermind what heat-seeking missiles will do to a CIVILIAN AIRLINER over a span of EIGHT MILES!!! Nevermind (AGAIN!) all the eyewitnesses who saw THAT go down!

Folks, read the article! They're going to town on this! Special effects and everything! They are setting us up to look like clowns. All of us. And there will go our last hopes of ending these ridiculous wars for resources. And there will go our country.

I repeat: We lose the 9/11 Truth Movement, we lose this country."

READER: READER: I saw something today on 911blogger.com that's rather alarming: http://911blogger.com/node/6438
It turns out the asses from Loose Change have gathered so much support behind them . . .


this is something i've been thinking about for a while now . . . why is loose change getting all the coverage and support that it is?

is it because the film deals in a lot of speculation?

is it because the film makers are young and not experts in any field?

is it because the film is easily discreditable?

i'm wondering why Russo's film and Jones' films disappear from the Google top 100 videos and Loose Change (for the most part) does not. I'm wondering if we're building a straw man for the globalists to burn?

After reading your sight (and others like it) and following the main stream media outlets for the last six years or so i'm sure that the coverage Loose Change receives is not a coincidence as much as i am sure it is not the strongest evidence available.

Or maybe Loose Change is 100% accurate ?

which is more likely?

Thanks for all your efforts Mike.
WRH: Loose Change binds doubts about the official version of 9-11 to the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax. Somewhere down the road, when enough of the 9-11 truth people have gotten suckered into supporting the "no plane" theory, a clear and unequivocal video of the strike will suddenly be "discovered" and the mainstream media will have a field day screaming about how silly those who doubt the government can be.

Don't git yer panties all in a knot Mel

At this stage of the game everyone gets a shot at this, these aren't subpoenas we're writing here, they're opinions.
Loose Change is a video recording of an opinion.
You may have a degree in aerospace engineering but that doesn't mean that a 757 DID hit the Pentagon, especially since the windows right next to the impact hole weren't broken.
Whatever it was, the i.d. numbers on the pieces that were found would tell us immediately.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the jury hasn't even been picked yet, and YOU seem to be deciding who can say WHAT around here, or WHAt is or isn't proper form ??!!!!!
Yea yea you have a degree. So do I.
That doesn't mean squat here.
It just means we NEED an investigation.
Whatever ANYONE says is fine until we have proof.
There's just a little TOO MUCH of your type of posturing in the 9/11 Truth movement; " he can't say this" and he can't say that"
well git over it buddy.
You need to remember the old adage about news.
" Whatever they say is fine, as long as they spell my name right "
In other words, as long as the media is saying 9/11 the people will do their OWN thinking;
sure we can be offended when a normally reputable news source like the BBC trashes us, but that WON"T change the outcome. It just makes people think about it more.
With your kind of dramatic talent you should be posting over at the ' other ' circus "9/11 Researchers ".
They have drama queens over there trashing other truthers and telling me what I can and can't say, like a bunch of little fascists.


Excellent post. Impeachment.

Excellent post.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

First things first: your

First things first: your reading comprehension is pathetic. Let me reprint my FIRST paragraph for you:

"I hope the people that wrote the following letters to Mike Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com won't mind my posting what they said, but since I agree with them whole-heartedly, I want everyone here to read it too..."

So, which part of this leads you to believe that I wrote the remainder of the post? I didn't, and thus, I am NOT an aerospace engineer, capiche?

Second, your comment that I seem to want to dictate what people say/do is hilarious, considering the dictatorial nature of the points system on this web site. Talk about a bunch of "deciders". Some of you people truly do deserve the label of tin-foil hat loons, and not because you call yourself 9/11 truthers, but because your critical thinking skills are WAY below average.