Mark Cuban - 9/11 Truth Advocate or Hidden Agenda?

Lucus Drador / Jones Report | March 27, 2007
Reader Submitted Editorial


I was recently elated to hear the news that Charlie Sheen was going to do the narration of Loose Change Final Cut and Mark Cuban was offering to bankroll the popular 9/11 movie through his distribution company Magnolia Pictures.

Well, my grandeur was cut short when I remembered a recent incident that just happed within the past month. It involves, Mark Cuban, a You Tuber called Halifaxion, and the complete culling of massive amounts of 9/11 truth videos.

First, let me first explain just who Halifaxion was and what roll he played. Halifaxion was the biggest 9/11 truth activist on You Tube. Over the past few years, Halifaxion managed in collecting a huge plethora of almost 200 incriminating video clips including news broadcasts, interviews, and clips from various documentaries. There were hundreds of thousand of web sites linking to Halifaxion's videos. He also had accounts on both Google Video and iFilms where he offered his alternative theories about 9/11.

Here is where everything takes a turn for the weird.

On March 7th, 2007, Mark Cuban's company Magnolia Pictures decided to single out the user Halifaxion by sending a DMCA subpoena to Google and You Tube to identify the user. Halifaxion had uploaded a ten minute clip from a Magnolia Pictures distributed movie called "Enron, Smartest guys in the room".

Within a week, Halifaxion was nowhere to be found. His accounts on You Tube, Google, and iFilms all have been closed and all his 9/11 truth videos deleted. This was a massive removal of 9/11 truth videos that could not be more significant. There were hundreds of thousand of web sites worldwide with links to his videos that all lie dead now.

Then to add insult to injury, after listening to the interview between Bill O'Reilly and Mark Cuban, I was only left with more questions. There were some very interesting quotes made by Mark Cuban that leave a lot to be desired. For instance, in Mark's opening statement he said;

"One of the reasons why we decided to distribute it, because on the Internet, and even offline there is kind of this discussion about Loose Change that has taken on mythic proportions, and I just happen to believe that propaganda in the shadows is far more dangerous than propaganda out front"

Then he goes on to state that;

"I just think that far more damage can be done when you can't confront, and you can't identify the people that are crazy" and "Unless you confront the proof and show just how crazy it is"

But I think the final blow to his credibility might have come with this statement;

"We are basically going to make it available on DVD, potentially"

What is this "Potentially" stuff? How many movies do you know that DON'T go to DVD? The worse a movie is, the quicker it goes to DVD. Some movies are so bad, they go straight to DVD. Why would Loose Change Final Cut be a "Potential" DVD candidate?

After hearing the interview I personally was left with a bad taste in my mouth. It seemed to me, but this is just my opinion, but it seemed to me that the event might have been staged. Let me explain why.

For one, Bill O'Reilly never once tried to get Mark Cuban to offer his opinion about 9/11 and what his beliefs were about that day. That is very very unusual for Bill O'Reilly to not try and back someone in a corner and get them to take sides. Bill O'Reilly never once even came close to asking Mark anything about 9/11. It all seemed carefully orchestrated to not offend the 9/11 truth movement, at the same time never taking a stance.

You may ask, why would I question Mark Cuban's motives, he is helping the 9/11 truth movement by distribution Loose Change Final Cut? Well, you have to understand that Mark Cuban can also position himself to be the biggest problem for Loose Change Final Cut. Here is how he can ruin the distribution of Loose Change Final Cut legally.

You already know he was quoted as saying "available on DVD potentially". Well, the key word is potentially. He never committed to bringing out a DVD. Another problem is that once Loose Change Final Cut becomes property of Magnolia Pictures, he will most likely have all copies removed from the Internet. He could end up showing it in very few theaters nationwide and limit the DVD sales and production. He could tie it up in a long legal battle that could drag on for years.

The music business does this all the time. When a band that shows potential and is in direct conflict with a band owned by a recording label, it is not uncommon for that recording label to try to get that band under contract so they can limit their access to the world thus beating the competition by buying it off. The same concept as the big oil companies buying up patents to alternative fuels to limit their ability to be successful.

That would not even be a worse case situation. If he decided to be shrewd, he could wait until several hundred 9/11 truth activists upload small clips of Loose Change, and combined with the hundreds of other 9/11 truthers who already have Loose Change Second Edition clips uploaded to You Tube and Google, he could literally cull about one half of the 9/11 truth videos offered on You Tube and Google.

The policy of You Tube is to close the account of a person in question and remove their videos no questions asked. If there was a blanket subpoena sent to You Tube to remove all Magnolia Pictures clips, it could result in the closing of hundreds of You Tube accounts and the removal of thousands of 9/11 video clips. It would leave millions and millions of web sites worldwide with "Dead Links", thus purging You Tube and Google of massive amounts of 9/11 related information and rendering a multitude of web sites with lost content.

One thing I have to ask myself is this-- does mark Cuban stand to make money or lose money if 9/11 truth comes out?

If the stock market crashes, he would stand to lose millions and millions of dollars. If everyone is worrying about "False Flag" terror, not many people would be watching his HDTV. There will be less people going to basketball games if they are worried about surviving.

The question in all this is: Was Mark Cuban directly responsible for the banishment of Halifaxion from You Tube? Why was Halifaxion singled out? More importantly, if he was, was it a deliberate attempt to dismantle the 911 Truth Movement?

And the most important question of all-- what are Mark Cuban's plans for Loose Change Final Cut?

(This report features contributions by Michael S. Swenson. Visit for more info.)

Thank You. Very written point.

Have the Loose Change guys been screwed by Cuban yet? Tell me they haven't signed any contracts yet.


about this just so he would have a head's up...I also posted a comment on Mark Cuban's Blog with a link to the report.

I just thought NOW is the best time to bring these facts into the light before it's too late.

Plus...If Mark tries anything stupid, then we have a moral case against him.

Looked for it...

...couldn't find it . All I saw was this:

Recent Comments
LUCUS on Google Video Search vs Gootube - which will win ?


The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001


hahahaha Looks like he knows...The cat is out of the bag!

Still there...

Well written and right on

I agree, this is a very important matter indeed! It is something that we all know can't be ruled out without some serious investigation. We need some kind of safeguard to the above scenario at least.

Mark Cuban, billionaire,

Mark Cuban, billionaire, owner of a Gladiator-team and Pi Lambda Phi member :
"That because my Country is dedicated to the Highest Standards of Freedom and Justice for all Men of all Creeds, I hereby pledge Allegiance to my Country, and to its National Symbol."

A lesson to be learned here :
If you want to be certain that the material you link to on your
website can be viewed :
Do not rely on Google, YouTube or anything else out of your control to host it.
It is common knowledge that Google was started with CIA venture capital and that they own YouTube.
Do not put all the eggs in the same broken basket and don't trust billionaires. They are not self-made men, just made men .

Well put!

I have always tried to get my friends to discuss this.

The government has a finger on many of the things that are needed..... and with the proper money an resources and connections.... you can make anything happen. Including a very successful business.

Google for instance

You get a bunch of venture capitalists together. They put in some money and resources. They create it. They invest in it. Then they pay far too much to advertise on it. The MSM spreads the word about it. The business goes public. The same investors get in at the bottom.

With lick the market eats it up and these people roll away with pockets full. Not only that they are now using Google to suit their needs in many ways.


like you said "Made Men"
Together in Truth!

the scoop on google

Thursday, August 12, 2004

The Googlian Knot
OK, so the smell of the Google scandal may not have reached everyone. I've therefore resolved to dissect the damn thing, to really reveal the malodorous rot, if only because it lays bare the cynicism built into capitalism and the pathetic cowardice of experts on economics in failing to expose this, just as they let Enron and the Tech Bubble proceed apace, saving their recriminations for when the looters had disappeared...

So... Google is currently a privately owned company, consisting of roughly 240 million shares of stock which, when 20 million were secretly (and thus in violation of SEC regulations) used to pay about 1000 companies and consultants, were valued by the company at about $3 each. So by their own measure, the company is worth about $720 million. In other words Google's not worthless, obviously, in fact the company made a whopping $100 million or so in the last year, by selling about $1.4 billion in online ad sales (so their profits were about 7% of sales, the rest of that revenue, or $1.3 billion, went somewhere, to run the company, pay the CEO, etc...) and their prospects are not bleak, just challenging.

Who owns it now? Different people and companies own different amounts. Both of the founders own an amount in the 10's of millions, Yahoo owns a few million, each of the venture capital firms which got Google off the ground as a company with $2 million each own 25 million shares, and of course, 1000 other companies and consultants own on average 20,000 shares each. Then of course, the corporation itself owns a certain number of shares.

Google's much ballyhooed IPO*, or initial public offering, will be offering 20 million shares from the company's stock, but will also include about 20 million more being sold by some of the companies and individuals who own their own shares.

Here's where the magic is about to happen...

Remember, Google is a company worth less than a billion dollars--let's say it's made up of 240 million three-dollar bills. 20 million of these bills will be sold to the public at $108-$135 a piece. Let's round it down to $100 for simplicity. On the side, another 20 million shares will be sold at roughly the same price by insiders. So one day after it's IPO, here's what the world will look like (roughly):

The public will have given Google $2 billion for 20 million shares of stock. They will also have given a handful of insiders another $ 2 billion for their Swiss bank accounts.

The public will own 40 million shares for which they paid $ 4 billion. $2 billion was pocketed by insiders, but the other $2 billion is now held by the company as cash, in addition to the rest of their assets, in effect tripling their actual value as a company (assets minus liabilities) from the day before to about $3 billion. You might be wondering why the public paid $4 billion to be owners of one-sixth of a company worth $ 3 billion... well, let's step back for a second.... The actual value of the company has nothing to do with its value in real life, but instead its value on paper, i.e. the stock price multiplied by the number of shares, in our case, about $24 billion. Wow! Did you see that? We just turned a pile of 240 million three-dollar bills into a company worth more than General Motors!

It gets better though, for the insiders. Remember, they only sold 20 million of the company's 240 million shares. They still own the rest! They managed to turn their sub $1 billion company into a $24 billion behemoth! At scheduled intervals, they will sell off their shares so long as there are buyers, until they've turned all their three-dollar bills into gold. Pretty soon, people will catch on and the share price will float, or shoot, down to a more realistic price level determined by the market. If annual profits remain at around $100 million, then the average historical price to earnings ratio (20) would suggest a fair market value of about $2 billion.

*The Google IPO was the brainchild of the following two venture capital firms:

I researched this article with Google. :)


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


I didn't want to be the one to break this...

...but i have severe reservations about Cuban.

Cuban is from Dallas, Texas.

That's not a crime but...

Many of you here may know Rick Siegel? For those who do not know Rick - here is a chart which outlines his relationship with known disinformation/misinformation activists:

well - according to Rick Siegel's website

What is this about Rick Siegel and Mark Cuban were business associates?

I heard that they were friends since Cuban began his online audio stuff and that they were even talking on September 11, 2001 about the video? Is this mean Sieegl has something to do with LC Final Cut?

If they are so close what is the deal?

Rick responds:

"Yes, it is true. I shall write a bit about it. Specially our conversations about 9/11. Mark Cuban and I were having daily conversations at that time both on the broadcast forum and private. Cuban had just finished collecting 5 billion from Yahoo! (Who let the idea/company die - money laundering anyone?) Did you know I have lifetime rights to broadcast all Maverick games over the Internet and still have not used them?"

end of quote

its amazing how many of the internet boom money laundering insiders are now working on 911 Truth.

Show "9/11 Loose Change 'Cuban Crisis'" by Peggy Carter

The "Cuban Movie Crisis"?

Mark Cuban is Henry Kissingers love child?
Together in Truth!

Funny James!

Good job Lucus!

Interesting. Did Alex take an unannounced break from his show today? A little trip to Dallas? L.A.?

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

No...They lost the feed

We had a huge thundrestorm here last night...that might have had something to do with it. There was a lot of lightening.

Thanks by the way

Snake in the grass

Great blog. I don't trust Cuban one whit. This man is in the process of trying to eradicate free speech online. He attacked one of the most prolfific truthers. He talks about bringing the "kooks out into the open". He suggests that the film may not even be realeased on DVD!?

If Dylan and co. insist on using this douche bag to promote their film they better get a damn good lawyer to go over the contract with a fine toothed comb.

I'm far more worried about Cuban's relentless campaign to sabatoge free speech on the net than on potential distribution problems with Loose Change. LC is merely one political film out of tens of thousands -- it's not even the best film on 911. What happens if Cuban and his ilk succeed in shutting down free speech on the internet via bogus copyright infringement charges?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


Mark Cuban may just be handing out the kind of reassurances (false ones I suspect) that are needed to get people like O'Reilly off his back. I'm pretty sure he's just trying to disarm the alarmist reaction Loose Change is currently receiving in order to ensure a theatrical release.

I used a similar disarming technique with Richard Johnson of the New York Post in order to get him to explain a few things about the story his department put out. Sometimes it works to be headstrong and combative; other times it's better to try to reason with people on their terms.

Of course, we'll just have to wait and see what happens with this Mark Cuban situation. But I have faith in the Loose Change team. I don't think they would allow themselves to be swindled.

Take a look at this...

...from Cuban's blog last October:

Google Video Search vs Gootube - which will win ?
Feb 19th 2007 5:49AM

This is the one that Lucus had posted to yesterday. I thought that Lucus' post was deleted. I was wrong. I had not followed the link to the next 20 posts which happened to contain only one which was Lucus' link to hi article at jonesreport.

No response from Cuban, though.

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

Paranoia Alert

Not to be an apologist for Cuban, and there could be "something" to all this that is "improper", however, it could also be something as simple as standing up for one's rights to copyright protection.

As well as some sort of a "if you allow people to publicly use your product and do not stand up for your copyright, it can weaken your position as to strength of ownership of the copyrighted material."

That's not the legalese for it, but it is similar to having to post a sign on private property that you allow the public access to saying that you are allowing access and not relinquishing your rights of ownership, etc.

I'm just making a semi-educated guess here. Others who know more should comment.

I would like to see some official public comment on the situation by Cuban, however. (although his attorneys may suggest that is not the best course -- but, if so, that should be his comment)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief Correspondent

Surely you jest

So if I understand you correctly, you think it right and just that billionaires like Mark Cuban squelch the rapidfire spread of truth and wisdom around the globe because of their “intellectual property rights”? - That in the absence of a fourth estate the public should not be able to take over this task and decide for themselves what they should and should not be exposed to? That they (we) should not be able to transmit material that would – in a sane society – already be in the public domain? - In order to literally save the human race from certain extinction? “Intellectual property rights” are more important?

Let’s put aside the fact that the individual Cuban targeted was fully within his rights under fair use law, and that without Cuban’s high-priced lawyers staring him down this individual may have been able to argue this point in court. Let’s also put aside the moral repugnance of placing “property rights”, let alone those of billionaires, over the right of the public to know the truth and live a decent life. Truth that is being denied to people precisely because of the LACK of property rights 99% of people are entitled to under a state capitalist system. Finally, let’s put aside the intrinsic absurdity of intellectual property rights to begin with.

Will Cuban and his ilk succeed? Not a chance.


When enough people feel that it’s OK to do a thing, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. You can complain about moral relativism all you like, but the facts are inescapable: that’s how people behave. When the photocopier came along, people simply didn’t think it was wrong to copy a few pages out of a book, even though it was against the law and the authors would have preferred that they buy the whole book. So eventually, the Fair Use doctrine evolved with respect to copyright materials. The law changed. It’s now OK to photocopy parts of books for educational, non-commercial use. In effect, the authors and book publishers had to give some ground in the face of the overwhelming tide of public opinion.

You can see where this is going, can’t you?


There’s no intrinsic reason why someone should continue to get paid for something long, long after the labor they expended on it is complete. Architects don’t get paid every time someone steps into one of their buildings. They’re paid to design the building, and that’s that. The ostensible reason we have patent and copyright law is, as the US Constitution says, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” But travesties like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act don’t promote the progress of science; they actively discourage it. So do software and biotechnology patents. The patent system was intended to allow inventors to profit for a limited time on particular inventions, not to allow huge technology companies to put a stranglehold on innovation by patenting every tiny advance they make.


Does the end of copyright mean that books or music or movies or games will die? Of course not. The urge to create is too strong in all of us, and consumers will always be willing to pay for novelty and for excellence. It may mean that nobody gets mega-wealthy any more. What it does mean for sure is that the giant dinosaurs that currently dominate the distribution channels had better learn to adapt or die. There are a lot of fast-moving little mammals in the underbrush eating the dinosaurs’ eggs.

And fifty years from now, kids will be asking, “What does that © symbol mean in this old book, Grandpa?”


Thus parties can spend all the money they want on all the legislators and judges they can afford - which for the new "owners" of the digital world is quite a few - but the rules they buy aren't going to work in the end. Sooner or later, the paradigms are going to collapse. Of course, if later means two generations from now, the distribution of wealth and power sanctified in the meantime may not be reversible by any course less drastic than a bellum servile of couch potatoes against media magnates. So knowing that history isn't on Bill Gates' side isn't enough. We are predicting the future in a very limited sense: we know that the existing rules, which have yet the fervor of conventional belief solidly enlisted behind them, are no longer meaningful. Parties will use and abuse them freely until the mainstream of "respectable" conservative opinion acknowledges their death, with uncertain results. But realistic scholarship should already be turning its attention to the clear need for new thoughtways.


Unlock the possibilities of human creativity by connecting everyone to everyone else? Get the ownership system out of the way so that we can all add our voices to the choir, even if that means pasting our singing on top of the Mormon Tabernacle and sending the output to a friend? No one sitting slack-jawed in front of a televised mixture of violence and imminent copulation carefully devised to heighten the young male eyeball's interest in a beer commercial? What will become of civilization? Or at least of copyright teachers?

Kafka and the Derlium of Intellectual Property

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Well whatever the case I

Well whatever the case I don't like the way Halifaxion got screwed, he did so much great work on Youtube.

Also Lucas, you should put commas in the tags there man, e.g.;

911, conspiracy, truth, mark cuban, magnolia pictures halifaxion, youtube, google, gootube

"The policy of You Tube is

"The policy of You Tube is to close the account of a person in question and remove their videos no questions asked."

That's not totally true, I had a video removed recently and they gave me a warning saying that if I uploaded something else that was breaking copyrights or whatever that then they might delete my whole account. So it could be that given the volume of videos Halifaxion had that maybe he'd already had one removed and so was on his last warning. Meaning that Cuban just filed the complaint for the one video, but as a consequence of Halifaxion potentially already having one video taken down the system just took out his whole account.

Someone just ask Halifaxion if he already had at least one video removed in the past, that should clear it up.

LC Theatrical ??? Nah!

I'd like to record my scepticism regarding a theatrical release of Loose Change.

- it would be big, very very big.. i.e. too big
- its easy to stop, copyrighted footage etc etc
- it should have been released already

like the CBS affiliate reports about PTECH that were scheduled to be screened on the 911 anniversary... they were all canned.

BTW what happened to Michael Moore? Stopped working?

This whole LC situation stinks like a dead rat

I'm sorry, but this couldn't appear any clearer to me even if they had tried.
Silencing Halifaxion is NOT what someone trying to promote 911 Truth would do - under any circumstance.

Listening to O'Reilly's segment on Cuban - they come right out and say - Cuban wants to expose the kooks - don't you get it ? - maybe he means the 911 Truthers are the kooks he wants to expose.
Later they mention this is just to allow to get a film out there - to air the topic....which may be followed by "other films".

He may or may not release on DVD??
Who the heck needs another DVD - we all have DVD's of LC-2 already. What is going to be so special about new LC-3 DVD?
Will it be even more compromised and far fetched than LC-2 was compared to LC-1?

I suspect that LC is being set up to crash and burn - maybe it was even planned that way from the start? What's to prevent Cuban from making LC-3 even wackier sounding than the last half of LC-2? And then, "out of the blue" - an effective ScrewLC movie gets released - and all of a sudden - on a scale of worldwide distribution - the 911 truth movement becomes a laughing stock?

Another comment here mentioned how O'Reilly didn't attack Cuban - didn't even make him state his position.
Have you heard how O'Reilly speaks to and about every other 911 Truther? Cuban got a free pass....why?

What more proof do you need?

The minute I saw LC-2's super slick website come out - huge mass marking campaign - instant "buzz" - it started to look suspect to me. It looks like every other piece of slick propaganda designed to mesmerize and distract the masses.


"....The film was released through the creators' company, Louder than Words, and received wide attention after Loose Change 2nd Edition was featured on a Binghamton, New York local FOX affiliate, WICZ-TV (FOX 40)...."

FOX - hmmmm....wondering if FOX in Binghamton, NY might be some odd location where there is a more liberal version of FOX? Nope - I live here - and believe me - you would only put an Al Gore sign on your front lawn at your own peril here in hardcore GOP rural upstate NY.

My advice = dump LC - it may have been useful in the beginning, but I suspect it is going to be a disaster for Truth. You are not going to win over skeptics with wild cleveland airport runway scenarios, when all you need to do is stick to two simple things than anyone can easily understand and that are undeniable:

1. WTC-7
2. Stand down of FAA/NORAD

(.....and maybe the molten pools of metal)

Why stick our necks out for anything else at this time, that just exposes us to possible setups and traps?

There are much better films available that stick to the core issues and do not risk easy ridicule.
I think 911 Mysteries; Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, and 911 Press For Truth serve us better to open eyes and minds of skeptics.

The problem is - LC has been annointed the King of 911 Truth, or will be perceived as such if it is released nationally with great fanfare.
But who decided LC was going to represent our best foot forward?

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797