Criticism of Film Won't Deter Cuban

Criticism of film won't deter Cuban -

Before I get started, let me say this column is not a critique of Loose Change, the independent Internet film that suggests some U.S. government officials may have staged the 9/11 attacks.

I know, the very thought makes you cringe.

Nor is this about Screw Loose Change, an equally delightful documentary that responds to the conspiracy theories and speculation contained in the aforementioned flick. If nothing else, you've got to love the in-your-face title.

This column is mostly about our very own Mark Cuban, billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who is planning to use his media muscle to distribute Loose Change in theaters this year.

His potential involvement has set the local jock kingdom on its heels, with some talk-show hosts and callers wondering if Mr. Cuban has a screw loose.

At least one elderly reader of this paper called our sports desk this week to say she would no longer be a fan of Mr. Cuban's team. Her question to a Sports Day editor: How could someone of Mr. Cuban's stature support a movie with this message?

I don't know whether this has been posted in the comments here, but this article from the Dallas Morning News was pointed out to me today.

"I don't believe the movie.

"I don't believe the movie. Not at all," Mr. Cuban explained. "But I do believe that lies in the shadows are far more dangerous than lies you can confront and refute. There probably will be a movie that responds to this one, and we would be more than happy to distribute it as well, for the very same reason."

Vedy interesting.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

digg me

We will find out

and I have no sorrows regarding the quality of the Loose Change Final Cut version, because David Ray Griffin, americans most ignored intellectual, checked the script.

It's not about "loosely strung-together facts, speculations and inferences that, when mixed together, drive conspiracy theorists wild."

It's about the truth. Like in "911 press for truth", the movie of the victims relatives, that you did ignore yet, too.


Hope LC Gets Seen B4 All Hell Breaks Loose In Iran

I just hope LC can hit the screen before we hit Iran, the web gets terminated and the White House unleashes the Patriot Act upon the U.S.

(And not to mention another U.S. sponsored 9/11 to provoke all of the above)

pressure cooker

911 is a psychological pressure cooker.You must let the gas out slowly to avoid making a mess.Bit by bit they are letting the gas out,,getting the public at large used to the idea that the US government murdered 3000 of it´s own citizens.Damage control.Mark Cuban is playing his part in letting the gas out of the cooker. Come on be honest there must be at least 70% of the US public know for sure the official story is a crock of shit and the rest could not give a toss.Of the 70% probably more than half could not give a toss either!!

I met an American guy about a year ago in Germany.I asked him about 911 being an inside job,he replied&I quote" so what the fuck if 911 was an inside job?if it helps the US further it´s geopolitical aims then its was a sacrifice worth making"

so there you have it folks.the hard but honest truth.

If he had a loved one who worked in the upper floors

Of the WTC I doubt he'd be saying as much, or if he had any awareness of the suffering of the 600,000's loved ones in Iraq who've since died in the name of "justice" and "defence" over the first 3000. What a disgrace!
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush

i betcha, i betcha, i betcha, i betcha

he knows exactly what's on teevee tonight, and tomorrow night, and the night after that....

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

Delaying Action

"I just hope LC can hit the screen before we hit Iran"

Don't we all. I remember when LCFC was supposed to come out 9/11/06. Then it was delayed to January 2007. Then it was going to be shown at Cannes, and open in theatres before Spiderman III. Now it is supposed to open "late summer", 2007 almost a full year late. Meanwhile, events in the real world are moving on.

Yes, I know that production delays are common in Hollywood. But, come on, this is just an indy doco! One wonders if the entire purpose of the Hollywood machine delays to LCFC is to keep it from opening before it is too late. I fear that some day before the end of spring, Mark Cuban is going to be lighting up a cigar and saying "Mission Accomplished"

I wish Molly Ivans had lived

long enough to see this debate roll through her host publication - I'd written her a number of times trying to get her to lend her highly-respected voice to 911Truth - understanding the 3rd-rail factor, I thought she'd at least speak out from her death bed, so to speak...I do hope she wasn't Chomskied on the issue

I, too, had hopes that Molly

would speak out on her death bed as she strikes me as a true patriot. Alas, it did not happen.

Just keep pushing it out there, brothers and sisters, we are the media and we carry THE message.

I love you all very much.

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

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that people are bending over backwards to defend this piece of slime.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say Cuban gives LCFC a MAJOR theatre run and stocks the shelves at your local blockbuster with DVD’s exposing the 911 atrocity. I’ll be impressed, I admit. Shocked and awed, if you will. Believe it when I see it, but impressed.

Although LCFC is a guaranteed blockbuster, although its makers should theoretically be “shopping around” for distributors – each more eager than the next – perhaps Lions Gate and other PD’s just don’t have the balls. I’ll accept that and give Cuban his kudos.

Let’s also say that Cuban’s blather about getting the “kooks” “out into the open” where they can be properly persecuted is just that – blather: defensive and disingenuous posturing to disarm critics like O’Reilly who would otherwise crucify him along with Sheen and Rosie. Seems plausible. Disgraceful, dishonorable, a spit in the face to the victims but plausible and certainly understandable coming from a spoiled, media-obsessed billionaire who owns a major basketball team.

Finally, let’s say Cuban goes back on his word and does not follow this up with a manipulative, mammoth-budget SCREW-LOOSE CHANGE release which serves to confuse the public and disarm the truth movement just as we’re reaching critical mass.

Let’s say all this is true.

He’s still scum.


There’s no need to erect so called “conspiracy theories” about Cuban; some on this forum have argued rather compellingly that he does have a hidden agenda, but his out-in-the-open agenda is more than enough to relegate him to the status of scum.

Nevermind Halifaxion.

Nevermind Siegel.

Nevermind his salary and the millions of children he could save in Africa every year. That would be a cheap shot (oops, too late ;)

Let’s just talk about Mark Cuban’s crusade to shut down free speech on the net.

This is hard to argue on a 911 forum, and I’ll be the first to admit that 911 is THE turning point in modern history, but the world is indeed bigger than 911.

If Cuban and his cohorts succeed in shutting down free speech on the net via their witch hunts and bogus copyright complaints then all of the Loose Change’s in the world will not matter. Save funny animals videos, annoying ads with smiley faces and really nasty pornography the net will be gone and we’ll be back to TGIF, beer commercials, Glen Beck and Britney Spears.

Try to put this in historical perspective. Television was supposed to be about “the public”. The airwaves were supposed to belong to the people. When TV first arrived on the scene, progressives were orgasmic and penned elaborate fantasies about the people taking back power from corporations and the state. TV: the ignorance is over!

It never happened; indeed the reverse happened. Why?

Because of people like Mark Cuban.

Fast forward fifty years. The public is as easy to play as Steve Nash and a basketball. Then the internet arrives. Once again, progressives hail the end of history. Not like Fukiyama but like Bakunin during the Paris Commune. They talk of unprecedented access to information and a newly awakened public. They talk of a real global village, not top-down but bottom-up.

Fast-forward 50 years. We’re back where we started and worse.

Again, I realize this is the equivalent of sacrilege, but Loose Change is just one film. An EXCELLENT film. One of the best (though not THE best) dealing with 911. But we ALREADY have 84% of the public believing that the Bush administration lied about 911. This we accomplished without Mark Cuban. We will continue to expand and grow UNLESS THE INTERNET IS SHUT DOWN.


It is far, far more important than Loose Change. I love the film, I respect Dylan Avery and the others involved in the project, I expect LCFC to be extraordinary, but is it possible to keep a broader perspective in the wake of this media frenzy?

We need to keep the internet alive and healthy, regardless of how much money Mark Cuban waves in our faces.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Someone gets it!!! But do I?

Thank you for the time and thought you put into this post. As you suggest, Cuban's past and present priorities and behavior can not be ignored. And to me, they suggest that his motives in distributing LCFC are likely less than kosher. And then I am left as you are, sad to see the movie, which may very well be good, come under the influence of those who do not share our priorities, and may very well serve to undermine our efforts.

Here's what I see happening. Going out on the streets of NYC to educate and promote, we find that a very high percentage of people who respond to our presence initially mention Loose Change. I guess its kind of a phenomenon in this "liberal" city of ours. But that response has been both positive and negative.

Some people walk by and just shout "Loose Change" at us. Others who are interested indicate that the movie was their first exposure to the movement. Some indicate that they were curious about the movement, but saw Loose Change, and decided we were nuts. Some ridicule us as "Loose Change people". Some only want to talk about Loose Change, and have a real problem when we criticize the movie.

Based on all these responses, it seems that Loose Change is the document most widely associated with the movement. Certainly the most popular. A lot of people, having been exposed to very little else, many already viewing Loose Change as the 'official' representation of the movement.

I strongly suspect that there is a plan in effect to cement that association. Someone wants the 9/11 truth movement to be, and this is exactly what it sounds like, "That Loose Change thing".

I hope very much that the movie is fantastic, and that this might come to be more a positive association than a negative one. And, as many are now speculating, this could increase curiosity, offering us a more receptive audience.

But none of that implies that we shouldn't be skeptical of Mark Cuban's participation. One reason to be skeptical, is that none of this is now likely to change. We see this ship set to sail, and all we can do is prepare. Like you, I'm not too keen on this whole waiting process. As you and others have been suggesting, we are about to go to war with Iran. And it's looking like it will start before the movie is released.

Can you imagine the release of this movie during the introduction to a new war? It wouldn't fly. I'd even bet a few bucks that Cuban would pull out.

Let's keep this concern in our focus.

Taking over the 9/11 truth movement

I would be very carefull about this Marc Cuban. There is a real chance that an enemy of 9/11 truth is actually taking over controll of it, with his tons of money. Has the loose change crowd and the others around them sold out to him? That's an old trick and the best way of doing it, finance the people that in the end you want to destroy. Does he really want to expose the truth of 9/11 or just manipulate and bury it? Just look where he and his family comes from. Cuban is not his real name. It was changed to sound Latino/American by his Russian Jewish grandparents from Chopininski. Why change your name and create a complete false impression? member exposes disinfo agent

Col Jenny Sparks nailed this bastard:


This guy is worried about how exposing 9/11 will effect the Dallas Mavericks.

Where did Ragland get this idea?

Notice that the Dallas News reporter James Ragland says: that Loose Change is "a project that reportedly started out as a work of fiction."

Where in the hell did he get that idea?


How did CNN and BBC have foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, yet five years later, the government cannot explain it?

from Dylan Avery

According to Dylan Avery, LC started out as fiction. Weird, huh?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The plot for LC....

...originally was these college aged dudes somehow found out that 9/11 was not what the gov said, and turned out to be an inside job.

How ironic.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Dylan said that

I forget when, but I recall Dylan describing the genesis of LC as starting out as a fictional movie.

(Whoops, too slow!)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Ring, ring...

RT's take rings true to me

interns < internets

I hope

He's legit and gets these DVDs into all the major video rental outlets....

So I can quit hiding copies of it behind all the DVDs I return to the store
Together in Truth!

I have some concerns

i don't know what to make of this - but i thought it was important to share it.

we all know how sensitive people are about criticizing Loose Change - so i am reticent to confront this in public.

BUT - this new guy Mark Cuban who is going to distribute and promote Loose Change is business partners with Rick Siegel. He is a billionaire from Texas who made his money in the internet boom of the 1990s.

To those who do not know Rick Siegel - you can understand his relationship with known disinformation paradigms here:

Someone said of Siegel: "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 Siegel has something to do with LC Final Cut?"

Rick Siegel himself responded:

"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?)"

He also states:

"I find it amusing that Dylan thinks he will be giving away Mark Cubans money to torrent "generals". It will be interesting to see if Cuban can capitalize on the pirates of 911. Did you know I have lifetime rights to broadcast all Maverick games over the Internet and still have not used them?"

This is very ominous.

Look - some of you already know my history. My wife and I both remember Mark Cuban from our days with Sonicnet and PseudoTV. Some of you may have read my posts regarding PseudoTV. Nico Haupt, my wife and I all worked for PseudoTV. We all had different jobs working opposite sides of the same fence and led very different lives.

In my opinion PsuedoTV was a front. Rick Siegel founded OnlineTV. It employed a very similar internet-broadcasting paradigm - although i know very little about the company itself and Mr. Siegel. I do not mean to imply that OnlineTV was as crooked as PseudoTV. But, on the face of it, they had similar professed goals.

And - Mark Cuban as well. $5 Billion? that's a lot of money.

The 1990s internet boom was a financial boondoggle of EPIC
proportions. We are talking about BILLIONS of investor dollars that literally evaporated. where'd it all go?

Ever see the movie GoodFellas? There is a story line where the mob takes over a restaurant. Everything that comes through the front door (booze, food deliveries, cigarettes, furniture, restaurant equipment) would just go out the back door and get stolen. Eventually the restaurant was near bankruptcy - so they burned it down for the insurance.

Its the same concept. PseudoTV was never meant to
succeed. Many of these companies were just money laundering operations - and - from my own experience - very very DIRTY drug-connected companies at that.

am i extrapolating facts about PseudoTV and projecting it onto Mark Cuban in an unfair way? ABSOLUTELY. And i admit that. but - given now the admitted business relationship between Cuban and Siegel (a known mass purveyor of 911 disinformation) - i grow increasingly concerned.