An analysis of Loose Change

[greyl]

"The video begins with a direct eyewitness report from FOX reporter Mark Burnback who observed UA 175 that hit WTC2.

It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the side. Again it was not a normal flight that I’d ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front and it did not look like it belonged in the area.


This statement is taken as gospel both by Mr. Avery and his admirers, an amusing fact given the deserved reputation FOX enjoys as a propaganda station for the Cheney/Bush administration. Mr. Avery has lifted parts of the quote from Dave vonKleist’s “In Plane Site”, but has not mentioned that in the fuller version witness Birnbach states that he was at a subway stop in Brooklyn, hence at least a mile from the plane that was silhouetted against the sky, so that Birnbach would not be not able to see any windows because of both the distance and the lighting. Eyewitness reports for brief shocking events are notoriously unreliable; and other photos of the plane definitively show it had standard United Airlines markings; airplane wreckage with windows was found amongst the rubble at WTC5. Thus, Mr. Avery makes selective use of unreliable eyewitnesses ill placed to make the relevant observations, and he ignores other available evidence that this witness is mistaken. That’s just for starters."
more:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

I urge everyone to see Loose Change for free rather than paying for it. At most try to find a used copy on ebay for under a dollar.

[HamdenRice]

1. Greyls's source for discrediting "Loose Change"? 911Research

I'm not a fan of Loose Change, but I am interested in the logic of greyl's and other so called bebunkers' critiques here on this forum. He cites a review of Loose Change in 911Research.wtc7.net.

That essay includes the following disclosures and assertions: That the author believes "JFK, X, MLK, and RFK," were assassinated by a CIA/mercenary type force and "that WTC93, OKC, and 911 are also their handiwork."

The author also says that ""corporate" media is in large part, when needed for crisis management and gross disinformation, under the direct operational control of the intelligence agencies". He believes that the "neocon cabal ... is roughly a combination of Leo Straussian Zionists," Christian militarists and imperialists.

Since greyl cites this source as a source for his critique of Loose Change, he must endorse these wacky conspiracy theories. That after all, is what the conspiracy theory "debunkers" constantly tell 9/11 researchers -- it that they must be endorsing sources when they cite them.

Of course, I'm not expecting a response, because I am conveniently on greyl's ignore list.

But the question remains: Does greyl believe that the foreign policy of the US is controlled by Straussian Zionists? Does he buy that anti-Semitic clap trap? Does he believe that the JFK, MLK and RFK were assassinated by the same people who did 9/11 -- ie not 19 Arab hijackers, but some shadowing CIA mercenary force? Does he believe that the NY Times and Washington Post are under the direct operational control of the intelligence agencies?

If he believes, as I do, that these are wacky, over-determined conspiracy theories, then how can he give credibility to that source to critique Loose Change? If it's wrong about the CIA having direct operational control over the mainstream media, isn't it also likely it is wrong about Loose Change?

Or is there an awful lot of inconsistency in debunker logic?

[greyl]

2. A link to watch it for free:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

[reprehensor]

3. If you have a family member or friend that died...

due to the events of 9/11, the film-makers will send you a free copy.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[greyl]

4. I think you're talking about Loose Change 2

which contradicts Loose Change substantially.

[reprehensor]

5. How? n/t

[dchill]

6. "contradicts"

Perhaps "corrects" or "clarifies" would be a better term. At least they tried to get it right. So, yeah, at this point we'd all be talking about Loose Change 2nd Edition, not Loose Change 2.