Internet Detectives expose the many problems with Loose Change

[greyl]

Loose Change is a video that examines the attacks of September 11, written and narrated by Dylan Avery. Originally fiction, Avery decided to present it as a documentary after further research. The video received attention on the internet, and a second edition was produced which contained additional information but omitted some information from the first video. A recut of the second edition was later produced, with minor changes and corrections. This page will address issues presented in all of the videos, which are freely available online.
The rest: http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change

[FoxOnTheRun]

1. I watched Loose change 2 Edition Recut a bit

It has not much from the pentagon in it.
Only questions what they have to hide.

[greyl]

2. This deals with all 3 versions, as far as I can tell. nt

[FoxOnTheRun]

3. If you add all errors you get

something like "In Plane Site"

[mp3hound]

4. Whoa. That is quite the site.

Very well done. Thank you for the link.

[wildbilln864]

5. Loose Change 2nd is a great way for people to learn...

and in that sense, it's a great documentary even with the few errors!

Internet detectives!? Please! Give me a break!
Why aren't they detecting Muhammed Atta's links to CIA drug running? www.madcowprod.com
Now that's a worthwhile link!

[greyl]

6. Please feel free to point out any errors made by Internet Detectives.nt

[John Q. Citizen]

7. PNAC mentions new Pearl Harbor, Loose Change mentions PNAC

mentioning a new Pearl Harbor, and the ID site tries to use that as a problem?

I think the biggest problem for these guys is that Loose Change is getting a lot] of internet attention. People are watching it. This site is what I would call a "nit picker" site.

Reminds me of the right wing Fahrenheit 9/11 "correction" sites or the swift boaters attacking Kerry's military record. Collectively, these nit pickers are probably best called "butt picker" sites.

These sites are propaganda. They use the shotgun approach try to collect as many complaints, no matter how trivial, irrelevant, or even. at times, even reasonable to give the impression that whatever they are attacking is so chock full of lies that there is a slew of misrepresentations, errors, lies, damned lies and statistics.

It's an exercise in throwing as much mud as possible against a wall and hoping that some sticks.

Butt pickers.

That's my opinion.

[greyl]

9. Can you please clarify your point?

Are you talking about this section where I.D. says that Pearl Harbor was mentioned twice in PNAC, and where I.D. quotes PNAC about 30 times more thoroughly than Loose Change did?:

Pearl Harbor, as in a situation we're completely unprepared to handle with our current capabilities and technology, revealing formerly unseen shortcomings. This would make the necessities of a transformation a lot more obvious, and therefore it wouldn't take as long. Avery's quote makes a lot more sense with a little context—yet again.

If so, you'll have to come up with a better argument than the one you've offered.

j.q.c.: "PNAC mentions new Pearl Harbor, Loose Change mentions PNAC mentioning a new Pearl Harbor, and the ID site tries to use that as a problem?" 'They're jealous, nit-picking, swiftboating, mud throwing, butt pickers.'{condensed -ed}

I mean c'mon, that's a pretty damn weak 'argument'.

edit:clarity

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I don't understand your response to my post.

Are you saying that Loose Change is wrong or in "error" for not spending a lot more time quoting PNAC?

Or are you saying that ID is better than Loose Change because they spent a lot more time quoting PNAC?

[greyl]

11. That's fine. If you don't want to clarify

the single error you're trying to point out among the thousands of words at the Internet Detectives site, just let me wonder why for the rest of my life.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Yes. It's entertaining, it's hot, it's making waves and even if it's

not perfect, it's pretty damned good.

The so called internet detectives are jealous as hell and scared of the power of Loose Change.

[JackRiddler]

12. Sadly

What's entertaining and successful is not always what's good or true. Loose Change comes to several right conclusions by way of many faulty reasons. It's full of mistakes, unsubstantiated speculations, and non-sequitirs. (The demolition job in Queens - huh?) It's made a lot of converts but is entirely open to this form of attack, and I submit that LC has driven away just as many critical thinkers who depart from it thinking that if this is the best the alternative 9/11 research has to offer, then they no longer have to sweat it. The "detectives" if anything should be jealous and scared of Jim Hoffman (911review.com) and his thorough dismantling of Loose Change from a 9/11 skeptics' position, because to a large extent it's his work they're repeating (but recasting on behalf of the Official Story).

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I don't know, The footage of tv announcers hearing and reporting the

secondary explosions, the squibs, the firefighters, the HST interview, the visuals at the pentagon, all that stuff is pretty powerful.

And let's face it. The official story keeps on morphing and new information from researchers comes out.

I seriously doubt many people take the time or effort to go through piece by piece to critique all the little details, The fact they got their message out there, that 9/11 was an inside job, is far more important to eventual understanding than millions of details.

it's a macro approach that resonates. I truly doubt it will go down as a scholarly work, yet I also doubt that it turned off anywhere near as many people as it brought in.

People who are intimately versed on all the details may wince, but that is a tiny fraction of the public at large. Just the visuals of the buildings alone is worth it.

I thought the 2nd edition was a big improvement over the first.

While I have no idea if the Cleveland theory makes any sense, it certainly exemplifies the mass chaos our air defenses were in on 9/11, and if they got it wrong, so did a lot of people in many different ways also.

I'll check out Hoffman's critique. I'm interested in if his critique is based on information he had at the time Loose change was made or if some of it is based on information he found after loose change was made.

One of the problems I've seen with the 9/11 movement is there is an extremely lot of hypothesis and research into a whole lot of areas, but there is much less effort in the political arena, organizing people to demand the truth from our leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the political track is more important than good facts, because they go hand in hand, but Loose Change had a major political impact. With good research to complement the new political awareness, that will defiantly pay off over time.

And even if the only thing Loose Change is right about is that it's an inside job, then it still was worth it for that alone.

[kerstin]

14. Exactly. Much if not most of LC stands on its own.

I wish some of these anal types would turn some of that forensic zeal onto the official story. (Talk about a pancake collapse!)

[mhatrw]

15. Like they did with the NIST's reports? n/t

[greyl]

16. By the same token

we should both be in New Orleans helping rebuild, right?

Internet Detectives (Zach in this case) is just doing his part to uncover lies to the benefit of 9/11 Truth.
(as opposed to the loosers Avery and Rowe who claim they purposefully spread lies for the benefit of 9/11 Truth)

Can you articulate any actual problems you see with the internetdetectives site in regard to LooseChange?

[HuffleClaw]

17. i'd say 'loose change' has a handful of interesting stuff amid a wealth

of utter crap. a pity too. i don't know why this 'demolition theory' has become the focus of the 911 truth movement recently, but there are far more important things about 911 that need to be addressed.

[Nozebro]

18. What "problems" are you talking about?

btw - what's the story on "internetdetectives"? Truth-oriented or another front group cooked-up by a PR firm like Hill & "incubator babies" Knowlton?