Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Salon On Loose Change

As we have mentioned before, 9/11 crosses political boundaries. Now Salon, hardly a conservative site, comes out with a good debunking of Loose Change, or in CT parlance a "hit piece":

I've heard some of Avery's fans describe his movie as "the red pill," the drug that takes Keanu Reeves down "The Matrix's" rabbit hole. During the past month, I've swallowed the pill about a half-dozen times, following Avery and other 9/11 skeptics down a treacherous path toward the alleged truth. I'm sorry to say I didn't find it; much of Avery's film has been debunked even by fellow 9/11 skeptics, and some of its theories verge on the bizarre. If you care to look, you won't find a shred of proof that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, or that the World Trade Center was stuffed with gold bars, or that the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a commercial jet.

But that's not the whole story. "Loose Change" may traffic in fiction, but it sinks its hooks in. If you're unfamiliar with the official story -- if you haven't, say, perused the hundreds of pages of documentation supporting the 9/11 Commission's conclusions -- you may well find the movie's false reality strangely seductive. And going online to debunk "Loose Change" doesn't necessarily boost your faith in the 9/11 Commission's story; following the path that Google presents in response to queries like "pentagon plane crash" or "world trade center collapse" could make matters worse. While discovering flaws in the movie's claims, you'll find yourself bumping up against entirely different 9/11 theories, some of which propose a theory of the case that's far stranger than you'd ever imagined. Once you jump down the rabbit hole, you find it goes only deeper.

7 Comments:

At 27 June, 2006 10:56, Blogger nes718 said...

or that the World Trade Center was stuffed with gold bars

No gold? If they got this simple fact wrong, why shouldn't we question the entire hit piece?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

 
At 27 June, 2006 11:02, Blogger James B. said...

If you read the actual article you will find they are talking about the ridiculous claim that there was $160 billion in gold. Since when were you such a stickler for precise wording?

 
At 27 June, 2006 11:08, Blogger James B. said...

In the movie I think they say $160 billion and $167 billion, in an interview they said up to $1 trillion. They can't keep their stories straight.

 
At 27 June, 2006 13:38, Blogger nes718 said...

911 Deniers?

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like them there 'Holocaust deniers", doesn't it?

Ooooh, bad, bad, BAD deniers!

 
At 27 June, 2006 16:58, Blogger shawn said...

No gold? If they got this simple fact wrong, why shouldn't we question the entire hit piece?

It's the amount of gold, moron. Nice strawman.

Ooooh, bad, bad, BAD deniers!

You do realize it's bad to deny something that's fact, right? IDers are just evolution deniers.

 
At 28 June, 2006 06:45, Blogger nes718 said...

You do realize it's bad to deny something that's fact, right? IDers are just evolution deniers.

Fact is 9/11 was an inside job yet you guys are happily in denial of that fact.

 
At 28 June, 2006 07:58, Blogger shawn said...

Fact is 9/11 was an inside job yet you guys are happily in denial of that fact.

You have yet to give any evidence of this "fact". When you do, you can call it a fact. Thank you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home