The Guardian & Loose Change [Archive]

Nero

29th January 2007, 04:49 AM

Mashuna

29th January 2007, 04:58 AM

Just read the article, this part jumped out at me:

[They have] recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant

Well, that's me convinced then.

PerryLogan

29th January 2007, 05:04 AM

This was very droll:
There's a futility to arguing with them that even they recognise.Many of our regular visitors here at JREF reveal this attitude. They enjoy the fact that we can't get through to them. They come here to parry our thrusts and cry, "Y'all can't get through to ME! Hilk!"

uk_dave

29th January 2007, 05:07 AM

Hilk? Are you scottish?

brodski

29th January 2007, 05:10 AM

Well, I'll give the troofers one thing, this Guardian article is slightly more supportive of their cause than the last guardian treatment of loose change.
That must count as progress right?

Enjoy!
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1749999,00.html

jon

29th January 2007, 05:20 AM

Last Friday's Guardian carried a long article all about Loose Change, Dylan Avery and his pals.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1998179,00.html

Whilst the article was not particularly for or against the CT agenda, just giving print space to these fools in a UK national paper is way too generous.

I've written to the editor pointing out the usual stuff. Can I suggest that others do the same?

Thanks

I did write to them, as below. Would also encourage others to do the same. They can be quite good at correcting errors...

Dear Sir,

Ed Pilkington's article on the conspiracy theory film Loose Change - 'They're all forced to listen to us' - is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, there are a number of inaccuracies in the article. Pilkington claims, incorrectly, that Loose Change has been shown on Irish state TV: RTE was planning on airing Loose Change next month, but has now decided that the film is not suitable for broadcasting. Pilkington's interpretation of US opinion polls is also very misleading: while a significant number of Americans do believe that US officials did not do enough to stop the 9/11 attacks, this does not mean that they agree with the more outlandish claims made by Loose Change (for example, that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11).

Secondly, the article gives much too much credibility to the claims made by Loose Change - especially given that almost every claim made in the film has been extensively critiqued on websites such as www.loosechangeguide.com. For example, Pilkington refers to "Flight 77, which supposedly flew into the Pentagon". This suggests that the claims made by Loose Change are on a par with the eyewitness and physical evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon; one wonders if The Guardian would treat other far fetched conspiracy theories in a similar way - for example, would an article on conspiracy theories around the Apollo moon landings refer to 'the supposed 1969 moon landing'?

GlennB

29th January 2007, 05:23 AM

What I did find interesting in that article was the claim that LC started life as a work of deliberate fiction, and that Avery gradually became convinced of its truth.
Is that right?

brodski

29th January 2007, 05:32 AM

What I did find interesting in that article was the claim that LC started life as a work of deliberate fiction, and that Avery gradually became convinced of its truth.
Is that right?

That's the story which Avery and Co have told many times. As Avery is the only primary source for this claim, I remain skeptical.
It could have happened that way, it may just be "clever" marketing ("see, see I was skeptical, but this film has shown even me THE TRUTH!!1!", or it may be that Avery still knows that 9/11 was not an inside job,. But is pretending that he believes this BS as it is making him a nice little living.

mailman

29th January 2007, 05:56 AM

I received an anonymously mailed package containing a DVD which purported to tell 'what really happened on 11 September 2001'. The DVD, entitled Loose Change: 2nd Edition, began with a warning that I could be arrested 'under section 802 of the US Patriot Act' for 'possession of this information'

Can someone confirm this quote (taken from the box of the loose change dvd) is correct?

Regards

Mailman

jon

29th January 2007, 06:15 AM

Mailman - sounds like BS. Section 802 of the (2001) patriot act makes some changes to the definition of domestic terrorism in US law: read it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:1:./temp/~c107KzyfS1:e337983:). Unless the DVD is somehow to be used to endanger human life, to intimidate etc. (very sharp edges?) I don't see how it could fall foul of that part of the act.

For those looking to write to the Guardian, you can contact them at:

Letters to the editor: letters@guardian.co.uk

Corrections and Clarifications and Reader's Editor: reader@guardian.co.uk

stateofgrace

29th January 2007, 07:10 AM

Email dispatched.

CurtC

29th January 2007, 07:19 AM

Mailman - sounds like BS. Section 802 of the (2001) patriot act makes some changes to the definition of domestic terrorism in US law:I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

ref

29th January 2007, 07:29 AM

That photograph title has sparked my creativity.

Photograph title:
"Conspiracy theorists... Loose Change's Korey Rowe (left) and Jason Berman with the laptop they used to make the film."

CT Claim:
"The 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the world of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave in Pushtunistan."

Conclusion based on the two above:
"The Truth of the 9/11 attacks emerged from the world of Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas, Dylan Avery, the laptop, and the basement in Americastan."

jon

29th January 2007, 07:31 AM

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

Oops, sorry - now will anyone confess to having bought a retail boxed copy of LC :D

Thanks SOG.

Gravy

29th January 2007, 07:33 AM

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.It does say that, as does the intro to the "recut" DVD. I think it's meant to be a cheeky comment, but I also think they half believe it. Nothing like starting your "documentary" film off with a complete falsehood.

jon

29th January 2007, 07:36 AM

It does say that, as does the intro to the "recut" DVD. I think it's meant to be a cheeky comment, but I also think they half believe it. Nothing like starting your "documentary" film off with a complete falsehood.

jeez, they could at least have picked a more menancing or relevent bit of the act...

brodski

29th January 2007, 07:45 AM

jeez, they could at least have picked a more menancing or relevent bit of the act...

Why bother? Their target audience isn't exactly big on fact checking. But it is a fantastic bit of marketing, it makes the film something forbidden and therefore enticing.
Although threatening UK journalists with prosecution under US law isn't exactly smart…

jon

29th January 2007, 08:05 AM

Why bother? Their target audience isn't exactly big on fact checking. But it is a fantastic bit of marketing, it makes the film something forbidden and therefore enticing.
Although threatening UK journalists with prosecution under US law isn't exactly smart…

Fair point, I guess. You'd think some viewers would google the act, though, but maybe not :(

Which UK journo got the threat under US law?

brodski

29th January 2007, 08:17 AM

Fair point, I guess. You'd think some viewers would google the act, though, but maybe not :(

Which UK journo got the threat under US law?

In the link I posted Mark Kermode (more of a film critic that a straight journalist really) said that the package he was sent said that his position of the film was in breach of the PATRIOAT act, so Louder Than Words (or whoever sent him the film) was in effect threatening him with legislation which, even if it said what they claimed it said, would not apply to him. A silly thing to do, you may impress deluded teenagers with that stuff, but most journalists tend to know a little about which laws do and do not apply to them with respect to their sources and writings.

mailman

29th January 2007, 02:35 PM

I think he was just asking if we could confirm whether the box really said that.

Sorry, I was asking if it really was against the patriot act to have loose change?

It could be a joke BUT I wouldnt put it past the clowns in the 9/11 cult to believe that it really is illegal to own the DVD.

Regards

Mailman

negativ

29th January 2007, 04:12 PM

Sorry, I was asking if it really was against the patriot act to have loose change?

It could be a joke BUT I wouldnt put it past the clowns in the 9/11 cult to believe that it really is illegal to own the DVD.

Regards

Mailman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act#External_links_and_references

If there are any who genuinely believe that, they are the same people who believe:

1) the US gov't had the motive, the means, and the unmitigated malice to murder thousands of its own citizens in a breathtakingly public manner;

2) the US gov't also managed to successfully deceive the entire planet (except a few intrepid cyberjockeys) about what really happened;

3) this same gov't doesn't have the ability or balls to arrange a little "false flag" child porn arrest for Dylan or Alex Jones, or a little "drunk driving fatality", or whatever.

As far as I know, it's not illegal to possess slanderous, libelous, mostly-plagiarized nonsense. Now, producing it on the other hand...

JimTheBrit

30th January 2007, 05:38 PM

Guardian correspondence today regarding aforementioned article: The truth about September 11 conspiracy theories (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2002373,00.html)

pagan

30th January 2007, 07:42 PM

parky76

30th January 2007, 07:52 PM

giving a voice to unsound theories with no evidence...is not a sign of integrity

Soapy Sam

30th January 2007, 09:51 PM

giving a voice to unsound theories with no evidence...is not a sign of integrity

Evidences?:D

beachnut

31st January 2007, 12:26 AM

I liked that article.

I suppose Guardian belongs to the better media in the UK. They have at least a minimum of integrity.

I think it is good to let liars post lies. It points out who are lemmings and who can think for themselves.

I bet the article failed to point out how a fiction movie became the bible for CTers unable to think for themselves. Or if Dylan is a fraud or just a dumb guy who lies and makes up junk about 9/11 without knowing he is a liar.

Failed to tell the truth; just like LC. Right? Or did they cover how a fictional piece makes the CTers look under educated?

brodski

31st January 2007, 03:25 AM

I think it is good to let liars post lies. It points out who are lemmings and who can think for themselves.

I bet the article failed to point out how a fiction movie became the bible for CTers unable to think for themselves. Or if Dylan is a fraud or just a dumb guy who lies and makes up junk about 9/11 without knowing he is a liar.

Failed to tell the truth; just like LC. Right? Or did they cover how a fictional piece makes the CTers look under educated?

To defend the Guardian fro a moment here- this is the second time that the Film section of that paper has written about Loose Change. The first time they published a reasonable (although short and superficial) debunking of the film. The second time, the made no claims in support of the CT (in fact there area few digs at the cult like status of LTW), what they where more interested in was the distribution model of LTW, which is an interesting topic. Dylan and CO have managed to sell expensive DVD's of a film which they also give away for free, and they also sell DVDs at a (sizeable) profit for other people to give away for free.
But then if your target audience is total frickin morons, I guess it's easier to make work a business model which require people to pay over the odds for crap they can get for free.

The problem is that the loose change cultists take any mention of them which doesn't rip the to shreds, as total unequivocal support for their fantasies, and a sign that the revolution is almost upon us.

Panoply_Prefect

31st January 2007, 05:03 AM

Just read the article, this part jumped out at me:

Well, that's me convinced then.

Would that be Sami Yli-Karjanmaa (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72378&highlight=Sami)? Hes as I understand it a finnish theology student (http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/teo/ekseg/pg/yli-karjanmaa/tiiviste.html) (not sure though, my finnish sucks)

Cheers,
SLOB

Lothian

31st January 2007, 05:07 AM

Would that be Sami Yli-Karjanmaa (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72378&highlight=Sami)? Hes as I understand it a finnish theology student (http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/teo/ekseg/pg/yli-karjanmaa/tiiviste.html) (not sure though, my finnish sucks)

Cheers,
SLOBNo. David Ray Griffin

Panoply_Prefect

31st January 2007, 05:07 AM

No. David Ray Griffin

Ahhh figures. Should have known there would be more than one theologists.

jon

31st January 2007, 05:10 AM

GlennB

31st January 2007, 05:36 AM

I'd still argue that the Guardian article swallowed the CTists' (misleading) interpretation of US opinion polls whole, and claimed RTE had screened LC when they hadn't. Newspapers really should do fact-checking, unlike CTists :D

Anyway, good to see they published some critical responses. Did anyone write to the Reader's Editor re. inaccuracies in the article (must admit I didn't)?

Today's Guardian has one letter of support for LC, and 2 counter.

Both counters were from readers in Dumfries, which so far seems to be debunking capital of the UK. :D

I suspect further letters might follow.

sophia8

31st January 2007, 05:38 AM

Anyway, good to see they published some critical responses. It's a pity they allowed that CTer to promote his books in place of offering actual arguments.
Which gives me an idea. Why doesn't somebody print off a few hundred copies of of book dustjacket emblazoned with a title like "9/11 - THE REAL TRUTH AT LAST!!! Read what REALLY happened!!! Could Bush & the Neocons REALLY have murdered 3000 people and covered it up?", wrap it around copies of the NIST report, and sell 'em? :D

Both counters were from readers in Dumfries, which so far seems to be debunking capital of the UK.Actually, Gretna's some way from Dumfries. But, hmmmm, I too live near Dumfries, about as far out from Gretna, but the other side. (Pssst, it's the end of the month and I've not had my NWO paycheck yet...)

mailman

31st January 2007, 06:25 AM

The ultimate answer to the conspiracy theorists who think that the US authorities planned and carried out the 9/11 atrocities is that if Bush and Rumsfeld had anything to do with it, they would have failed completely.
Frank Naylor
Dunscore, Dumfries
Hehe :)

Regards

Mailman

stateofgrace

31st January 2007, 06:35 AM

opps wrong thread.

aggle-rithm

31st January 2007, 06:46 AM

But then if your target audience is total frickin morons, I guess it's easier to make work a business model which require people to pay over the odds for crap they can get for free.

I believe Amway distributors, with the profitable sale of their mindless "training" materials, work along similar lines. I wonder if Dylan & Friends will adopt the pyramid model, too?

brodski

31st January 2007, 06:51 AM

I believe Amway distributors, with the profitable sale of their mindless "training" materials, work along similar lines. I wonder if Dylan & Friends will adopt the pyramid model, too?

Well, with their $175 bulk packs of LC they sort of are, except that they expect people to give the product away, rather than sell it on- the "profit" for the end user is "truth" rather than cash.

JimTheBrit

7th February 2007, 08:21 PM

You knew it was gonna happen.
Guardian letters, Thurs8Feb07, "The official 9/11 story doesn't add up" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2007936,00.html).

Edit: Also second letter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2007246,00.html) from yesterday. Is that a reference to Shayler?

Nick Terry

8th February 2007, 03:03 AM

second letter from Wednesday's Guardian was definitely a reference to Shayler. We haven't heard much about him in the Guardian since he and his girlfriend gave an interview to the New Statesman last autumn claiming to be no-planers.

The first letter from 'Elsa' was a classic for its offer to Monbio of £1,500 to provide proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that 19 hijackers of Middle Eastern origin crashed planes into the WTC towers.

You know exactly what will happen: goalposts would be moved, terms redefined and above all, that old CTist standby, unreasonable doubt, will be wheeled out to dodge any riposte.

I hope the Guardian publishes ripostes tomorrow. If I have time this afternoon, I'll try and write one, but people here should add theirs in, specifically rebutting the letter-writers of today. Above all, keep them short, count the number of words used in the letters published today and come in under them. I know we debunkers have a tendency to go on when writing a set-piece riposte.

Nero

8th February 2007, 03:35 AM

I hope the Guardian publishes ripostes tomorrow. If I have time this afternoon, I'll try and write one, but people here should add theirs in, specifically rebutting the letter-writers of today. Above all, keep them short, count the number of words used in the letters published today and come in under them. I know we debunkers have a tendency to go on when writing a set-piece riposte.

I'll be writing in too, can I urge all who feel inclined to write in as well.

Thanks

A W Smith

8th February 2007, 05:00 AM

I hereby offer to him a prize of £1,500 if he can send to me or have published within the next two weeks any verifiable evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the hijackers of 9/11 actually boarded the aircraft which crashed on 9/11.

manifests manifests oh where are those manifests. Hey whats the exchange rate from pounds to US dollars today?

brodski

8th February 2007, 05:08 AM

manifests manifests oh where are those manifests. Hey whats the exchange rate from pounds to US dollars today?

You get about two US dollars to the pound these days.

The Doc

8th February 2007, 05:20 AM

1) Flight Manifests
2) Security Footage
3) NORAD tapes (Accidental broadcast by terrorist)
4) Passenger Phone Calls
5) Hijacker Human Remains
6) Past Activities that suggest a hijacking was being planned

I could go on all night...

Big Les

8th February 2007, 06:59 AM

It's bloody disheartening to see all those lefties that are so sick of Bush et al that they'll uncritically buy into this bullshine (on the comments page I mean). It just goes to show how little the objective truth actually matters to people where politics (and religion of course) are concerned. They want a means to an end, and they don't really care what it is or what's sacrificed to get it. :(

Nick Terry

9th February 2007, 03:52 AM

Zippo on 9/11 Trutherisms in the Guardian's letters page today. That's virtually giving the conspiraloonies the last word.

I noticed that in yesterday's batch of published woo, there were copious falllacious arguments to nonexistent authority, with repeated mentions of Professor David Ray Griffin, none of which specified his discipline.

Ho hum.

westprog

9th February 2007, 04:08 AM

In the link I posted Mark Kermode (more of a film critic that a straight journalist really) said that the package he was sent said that his position of the film was in breach of the PATRIOAT act, so Louder Than Words (or whoever sent him the film) was in effect threatening him with legislation which, even if it said what they claimed it said, would not apply to him.

From http://observer.guardian.co.uk/screen/story/0,,1750000,00.html#article_continue

The real reason people believe in such wild conspiracies is simple - it's more reassuring. In the case of 9/11, there is something perversely comforting about the idea that, behind all the chaos, the American government was always in control, carefully orchestrating the events of that terrible day.

In the end, the facts won out and I had to abandon my adolescent fantasies. Others should do the same. It is chaos, rather than conspiracy, which really rules the world.

uk_dave

9th February 2007, 04:19 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1229545cc58b95eb6b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4059)

Dave Rogers

9th February 2007, 09:39 AM

I noticed that in yesterday's batch of published woo, there were copious falllacious arguments to nonexistent authority, with repeated mentions of Professor David Ray Griffin, none of which specified his discipline.

Ho hum.

Including one reference to "physicist Dr. Judy Wood", originator of the principle of the indivisibility of energy and believer that pulverisation of concrete violates the conservation of mass. I thought she was a dental engineer - does she have a qualification in physics, and how long did it take her to unlearn it all?

Dave
(a genuine physicist)

JimTheBrit

10th February 2007, 07:34 AM

'Nother letter today: Frames of reference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2009932,00.html)

"George Monbiot really has rattled a few cages. All the nonsense about 9/11 is pouring out again [...]"

Nick Terry

10th February 2007, 08:39 AM

The letter's worth reprising in full. I especially like the bolded point.

George Monbiot really has rattled a few cages. All the nonsense about 9/11 is pouring out again (Letters, February 8). Fire not hot enough to melt the steel frame? Have these people never heard of the problems steel railway tracks have in hot weather? Do they need to melt before trains start falling off the buckled tracks?
So steel-framed buildings don't free-fall collapse. Can they point to any experimental evidence to prove this? Has anyone actually tried flying an airliner with a heavy fuel load into a tall building?
As for Professor David Ray Griffin's credentials, yes, he was an academic, but of theology, not of science or engineering.
Take a look at the website of Professor Steven Dutch of the University of Wisconsin. He takes all these ideas and deals with them scientifically. I can't take all his political views, too Republican for me, but I can't fault him on his science.
Alan Calder
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

I like the comment at the end about Dutch's politics. Something that woowoos never seem to get their heads around is the possibility that people who dislike Bush, dislike CTists too.

JimTheBrit

12th February 2007, 05:42 PM

Full article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2011648,00.html)

"Response: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory

We have to ask who stood to gain the most from the appalling events of 9/11, says Tim Sparke

Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

George Monbiot's explicit attack on the film Loose Change (A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world ..., February 6) has no basis in fact. While we accept that there are flaws in the current version of the film, we stand by its overarching theme that the official "conspiracy" theory of 9/11, constructed in the hours, days, weeks and months after 9/11, is false. [...]"