More Lies from Loose Change

Loose Change is a conspiracy video produced by Dylan Avery and has had to be revised several times. Of course, there are many distortions and mistakes in it.

One blatantly obvious distortion is that Avery states that a FEMA document produced in 1997 showed a picture of the towers in crosshairs on the cover and was titled “Emergency Response to Terrorism.” (Source).

Internet Detectives points out some details that Avery ignores: 1) the tower in the crosshair is the north tower, which was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and 2) If FEMA was part of a conspiracy, why would they advertise it? Oh, and that pamphlet was from 1997, when CLINTON was president.

Daylightathiesm.org makes another excellent point regarding the towers in the crosshairs: since the WTC had ALREADY been a target of terrorism once, it would not have been unreasonable to assume it might be again.

As for those explosions in the WTC, the following quote from Screw Loose Change is an excellent point: “A jet liner with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel crashed into each of the towers at 500 mph. It would be suspicious if they didn’t hear subsequent explosions.”

Internet Detectives, shows 2 problems with Avery’s quote from Mark Birnbach: 1) Birnbach was OVER 2 MILES AWAY from the towers when he saw the plane- common sense says you CANNOT see the windows on a plane from 2 miles away and 2) Birnbach said he didn’t see the plane hit the tower.

Oh, and before some conspiracy nut says that the fact Birnbach didn’t see flight 175 hit the south tower proves that no plane hit it, that’s false. There are two perfectly plausible explanations that don’t require a conspiracy: 1) Depending on Birnbach’s position and angle relative to the towers, and based on his distance from the WTC, it’s entirely possible that when Flight 175 got close enough to the south tower, the north tower may have blocked the 2nd impact from Birnbach’s view or 2) He turned his back to the WTC before the impact occurred. Given that everyone was still staring at the north tower when the 2nd plane hit, the first explanation is more likely.

One last detail: Avery states that on 9/10/01, there was a Newsweek article reporting that a number of top Pentagon officials cancelled their flights. (Source).

Once again, we have a lie: Here are the facts from Internet Detectives: 1) The Newsweek article was actually on Sept 24, 2001, fourteen days AFTER 9/11, and doesn’t say who said officials were. Internet detectives also provides this quote: “Ever since the Customs Service foiled an apparent bomb plot on the eve of the millennium, U.S. intelligence has been very edgy about an attack on America.”

Now before “truthers” try to prove their point by using this quote from here, “On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns,” they should answer this question: Why would those Pentagon officials cancel their flights on Sept 10th if they knew the Pentagon was going to be attacked the next day, or as Internet Detectives correctly- and logically- asks: “Wouldn’t it actually be more dangerous to stay at the Pentagon if it was going to be attacked?”

Advertisements

Posted March 21, 2008 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: