Loose Change or Popular Mechanics ?

Hey guys, not sure if this has been posted yet but thought I'd contribute. If it has been posted already, then my apologizes, feel free to move this to trash. Thanks!!

It's the two filmmakers of Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Both sides provide intriguing points..however, I sense some immaturity coming from the Loose Change kids...especially when they decide to finish and argument with "That's a lie!"

Oh well, enjoy the videos.

I think the loose change guys were acting very immature, but the pop mechanics guys just keep going back to the fact that they talk to experts. It seems to me that they were trying to belittle the loose change guys and didnt have any evidence to support their claims other than what people who were giving them pictures and information that they couldnt release to the public. IMO if i was in the position of the loose change crew i probably would have acted the same way.

seen this awhile back. but glad to see it posted here for anyone who hasnt seen it yet. i agree that loose change was somewhat immature about it. but thay were never really given a fair chance in my opinion to say what that needed to say.
for anyone who has ever gone out and done what they do, you will know the frustration of being cut off, ignored, belittled and to have your questions avoided. they went into it knowing it was a loosing battle. yet they went into it. the so called experts that the pop mechanics guys refer to were nothing more than gov appointed officials paid to tell the "official story" and the pop guys are simply sheep that were hand feed every bit of there info.

tons of respect for loose change for standing up to the man with out an ounce of fear. and at just 23 luke has done more for "we the people" than most men can dream of doing!

popular mechanics comes out with the "debunking of popular conspiracy theories" and then the final draft of the NIST defies their findings.

If popular mechanics is correct the OS is STILL wrong.

What give ME a "I can't believe he said that!" moment is when Dylan Avery had the gall to drop accusations of Popular Mechanics being guilty of yellow journalism, which is just plain idiotic. The definitiion of yellow journalism is "scandal mongering", and although I don't read PM with any frequency, I've yet to see them ever run articles about Michael Jackson's child buggery, Tiger Woods adultery, or on any other scandal for that matter.

On the other hand, wallowing in 9/11 "inside job" conspiracies definitely IS scandal mongering by definition, particularly the questionable methods of innuendo dropping, quote mining, and bogus rhetorical questions that Loose Change employs. The only ones I'm seeing genuinely guilty of yellow journalism here is Dylan Avery.

Between PM and Loose Change, I will definitely have to side in with PM becuase Avery, et al have all the credibility of a three card monty peddler. The stunts he's pulling are literally the same as farting, blaming the fart onto others, and then complaining how disgusting they are for farting.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What give ME a "I can't believe he said that!" moment is when Dylan Avery had the gall to drop accusations of Popular Mechanics being guilty of yellow journalism, which is just plain idiotic.

I guess you don't know who was nicknamed the "Father of Yellow Journalism" and/or who owns Popular Mechanics.

Probably best to do a little research before you post your opinions.


[edit on 21-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]

As far as I'm concerned both are full of mud! PM has an agenda. LC has an agenda.


* PM is an established 'ol boy source and serves the OS line well for those looking to find peace within commercialized sources' explanations regarding 911. They are owned by the Hearst Company as in William Randolph Hearst family.


* LC crafted what many thought was a good point on 911 until some started verifying, corroborating, looking into and investigating the video's claims. In the end, its just a bunch of half truths, slick editing, shady videos that really don't "expose" anything of any substantial greatness.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by mikelee]

Originally posted by mikelee
* LC crafted what many thought was a good point on 911 until some started verifying, corroborating, looking into and investigating the video's claims. In the end, its just a bunch of half truths, slick editing, shady videos that really don't "expose" anything of any substantial greatness.

You're wrong. I've met and personally spoken with Dylan Avery. His initial goal was to produce a conventional documentary about 9/11. Only after investigating what really happened on Sept. 11th did he decide to focus on the government conspiratorial aspects of the story.

BTW, constantly straddling both sides of the fence doesn't lend you additional credibility. If you haven't made up your mind about 9/11 by now, then you probably never will.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Only after investigating what really happened on Sept. 11th did he decide to focus on the government conspiratorial aspects of the story.

Except he did no investigating at all, just making up stories about how the planes that hit the WTC had pods under them etc.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by mikelee
* LC crafted what many thought was a good point on 911 until some started verifying, corroborating, looking into and investigating the video's claims. In the end, its just a bunch of half truths, slick editing, shady videos that really don't "expose" anything of any substantial greatness.

You're wrong. I've met and personally spoken with Dylan Avery. His initial goal was to produce a conventional documentary about 9/11. Only after investigating what really happened on Sept. 11th did he decide to focus on the government conspiratorial aspects of the story.

BTW, constantly straddling both sides of the fence doesn't lend you additional credibility. If you haven't made up your mind about 9/11 by now, then you probably never will.

GoldenFleece: Your entitled to YOUR opinion on 911 and anything associated with it and I respect your opinions and point of view. I don't call you "wrong" or anything else because what you believe in does not jive with my opinion etc. Personal attacks on me does not lend you any credibility as to your beliefs on 911, in fact its a turn off and does more damage than good. As I have stated in previous threads I believe the facts about 911 are a mix of OS truth as well as "conspiracy based" (for lack of a better description) truths/explanations. Just because I don't belong to your group of debunkers or truthers does not mean in any shape or form that I'm on the fence.

BTW...It only means I can look at a situation/incident through objective eyes that are not clouded by peer pressure or other influences which might be a more enlightening way for you to go about your 911 quest for answers because your negativity and obvious willingness to believe those already proven to be deceivers just don't lend you a lot of credibility.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by mikelee]

Originally posted by mikelee
As I have stated in previous threads I believe the facts about 911 are a mix of OS truth as well as "conspiracy based" (for lack of a better description) truths/explanations.

I'm not going to say your opinion is right or wrong, it can't be wrong..

because it's your opinion.

But using your words above , if you believe aspects of the OS story and

the "Truther" story, then you my freind are a truther.

The OS story is cast in stone.

We as truth seekers are continuously shooting holes in that story.

And if you believe any of the truther story ...

The Government Lied.

Originally posted by Sean48

I'm not going to say your opinion is right or wrong, it can't be wrong..

because it's your opinion.

But using your words above , if you believe aspects of the OS story and

the "Truther" story, then you my freind are a truther.

The OS story is cast in stone.

We as truth seekers are continuously shooting holes in that story.

And if you believe any of the truther story ...

The Government Lied.

Sean48: I honestly don't know how to respond to your post here. It just seems ignorant, unnecessary in general, arrogant in many ways, typical given the topic, immature at best and a failed attempt to make some sort of point that is pointless in many ways. Anyway, I wish you well with YOUR quest for whatever your seeking regarding 911.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by mikelee]

Originally posted by mikelee


Sean48: I honestly don't know how to respond to your post here. It just seems ignorant, unnecessary in general, arrogant in many ways, typical given the topic, immature at best and a failed attempt to make some sort of point that is pointless in many ways. Anyway, I wish you well with YOUR quest for whatever your seeking regarding 911.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by mikelee]

I meant no malice in my reply to your original post sir.

Sometimes the written word doesn't come across as intended .

Originally posted by mikelee

* LC crafted what many thought was a good point on 911 until some started verifying, corroborating, looking into and investigating the video's claims. In the end, its just a bunch of half truths, slick editing, shady videos that really don't "expose" anything of any substantial greatness.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by mikelee]

Nailed it!!!

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I guess you don't know who was nicknamed the "Father of Yellow Journalism" and/or who owns Popular Mechanics.

Yes, I know that. Anyone who listened to the rubbish Loose Change puts out knows that. That under NO circumstances means that Popular Mechanics is by definition involved in "Yellow Journalism" themselves. It's a thinly veiled five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" game, linking everyone to everyone else through a select five people. In this case, linking PM to a yellow Journalism monger to falsely imply PM is yellow journalism as well. This is exactly the same kind of crap that LC pulls to push out their conspriacy claims to begin with.

FYI it's rather hard for Hearst to "own" Popular Mechanics since he's been dead since 1951 or so.

Probably best to do a little research before you post your opinions.

It's "put up or shut up" time. I can definitely give you all the examples of Loose Change wallowing in scandal mongering that you'd want, since that's by definition what LC is doing. Can you even give me ONE case where PM went into scandal mongering? Any one will do.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
You're wrong. I've met and personally spoken with Dylan Avery. His initial goal was to produce a conventional documentary about 9/11. Only after investigating what really happened on Sept. 11th did he decide to focus on the government conspiratorial aspects of the story.

Then you should be interested to know I encountered Dylan Avery as well, or at least, one of the other people who were behind producing the LC flick. Loose Change has a discussion forum similar to this one, and I logged in specifically to discuss all the flaws in their flick. After three weeks, he banned me from their forum, NOT becuase of any personal attacks or rude behavior, but simply becuase I was posting things the LC producers didn't want me to post. I know this becuase in their YOU ARE BANNED message he specifically said, "Everything I posted has already been debunked", "The time for debate is now over", and "Be educated or be ignorant, it's my choice."

The moment the LC people have to employ censorship to protect their franchise, it's the moment they openly admit they're full of it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


The moment the LC people have to employ censorship to protect their franchise, it's the moment they openly admit they're full of it.

Some time poster , full time reader of these threads

Dave my friend.....

Your a "legend in your own mind"

of the many OS people in these threads , your arguements are

more of the personal attack type, Killing the messager and ignoring

the message

I realize your passion for your cause , but a little more respect for

your opponents would probably stop you from being banned

Originally posted by Sean48
of the many OS people in these threads , your arguements are
more of the personal attack type, Killing the messager and ignoring
the message

...then you haven't been reading my posts at all. I have never hidden my mission statement that I'm not here to insult anyone, but rather, to point out how badly these damned fool conspiracy web sites are mind-raping everyone to get people all paranoid over shadows. My beef is with them, not with anyone here.

If there are people who have such a strong emotional attachment to these conspriacy claims that they perceive a criticism against these conspiracies as an attack against them personally, the problem is on their end, not mine, as such people shouldn't be coming to open forums where they know full well people are going to be discussing both sides of the 9/11 conspiracy debate, not just their own.

I realize your passion for your cause , but a little more respect for
your opponents would probably stop you from being banned

...and I will say again, I had been banned from the Loose Change forums NOT becuase of any abusive behavior, but becuase I was posting material they didn't want me to post in their forum. This is what I get out of "Be educated or be ignorant, it's my choice". What does it say to you?

FYI it's rather hard for Hearst to "own" Popular Mechanics since he's been dead since 1951 or so.

PM is owned by the Hearst Corporation and I do believe given the nature of this website and why each of us are here, we can read between the lines and figure out what GoldenFleece meant.

I have always said that anyone who is given the facts then refused to acknowledge them, even if they were given in the incorrect context originally, has an agenda that must be looked at closely. Given a choice, you choose to cite GF as incorrect instead of making a simple acknowledgment to his credit as any respectful opponent would do.

It calls into question a lot about you as well as explains quite a bit as well.

Popular Mechanics is mainstream media; their job is to provide fictional agenda driven entertainment, not to investigate. The researcher for their March 2005 short story which attacks 9/11 CTers is a Benjamin Chertoff. Unless this is another of one of those coincidences, it has been alleged Ben is a cousin of Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security Chief.

For more information on why Popular Mechanics may have a biased agenda toward the 9/11 issue, you can read the following story:

www.democraticunderground.com...

You have your fair share of credibility issues with this one.