ABC News Vs. Loose Change

I just thought I would share this as it was quite entertaining. Good to see the young man hold his own.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

[edit on 7-3-2010 by predator0187]

I noticed that even before any post other than the two openings was submitted, there was the 'scrutiny' label at the bottom of the thread.

Now, was there actually some member demand that scrutiny be placed on this thread, or does it automatically appear on any thread concerning 911?

Obviously there was no member demand, since no other member had posted. Does every thread in the conspiracy discussion group get scrutinized in this way? What is that saying about ATS and its members. Or its staff?

Come on, can we just deal with the isolated incidents of harassment and trolling as they happen?

Probably has nothing to do with "member demand"... More than likely, ATS is automatically "scrutinizing" anything pertaining to 911, since the FBI is watching this site so closely now, pending "the end of conspiracy theory sites" as decreed by King Barack Hussein.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by predator0187
Any thoughts?

Pred...

I have to admit that the former soldier and Iraq war vet had legitimate points when he said that there is too much going on based upon lies I.E. the war in Iraq, and let's face it, the war IS based upon lies. I'm not certain I agree with his statement that "the gov't sending soldiers into a combat area" can be compared to "complicit to the murder of civilians", but in the context of both being the end result of gross incompetence I can see his point.

But then that dips**t "alternative" with the girly hair and goatee had to open his mouth and ruin it. He snarled that the interviewers were "trying to get sound bites" when all they were doing was asking honest questions, and then spoiled the other fellow's lucid points with paranoid speculation over how Bush "stayed in the classroom for as long as he did". Thus it is a good representative of the conspiracy movement- for everyone who has a legitimate issue, there's another dope making unsubstanciated accusations and spouting out nonsense based upon absolutely nothing but abject paranoia that ruins it for everyone else.

Who was that guy, anyway? Dylan Avery?

And the flashing 'yellow and white' hurts my brain.
Ouch. Back on topic. Young & informed, only time for
part one. Back for more later. Thanks for posting.

Yeah, it's interesting to know that since I happen to believe that at least some few individuals of our government were at a minimum criminally negligent in the incident, that I am probably going on some list maintained by some federal law enforcement agency.

If you are reading this, know that I have absolutely no intention of committing any act of violence for any reason whatsoever, considering that I have at least 20 sets of my fingerprints and at least a dozen DNA samples cataloged with about every federal law enforcement agency that exists, and for just as many reasons.

I am a non-registered gun owner with a permit to carry, and I don't carry.

That being said, about the video set of the interviews:

I think the kids made some great points, unfortunately, their demeanor sort of detracted from their credibility, as copping an attitude does. But I get that they're not concerned with their own credibility, since what they've done is done, and they're not pursuing it anymore.

The credibility for the 'professional' was damaged pretty well by the points they made to them. And he did ask some really stupid questions of them. Why would a 'professional' ask such stupid questions in such stupid ways? I mean really, how long has he been doing his job. Ridiculous.

It was pretty obvious at the end when he asked them about John Bedell what his agenda really was. No one really knows what John Bedell's impetus/motive really was. So what if he didn't believe the official story? I would think there would be much better targets for someone that was bent on punishing someone for 911 mistruth/crimes than the Pentagon.

After that lunatic fringe question, and then the Bedell question, it was pretty obvious that the reporter was going for effect on the whole 'violent truther' line. Seems to me if there was ever a case for a cover up disinfo campaign based on the lack of credibility on the part of the 'truthers' this would be it.

Aside from that theory, he did look like a complete idiot leaving those questions for the end. What stupid questions. What kind of useful information did he really think he was going to get?

What the hell was that guys name? And what were those other guys names? And what is the name of the documentary they made?

What warning, adblockplus is your friend, I removed that warning about 6 months ago. I have not seen it since.

On topic, I feel goatee was right about the leading questions. It is the same thing trolls do. They try to lead you into a trap. That is the SOP of the morons in media.

They do not want the truth, they want a prepackaged soundbite they can use to sensationalize a 15 second clip, that they will show anything they want, when or if they put it on the air.

Thanks for the vids.

Dylan Avery was right on the money! ABC was there at the bidding of their masters to smear the "Truth" movement! It is simple and obvious. He did the interview knowing the man was there to portray him as a dangerous lunatic.

Do you know why he did the interview with that patronizing putz? Because he still hopes that some decent human being will actually look at the evidence and address the questions. He hoped that since they were already there at the conference they might interview family members, intelligence professionals or watch the presentation of the architects and engineers. They didn't... they just wanted to interview a lunatic.

Dylan and Korey some of us (the public) are watching. We see who you are, and I would like to thank you both.

I guess ABC is going to say Dylan Avery and Korey were working with John Bedell.
The reporter was smug about how he asked the questions and everyone can see that.
Thank G-d Loose Change had their own camera crew filming the interview so when ABC News chooses to twist what these two men had to say the world will see ABC for what they are.
It is obvious that the reporter was sent by their big boss, to only interview Loose Change to try and get an “emotional response” so, they can compare Lose Change to John Bedell and paint a picture that all 911 Truthers are radical and at the same time destroying everything loose change has done in waking people up to the facts.

It is obviously clear that Loose Change video has had a big impact around the world.
In addition, our government does not like it. To bad!


[edit on 8-3-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by keepureye2thesky


Hit your Esc key button to stop the flashing letters (and anything else on the page)

Let's go people, FLAGS! This needs to be at the top of ATS.

Dylan and Corey make some excellent points in these videos, and often turning the questions right back around on the ABC reporter. He tells the reporter flat out that he is not doing his job- in that they should be investigating the 9/11 attacks instead of investigating two young guys doing a documentary. I love it!

While I don't agree with everything in either Loose Change version, I must say, the core beliefs, principles, and spirit of Dylan and Corey must be commended!



[edit on Mon Mar 8th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

It would be interesting to compare this unedited source material with what ABC News put out.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Thus it is a good representative of the conspiracy movement- for everyone who has a legitimate issue, there's another dope making unsubstanciated accusations and spouting out nonsense based upon absolutely nothing but abject paranoia that ruins it for everyone else.

Who was that guy, anyway? Dylan Avery?

Yeah it was Dylan. And he is dead on the money, too. His accusations have every bit of truth behind them. We have seen over and over again the MSM take only the clips of interviews which best fit their agenda to demonize the truth movement, and air them. It happens all the time. And it isn't just Dylan who is sick of it.

Why doesn't the ABC reporter actually do some investigative journalism and find out why nano-thermite was found in the WTC rubble?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Although the typical 60 year old republican neocon might think Dylan Avery is a punk, the young generation absolutely loves what he is doing, and they feel his attitude is appropriate for the circumstance. So, you can make fun of his hair all you want, it won't stop the momentum.

They have a good point about the pentagon shooter, it certainly is putting the spot light on the 9/11 truth movement. The media thinks this will somehow make the 911 movement look bad, however, any news is good news with the 9/11 truth movement, since the facts stand up to scrutiny. Plus, Avery was right, all we know is that Bedel was a 9/11 truther, that's it, which I highly doubt. Most 9/11 truthers at least mention stand down orders or building 7, all Bedel did was talk like he was in a political science class talking about theories of government control. Granted, he implied government deception, but I did not hear one thing he said about the 9/11 facts. Plus, he sent an email to Ludwig Von Mises once in his life. OMG, should we consider those people as terrorists too? The media is so predictable. But what they don't realize is that this exposure is showing once again how negligent they are.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

I think these guys and the person who did "Who killed John Oneil" did excellent work.

The only thing that put me off of "loose change" was the idea that a missle was strapped onto the bottom of an airliner.

That lost it for me.

I do believe these kids are doing good work and have good hearts regardless.

If they are picking on you, you are doing something right. Cheers Dylan.

I just dont understand the people who refuse to question the official story. Even if the official story was 100% true, Im yet to see someone being made culpable for leaving the security forces so depleted that someone managed to attack the pentagon.

That's no mean feat, take any plane today (or any day other than 911 it seems) and try and get a plane within 2 miles of the pentagon, and see what happens.

i watched the original loose change video when it first came out (havnt seen any remixes or updates since). Anyway, i didnt even know the names of the two guys, even though i watched them debate a couple fellas from popular science that one time. In any event, as right as they might be...as much as i might agree with them, what 'truth' needs more than anything is people who are rock solid in their logic, articulate and able to present information in a way that doesnt offend unnecessarily. When careful, watertight arguments can be made, especially when they are true, they will be more 'offensive' than anything one can imagine.

A pat on the back to those young lads who stood their ground.

At first I thought the guy with the goatee was being a bit too pushy and risking some credibility there untill the moronic reporter brought in the John Bedell questions and it soon became clear what his agenda was.

You could see how much of an idiot he looked when he was totally demolished by the young lads.

These guys did great with this ABC putz-he was smug, condescending, self-important, and these guys took him apart. one of the guys showed some frustration, sure, but they have been relentlessly attacked for standing up. If any of us were in that position, I think we might react in the same way. These guys have iron balls, and their naysayers are cowardly, boot-licking sheep.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by dragonseeker]