ABC News Vs. Loose Change

The way Dylan nailed the ABC reporter just shows that Dylan is totally savvy to the corporate news scam. Dylan stepped outside the "framework of debate" as Chomsky calls it -- thereby undermining the ABC agenda. Then Dylan turned the tables on the reporter, exposing that ABC is not doing their job -- investigating the 911 scandal....

Originally posted by drew hempel
The way Dylan nailed the ABC reporter just shows that Dylan is totally savvy to the corporate news scam. Dylan stepped outside the "framework of debate" as Chomsky calls it -- thereby undermining the ABC agenda. Then Dylan turned the tables on the reporter, exposing that ABC is not doing their job -- investigating the 911 scandal....

If you subscribe to Noam Chomsky then you should know that Chomsky does NOT subscribe to these riciculous "inside job" claims, depite all the conspiracy people begging him to the contrary. His reasoning is simple- Bush and his henchmen foul up everything they touch, and there's no way they could have pulled any such conspriacy off even if they wanted to. Even if they NEEDED to.

Dylan Avery is a punk con artist and there's no way to make a punk con artist look like a saint regardless of how hard you try.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I've read most of Chomsky's 40 plus political books and I corresponded with Chomsky back in 2000 regarding his book "At War with Asia" being out of print.

Noam Chomsky told me that it is hard to get his books reissued. I then said that people often throw his name around without really reading his books -- he replied yes mostly people read the lighter "interview" books with Chomsky. Then Chomsky noted how in the early 20th C it was standard for one worker to read to all the other workers while they were all working but now reading is not as common.

Then his book "At War with Asia" was reissued the following year by AK Press.

If you study Chomsky's SOURCES then you find there are conspiracy influences -- particularly Rousseau -- for example:

Noam Chomsky, now seventy years, is Institute Professor, Department of .... Rousseau argues that civil society is hardly more than a conspiracy by the rich ...
www.chomsky.info/books/state02.pdf

ABC fails in their pathetic attempt to make us look like nutjobs. I feel sorry for these dumb reporters. They will all be jailed when the truth comes out for treason.

The generic conspiracist response to these videos could easily have been predicted in advance, ie, - A couple of heroic young warriors of truth being interrogated & asked unreasonable questions by some corporate stooge of The Man/the New World Order.

He's a journalist. It's his job to ask questions. One of the most obvious, and one which I never see addressed, is - how many people were involved in the 9/11 attacks, if they were not perpetrated by Al Qaeda?

This reporter, naturally, aks the question in the interview, and the answer, predictably, is the same as it always seems to be. I can't remember the exact quote, but the response is something like, - "That's a loaded question."

No it's not!! Why so paranoid? He wants to know, as do I, some detail on the ghastly slander of former presidents,vice presidents, CIA, FBI, structural engineers, firefighters etc etc If you don't know who exacty was involved, then take a guess, instead of defaming anyone & everyone as you happen to see fit.

One would suspect that the reason why detailed hypothetical narratives are not conceived is that it all begins to look a bit silly, and of course highly offensive eg, - After the missile hit the Pentagon, X number of operatives quickly ran out & started to scatter the pre-prepared mutilated body parts & plane debris, all over the place.

Then the fake structural engineers did as they were instructed & lied that the Towers were about to collapse, as did the helicopter pilots, positioned as close as anyone outside the Towers, who repeatedly said that these buildings do not look good, we think they're in some serious risk of collapse.

Then the remote controlled plane smashed into the tower; then the person with the morphed voice pretended to be the passenger; then Ted Olson decided to sell his wife & three thousand others down the river; then they hit the exact part of the pentagon that would give rise to conspiracy theories; then they managed to somehow stop the thousands who must be involved from ever saying a single word about the plot to anyone ,etc etc

All of this might be true, but it hardly seems likely - and if you happen to believe it, some actual hard evidence would be nice

Originally posted by drew hempel
Noam Chomsky told me that it is hard to get his books reissued. I then said that people often throw his name around without really reading his books -- he replied yes mostly people read the lighter "interview" books with Chomsky. Then Chomsky noted how in the early 20th C it was standard for one worker to read to all the other workers while they were all working but now reading is not as common.

Yes, I know. I'm trying to get a copy of his book, "9-11" with little success. His position is that the attack ISN'T the result of some idiotic false flag operation, but rather, it's a "we reap what we sow" reaction from dreadfully arrogant foreign policy. I can see his point and possibly agree to it.

I find it ironic that the main people who'll necessarily protest against his assessment are the 9/11 conspiracy proponents themselves, becuase for Chomsky's opinion (9/11 was a backlash from arrogant US foreign policy) ito be right, it necessarily means that their own opinion (there IS no real foreign policy since everythign from the 9/11 attack to the existence of Al Qaida is the invention of a single global US policy) has to be wrong.

Such are the wages of being a slave in following political dogma.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
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

Two words - "Bring it"

It's my right to question what the government does and to hold them in high scrutiny. It's my right and the right of every American to dissent. If they don't like it too bad, quit lying to us, do your jobs and start representing us again. Don't ever forget we put you in office we can just as easily vote you out.
Sorry about the slightly off topic rant to from the OP.

We have an exorbitant amount of technology in this country that can finally put this debate to rest. We can simulate things along the lines of wind tunnels and traffic patterns through out any specific time period.
Someone with access to technology like this could theoretically make a computer model for the Twin towers and surrounding buildings. Somewhere there are models for the Airplanes. Lets make a computer simulation of the two planes striking the towers and see if they actually would fall under the effects of the strike. They would have to guess on how much paper, furniture, cleaning supplies such as Windex and mop buckets were actually inside the towers at the time.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by js331975]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Better to go with Peter Dale Scott -- apparently he no longer uses the term "deep politics" but that's what we're dealing with -- an international conspiracy (network) of rogues where governments are the main drug dealer, weapon dealer, and, as Chomsky has emphasized since the 1980s -- the new Cold War is STATE TERRORISM. So whether it was Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Israel or the U.S. -- it's all CIA-based and before that it was British.

Jason Bermas' last film FABLED ENEMIES does an excellent job on 911 and the international intelligence network:

video.google.com...#

I have a B.A. in international relations -- another great book is John Perkin's follow up SECRET HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

www.amazon.com...

I actually gave this book to an Ecuadorian -- a stranger in the park who was a college student -- because the book has amazing expose on the U.S. control of politics in Ecuador.

Of course there's been a major revolution in Latin America since Chavez was elected -- I was in Venezuela in 1998 right beforehand, and talked to bare-footed peasants in a hut who had never voted before. They told me they were voting for Chavez.


[edit on 11-3-2010 by drew hempel]

Why do they always pick Loose Change?

Are they selecting an easy target that provides a lot of unimportant distraction?

Why don't they go after 9/11 Mysteries?

psik

[edit on 11-3-2010 by psikeyhackr]

I have only seen loose change once, and I'm not much of a "truther" (Even though I support what they seek) so to speak, but I found it to have a lot more questions then the answers I was searching for. The one thing about the truth movement is that they are at least asking these questions instead of digesting whatever the MSM tells them to... And these young men put a spanking on that reporter, and actually gave me a new found respect for Dylan. He's 100% right on how he handled himself.
But how can anyone really change their mind on what they (in their heads) saw that day. Your average person sees a terrorist attack plain and simple but while I was watching the second plane hit and watching New Yorkers running scared, I can't help but remember the news video (I HAVE SEARCHED FOREVER!!!) of the FBI/SS/CIA? person with the same earpiece that you see the presidents ss men wearing not even seeming to pay attention to the mayhem around him... He was just looking down, finger to ear and calmly talking to whomever was on the other line. this was roughly 25 minutes after the second plane hit. Has nobody seen this except me?... I know I'm not imagining it, and I'm sure there is a reasonable explantion as I know there is a FBI NY field office and maybe he was just in the area, but watching everyone around him running and screaming while he's just calmly talking and watching really made me think on that day, "What the hell is REALLY happening?!"...
Your average person like my Mother or father will immediately dismiss anything they see online, simply because it's online. NOW if ABC had done a piece like loose change and asked these same questions I KNOW the movement would be much bigger, but this goes to show that this is obviously not in TPTB best interest...

Oh how nice it must be to go from 2 nobody's to 2 guys with nice make-overs and hair coloring and gotees with their hostile attitude to any media outlet that asks them any questions that they can't answer . All 3 or 4
or how many different versions of loose change all have massive holes in their versions of what happen . Going from no planes to now saying yea there were hijackers , their on film .
Dude , cut those puss hairs off your face , take the color out of your hair and just live off the millions of dollars you made off 9-11 . Blood money that you intended to make , and what a nice job you did . Selling
lies to anyone who loves a good conspiracy . Again , Nice job @sshole.

reply to post by linv5800


Naw corporate media censorship is well documented -- check out "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" -- an excellent documentary:

www.linktv.org...

Here's another "Toxic Sludge is Good for you!"

video.google.com...#

[edit on 14-3-2010 by drew hempel]

S&F, definitely: and stars to the people who posted the ABC and RT segments.

That ABC reporter has one of the worst cases of "punch-me face" I've seen since Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan. And it was good to see him being slam-dunked by Dylan and Corey. (I'd really like to know if it's "Corey", as I've thought for some time now, or "Korey", as captioned by ABC. Of course they might not have checked their facts...)

And the RT report! What a model of journalistic integrity by comparison. They even took some of the Loose Change interview and cut it in.

It's utterly tragic that most Americans seem incapable of noticing the kind of scams that ABC are trying here. I remember when the anthrax attacks were going on and I kept hearing the phrase,

"...believed to be the work of foreign terrorists"

all the time. in case anyone hadn't noticed, this is not journalism. Believed... by whom? On what evidence? Which foreign terrorists?

Journalists are supposed to ask questions, not elide them.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What? I don't like that kid either, but he was right about the reporter. The reporter was being a jerk. I'm not so sure if I like your agenda with this post. The kid doesn't present himself in the greatest of ways but the reporter is supposed to be a more reputable person and he was a d*&k.
We always insult when we feel inferior. Grow up

I 've been following "Loose Change" since the first version. I'm under the impression it never received any awards of any type, yet the amount of research that went into the documentary should embarass and inspire MSM. Bravo Dylan and Corey! And the revised versions are an honest follow up to where their research has lead them rather than just resting on the original which they could easily have chosen to do.

lmao they owned the CBS guy on a couple of occasions.

I liked the part where they stated MSM all they like to do is take the easy way out and make fun of loose change guys instead of doing a real investigation and doing their job.

reply to post by linv5800


they never stated no planes? proof? No planes was some disinfo idiot trying to make the truth movement look bad.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why do they always pick Loose Change?

Are they selecting an easy target that provides a lot of unimportant distraction?

Why don't they go after 9/11 Mysteries?

psik

[edit on 11-3-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Or how about that "Dr." Judy or whatever her name is.

MSM will always be a joke to me.

reply to post by vicen


Here is the problem with that. if they give out a number and later they say a different number, then MSM can turn around and use that flip flopping tactic against them. MSM knows only how to attack people. That is how they are trained by TPTB. They only follow Yellow Journalism and not real journalism.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
A great example of the duplicity and agenda of ABC News is the brief snippet of Sander Hicks. Hicks is manipulated into discrediting himself by claiming he is a scientist which is easily proved false. This is done so that the viewer of the report will identify with the interviewer’s point of view. The interviewer’s point of view is that this man is misguided or even crazy and the come away will be that this movement is filled with the “lunatic fringe” that the reporter continually mentions

However, what ABC News does NOT mention is that within the very room where this report is filed there are credentialed professionals, engineers, scientists, etc who question the 9/11 events. These degreed professionals are not interviewed. Why?

Wasn't ABC also quoted as All Barrack Channel?

Don't they have some kind of 'marriage' with the white house?