April 2006 Note: A second edition of Dylan Avery's film Loose Change can now be viewed online. The second edition is stronger than the first. Take a look. (Bring a doctor with you! We dare you! Can you sit through it?) Just look. It may not answer many questions, but it asks many, and that's the first step.
August 29, 2005
Loose Change lays the 9/11 fraud bareSunday Sunday, but no sun day. I look out of my back window at the cloudy sky where the World Trade Center used to be and I realize I am a bit horrified. Under the surface of this daily coping mentality is a residual terror of living in this time and place, now after 9/11, in a place where such a monstrous thing could happen, and the people who were in power at the time are still in power, still lording over us. Our safety is still in their hands. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the Scooter, and who knows what other shadowy figures lurking behind them, joint chiefs, military hardliners, corporate chieftains of industry.
These residual horrors were stirred up last night because I saw a film, no fictional story but a horror story that is also reality TV. It was a direct-to-DVD production called "Loose Change" and I received it as a premium for donating to WBAI FM, Peace and Justice Radio in New York.
[Buy "Loose Change" here or here.]
The film was written and directed by one Dylan Avery, and it's a brilliant piece of research presented cinematically with great effectiveness. It's one particular selection of the mountains of evidence that are available about what happened on 9/11, and even a small portion of it is enough to convince you that the official story is nowhere near true.
"Bush knocked down the towers," goes the rap song by Immortal Technique. And when you look at the films, you can see clearly the explosions shooting rubble out of the sides of the towers at intervals ahead of the collapsing building above. You see all three buildings collapsing into themselves, imploding, allegedly because of small fires, although that has never happened, ever in history before that day when it suddenly happened three times.
You see that there were a number of "drills" and procedures during which people had to vacate floors for "security reasons" in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and you see that the security of the building was under the control of -- Marvin Bush! President Bush's other brother. What an amazing coincidence!
And you see clip after clip of the news broadcasters that day (many of them on Fox) talking about the "explosions", the "huge explosions" that took place after the jet collision. You see fire department officials saying they went into the parking garage under the building and there was "nothing there". It had been blown away. The windows in the lobby were blown out, all because of a jet crash seventy stories or so above, according to the official line.
You hear a Fox reporter on the scene saying that the second plane that hit the towers had no windows. "It wasn't an ordinary passenger jet, not like anything I had seen before." There is no uncertainty in his voice. He's merely talking about what he just saw moments before there on the scene. Then you look again at the footage and you see this dark shape. It's a brilliant sunny morning and everything is gleaming in the morning sun. The towers are reflecting the morning sun coming from behind the camera, everything is lit brightly, showing it's whitest colors, the metal reflecting sunbeams. And amidst it all this single dark shape, this menacing missile in the shape of an airplane, but somehow different. There is a load underneath the body, something that is not on a passenger jet. And there is a flash, an explosion right before it collides with the building. All these things are clearly seen on film. What do they mean?
And there is the film presented by the government of Osama bin Laden allegedly confessing to having pulled off the attacks. But he writes something with his right hand (bin Laden is left handed, says the CIA). He wears a watch and a ring, which is not allowed in bin Laden's religion. And when you put his face next to bona fide pictures of bin Laden, the similarity doesn't go beyond the hat and the beard.
And there is the interview with bin Laden in a European publication in late September 2001 in which he said he did not do it.
The case is so huge and overwhelming, the evidence so massive that it stares you in the face as if from all sides at once. But the implications are so monstrous it is very hard to see, hard to take stock of. This is no movie. This is really happening. And what can we do?
Seen through a closeup lens, analyzed closely, you can't help but be amazed at the brilliance of the whole scheme, but more remarkable as to its monstrousness, its heartlessness, its ruthlessness, than its precision, the brilliance of the deception. Just as in the Kennedy assassination, the closer one looks the more one is dazzled by the complexity, and there are clues pointing in many directions. But at the same time, the holes in the story are not that hard to find. And underlying the imperfection of the cover up is the threat itself, always lurking behind the surface. The official story is enforced not by logic, not by the integrity of the story, but by brute force. The implication behind the flimsy lies from the corner of Cheney's sneer, the pursed lips of Rumsfeld, the smirk of Bush is, "Yeah. We did it. And if we can do that, just think what else we can do if you try to challenge us."
The flimsy official story falls apart at nearly every major point. The hoax is bared to all who choose to see. Who, then, will have the courage to point it out publicly? We are the terrorized. As the film says, the U.S. was hijacked. It was a psychological attack on the American people and it was carried out with military precision.
More on "Loose Change":
Prison Planet; Tom Flocco (scroll down); novakeo.com; The Ultimate 9/11 Video on CD ROM; Revelations 9/11 (negative review);
See also LetsRoll911.org
The incipient threat appears to increase as we see Bush increasingly backed into a corner, a trapped rat ready to lash out. But this is no ordinary rodent. This is the most powerful man in the world, and a man of tremendous rage, for reasons it will be left to historians to figure out, if there are any.
According to a report in Capital Hill Blue, "While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him." The article purports to quote Bush aides who are confiding that he frequently explodes at them, saying "Go f**k yourself" or "Go to Hell".
According to the article, Bush screamed "Who gives a flying f**k what the polls say," at a recent strategy meeting. "Iím the President and Iíll do whatever I goddamned please. They donít know s**t."
The article continues: "Bushís behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of 'Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,' is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear."
Bush also increasingly flips the bird, gives the finger, the article says. (See Google Images: "Bush + finger")
"It remains to be seen whether chants like ó 'U-S-A! U-S-A' ó will change the public perception of the conflict that was started on a false pretext and is proving to be expensive in terms of money and lives. Deccan Herald
Gary Hart: "History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security. But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?" Washington Post According to politicalwire.com: "The White House seems to be a little defensive about President Bush's summer vacation. According to the San Bernardino Sun, a spokesman insisted 'the reason that Bush is in Crawford, Texas, is due to the renovation of the West Wing of the White House.' Said the spokesman: 'He's operating on a full schedule; he's just doing it from the ranch instead of from the White House. The only week he had officially off was this last week.' Whether he's on vacation or just away, USA Today notes he's been 'shadowed by anti-war demonstrators' the entire time." LA Times: "The poll showed that only 34% of those surveyed approved of Schwarzenegger's job performance, a 31% decline since last year. The poll showed that 38% approved of President Bush's job performance." PhotoCartoons: PabloOnPolitics.com