Ugh this article is weak, clever, but Weak. I shall illustrate:
I've heard some of Avery's fans describe his movie as "the red pill," the drug that takes Keanu Reeves down "The Matrix's" rabbit hole. During the past month, I've swallowed the pill about a half-dozen times, following Avery and other 9/11 skeptics down a treacherous path toward the alleged truth. I'm sorry to say I didn't find it; much of Avery's film has been debunked even by fellow 9/11 skeptics, and some of its theories verge on the bizarre. If you care to look, you won't find a shred of proof that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, or that the World Trade Center was stuffed with gold bars, or that the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a commercial jet.
But that's not the whole story. "Loose Change" may traffic in fiction, but it sinks its hooks in. If you're unfamiliar with the official story -- if you haven't, say, perused the hundreds of pages of documentation supporting the 9/11 Commission's conclusions -- you may well find the movie's false reality strangely seductive.
While i agree the film isn't 100% accurate, it does raise questions which aren't easily dismissed as he claims. Above in bold - I have, i bought the 9-11 Comission report the first day it was released, read it front to back, and believed them, that is until i started reading about the inconsistencies. And upon re-reading, im not sure if he is talking about the 9-11 report itself or some mysterious documentation that "exists" and "supports" said report. That i have NOT seen, or read. It would have been nice if he coulda gave us a link.
Basic questions -- like, why would the government spare the lives of the people on those planes only to kill thousands more? -- go unaddressed.
Here he's insinuating they werent killed, which i think is obvious that they were, or were used in some Mengle-esque experimentation. Eitherway he's avoiding the question, which is if they werent killed as the official story claims, what happened to them?
Your frustration builds when Avery attempts to bolster his theory by proposing that passengers' cellphone calls from the airplanes were phony. He cites a study that he says proves that phones wouldn't get cellular signals at high altitudes, and he argues that the manner in which people spoke to their families -- Mark Bingham identified himself using his full name in a call to his mother -- means that "voice morphing technology" was involved. Come on, really?
Actually mine didn't. I had read about this voice morphing technology seperately while bored and collecting random info. Cell phone's Don't get signal's at 30k Feet, take one with you, turn it on, Try it. Even shortly after take off, or shortly before landing, they still dont work, at least that's been my experience. Not to mentioned that the author's argument consists of "Come on, really?" to which i would reply, "Yes, and the sky IS blue. Far out huh?"
Let's start with the Pentagon. Avery says that photographs from the scene show "no trace of Flight 77," but Hoffman points to pictures that show "engine parts, landing gear parts, and scraps of fuselage that match the livery of an American Airlines Boeing 757." Hoffman also notes that damage to the Pentagon's facade is "consistent in every way" with a 757 crash -- photographs taken before the outer ring of the building collapsed show "punctures in the paths of the densest parts of the plane, and breached limestone in the paths of the wing ends," he writes. The movie's suggestion that eyewitnesses expressed huge differences over what they saw coming at the Pentagon also turns out to be false. As Hoffman explains, most witnesses say they saw a large jetliner approaching the building, and the few who say they saw a small jet were those farthest away from the site.
Well first of all, considering Hoffman is arguing there was a plane at the pentagon my first thought is that he is CoIntelPro. Anyone that's been in this long enough knows there is no way that a 757 crashed at the pentagon, and anyone arguing otherwise problably is either a UI or Conscious conspirator. Again - release the footage, prove it.
Another thing about Hoffman is he:
runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis, has looked into the film's claims more thoroughly than just about anyone else online.
Or well placed to engineer damage control and further corrupt the 9-11 mess(its not really a movement, more like a bunch of robots running around in circles, smacking into one another constantly).
Okay I've had enough, he continues to go into the he said she said routine which in my opinion is designed to obscure and confuse the reader as opposed to deliver any sort of clear conclusion. This fact alone indicates that the author is likely cointelpro. Which is ironic because he brings up the fact that people have been labelling eachother as such, probably to make it outlandish to throw the label where it belongs, on his forehead.
