Monday, September 10, 2007

Adding Insult to Injury: Final Arguments Against Loose Change

Sorry, I just couldn't resist...
We've covered the plane hitting the Pentagon. We've gone over the basics of the collapse of the World Trade Center. We've rehashed the twoofer arguments about the cell phone calls and the crash of Flight 93. One by one, every single argument has been debunked and every ridiculous "theory" has been laughed at.

But those are just the major points. Dylan Avery and his tin-foil hat brigade also claim that all of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive and well; this is a blatant lie. This stems from an issue in the days directly after the attacks when several families with sons who had the same names complained loudly (with the help of Al Jazeera) that their sons were not involved but were, in fact, still alive. These were all cases of mistaken identity. In fact, Mohammed Atta's father praised the 9/11 attacks and said there would be "more to come."

So, Dylan...if the government was involved in making 9/11 happen and was capable of making hundreds of innocent civilians disappear, don't you think they'd make short work of making the 19 "hijackers" disappear just as efficiently? You say that the government attacked the Pentagon with a cruise missile, the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and Flight 93 actually landed in Cleveland, but that all of the passengers on these flights are now dead at the hands of a government that plotted the whole thing in order to bring about some kind of revolution? So it goes without saying that they should be able to dispose of the scapegoats, right?


As for the tape Dylan supposedly debunked of Osama bin Laden's confession, he claims that because the video is of poor quality and the man claiming to be Osama eats with his right hand--Osama being left-handed and all--it can't be him. But Osama is eating in accordance with Muslim teachings, which state that Satan eats and drinks with his left hand, so believers should eat with their right. The same video, if watched in its entirety, shows the man's face perfectly clearly--it is Osama bin Laden.

Hey, Dylan, I learned about Muslim culture from the Qur'an. Ever read that book? Didn't think so.

What about the claim that billions in insurance for investors had gone unclaimed? That claim was as of 9/27/2001. Dylan didn't check after that. By December of that year, the insurance money had been claimed.


He also claims that more than $900 million in gold was believed to be in the WTC on 9/11, and that it was found "inside a 10-wheel truck accompanied by several cars." Wrong again. All of the gold stored in WTC 4 was recovered by emergency crews, watched by heavily armed federal agents, and it was dug from underneath a 10-wheel truck and several cars that had been crushed by falling debris. Another case of taking a truth and twisting it.

Aaaaand, there was only $230 million, every bit of it accounted for. Where'd Dylan get that $900 million figure? He must've pulled it out of his ass. The cars were empty...because the people who owned them were all in the building!

Uh-oh! 'Nother oopsie!

And he keeps spewing these billion-dollar figures as if it's fact, but he's not revealing where he got these figures. Truth is, all of the gold was accounted for. Period. The logs matched what they found. And yes, I'd say it's pretty normal to have a heavily-armed guard when you're digging more than two million bucks' worth of gold out of a vault beneath a massive crime scene.

And thermite? of Dylan's favorite fellow twoofers, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University, wrote a paper claiming that thermite was used by the military as the "explosive" material that brought the buildings down. Surely he jests...thermite is not an explosive material. It's an incendiary, yes, but not an explosive. It is NEVER used in demolition. Oh, yeah--BYU wants absolutely nothing to do with Jones' paper, nor his claims. Not one expert on construction engineering or demolition and chemistry reviewed his paper before it went public. And the twoofers herald it with great fanfare.

So why does a group of people do something like this? Dylan Avery isn't alone. He's the one everyone knows best. His two cohorts, Jason Bermas and Korey Rowe, are just like him: they eat it all up. They love the exposure. Korey Rowe, in fact, was arrested on July 25 of this year for desertion of the US Army. If you go to Dylan's MySpace page, you find hundreds of pictures of him and his buddies in their many public appearances.

They "dedicate" their film to "the lives we lost on September 11, 2001," and they claim to be supporting the living victims. But have you ever seen these goons in action? I've seen video footage (not hard to find--you can get it on YouTube) of these little pricks openly insulting firefighters and police officers at Ground Zero. Why? Because the people they're arguing with won't buy their slipshod theories. Anybody who doesn't immediately and without question follow their insanity is ignored, or worse. One one occasion, a poster on Dylan's blog openly and vividly threatened the life of a 9/11 survivor, mentioning "if I find you..." To which Dylan promptly responds by telling the poster that his subject is at Ground Zero every weekday, and the hours he works there.

Sure...they care about the victims. They care so much that they accuse Bernard Brown, father of Bernard Brown II, of "sending his son to die"--Bernard Sr. was a chief petty officer in the US Navy and worked in the Pentagon, and his 11-year-old son was on Flight 77 when it was flown into the building.

So, I guess Dylan is offering yet another scenario--maybe a plane did hit the Pentagon, but the military set the whole thing up, including CPO Brown, who supposedly "sent his son to die." That is a claim that I find not only disgusting, but deeply disturbing. Only a group of complete lunatics could be so desperate to prove their wacknut ideas that they would go as far as to attack the victims.

I have learned an important lesson in watching these people: it's all about emotion. I've watched lone, intelligent people stand up to them and nearly get lynched by groups of these fanatics. They protest and shout and scream until they're hoarse, and they don't put up with anyone attempting to debate with them. The very instant a sane, rational person attempts to do what they're demanding ("ask questions, demand answers" is their war cry), they gang up and shout them all down. They don't want to hear the truth. They want to believe that the "official story" as they call it is a big lie; it's what they live for. And they get very personal and very emotional when you try to have an intelligent conversation with them.

This all goes back to a post I wrote last year, "Everybody Loves a Train Wreck." We love drama. We live for it. And we will go to great lengths to make something simple into something more complex, just for the entertainment value. Then, when someone comes along and tries to burst our proverbial bubble, we become openly outraged and intensely defensive. It's the same thing here.

Loose Change isn't the only group of wingnuts out there. The best I've heard so far--you'll love this--is from Sophia Shafquat, a batty twoofer whose theory is so outrageous it's funny. Her argument against the "pancaking collapse" theory about the Towers is to tell you to say "clunkety-clunk" 110 times and see how long it takes you. That, to her, proves that it had to be controlled demolition.

Conspiracy Theory radio talk show host Alex Jones compares himself to Galileo (major points in the kook index for that one), saying, "...they put him in jail for saying the world was round. Here we are saying, 'the world is round,' and we're being persecuted for it."'re being laughed at because you're hysterically stupid.

It gets even more hilarious when Sophia says, "I know I'm not crazy, and I know there are other people out there who know I'm not crazy..." folks just keep tellin' yourselves that. As long as it helps you sleep at night.

No comments: