Recent Writings About Loose Change

General 9/11 news, post happenings in the movement or overviews of the evidence.

Recent Writings About Loose Change

NewtonFig
Newbie
Joined: Dec 16 2006, 09:12 PM

Dec 16 2006, 09:19 PM #1

I am a student at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and I was recently in a Documentary Film class in which we researched and wrote about certain documentaries of varying origins and topics. One of these was Loose Change. If you'd like to look at extensive viewing guides for the film, please go to this site:

http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documentary/guides.html

To access the six research papers about Loose Change--which contain topics such as persuasion, the origins of conspiracy theories, mise-en-scene, and the "living documentary"--along with all the other documentary essays, you may go here:

http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documentary/papers.html

If you have any questions about any of the guides or papers, you may contact the authors, or post in this thread. Thank you.
Quote
Like
Share

Terrorcell
Advanced Member
Terrorcell
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 21 2006, 06:44 AM

Dec 18 2006, 02:47 AM #2

Wow, are all 7 of them negative?


*edit :

Also, it appears in Liz's article dismisses all of the following:



A)Operation Northwoods.

B) Evidence that the FBI was directly responsible for the 1993 WTC attack.

C) 9/11 Wargames.

D) Osama Bin Laden's involvement with the CIA which began under the current President's Father's reign as head of the CIA during which time the Bush's and Bin Laden's had a well documented very intimate business relationship.



I would like to ask Liz if she has also "researched" these area's or if she simply just set out to write a hit piece on the 9/11 Truth Movement?

And could she please state her thoughts on those?
REICHSTAG 911 : PART I : THE NEW WORLD ORDER & 9/11

REICHSTAG 911 : PART II : THE DEATH OF FREEDOM IN AMERICA
With such intense technical planning in other aspects do you not think they would have said we shouldn't :

A) hit the (light) poles
B ) blow up the WTC
C) blow up WTC7
D) fake hijackers
E) bomb the GWB bridge
F) fake bin laden taps

because the guys on the Internet will figure it out?
See if you can guess the correct answer for what came out of a "9/11 Truther"!!
Quote
Like
Share

NewtonFig
Newbie
Joined: Dec 16 2006, 09:12 PM

Dec 24 2006, 08:44 PM #3

If you'd like to contact her about that, you can use the e-mail address provided in her viewing guide. However, if you'd like to bring other people into this discussion then I can consider asking her to come to this forum.

I can personally answer any questions about my paper about the mise-en-scene in Loose Change. Any other contribution is purely as a liaison.
Quote
Like
Share

dylan avery
Advanced Member
dylan avery
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Dec 24 2006, 10:55 PM #4

those guides made me laugh.

one reviewer, Jenny Stalder, was going off about "who is Jenny Carr? how can we trust she was there? alot of other audio bits like this sound staged..."

first off, it's Ginny Carr. second, her audio file is widely available on the net. and third, making blanket statements like that about the entire film shows how little research she did.

let's look some more...

Jenny Stalder
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documen ... change.pdf
This paper reviews and criticizes the documentary film, Loose Change, and Dylan
Avery’s poor arguments, unreliable sources, credibility, editing techniques, and
narration. It serves as a guide to those interested in what Avery could have done
better to produce a more effective and credible documentary on September 11th.

Nick Nobel’s “Louder than words”
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documen ... change.pdf
This Trinity University student, Nick Nobel, reviews and criticizes mise-en-scene and
its manipulative qualities in Loose Change. Nobel analyzes lighting, space, color,
and other elements of mise-en-scene in Avery’s documentary.

Alexandra Sedeno
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documen ... change.pdf
Sedeno looks at the flaws of the documentary film, and director Dylan Avery’s
invention of words and versions of what occurred during the tragic events of
September 11th. She also reviews Avery’s invented information about 9/11.

"invented information"? "mis-en-scene"? LIGHTING? you guys are in way over your heads.

"poor arguments, unreliable sources, credibility, editing techniques, and
narration."

I'd like to see Jenny's documentary.

these "guides" are laughable at best.
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Quote
Like
Share

dylan avery
Advanced Member
dylan avery
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Dec 24 2006, 10:57 PM #5

NewtonFig @ Dec 24 2006, 08:44 PM wrote: If you'd like to contact her about that, you can use the e-mail address provided in her viewing guide. However, if you'd like to bring other people into this discussion then I can consider asking her to come to this forum.

I can personally answer any questions about my paper about the mise-en-scene in Loose Change. Any other contribution is purely as a liaison.
mise-en-scene?

look man, throwing around fancy film school terms does NOT make you an authority on the matter.

i have a question. what have YOU kids done? it's easy to throw insults and ad hominem attacks, but your guides fall very short on actually tackling the evidence presented.
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Quote
Like
Share

Starbelly
Advanced Member
Starbelly
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 07:11 PM

Dec 24 2006, 11:29 PM #6

dylan avery @ Dec 24 2006, 10:55 PM wrote:those guides made me laugh.

one reviewer, Jenny Stalder, was going off about "who is Jenny Carr?  how can we trust she was there?  alot of other audio bits like this sound staged..."

first off, it's Ginny Carr.  second, her audio file is widely available on the net.  and third, making blanket statements like that about the entire film shows how little research she did. 

let's look some more...

Jenny Stalder
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documen ... change.pdf
This paper reviews and criticizes the documentary film, Loose Change, and Dylan
Avery’s poor arguments, unreliable sources, credibility, editing techniques, and
narration.  It serves as a guide to those interested in what Avery could have done
better to produce a more effective and credible documentary on September 11th.

Nick Nobel’s “Louder than words”
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documen ... change.pdf
This Trinity University student, Nick Nobel, reviews and criticizes mise-en-scene and
its manipulative qualities in Loose Change.  Nobel analyzes lighting, space, color,
and other elements of mise-en-scene in Avery’s documentary.

Alexandra Sedeno
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documen ... change.pdf
Sedeno looks at the flaws of the documentary film, and director Dylan Avery’s
invention of words and versions of what occurred during the tragic events of
September 11th.  She also reviews Avery’s invented information about 9/11.

"invented information"?  "mis-en-scene"?  LIGHTING?  you guys are in way over your heads.

"poor arguments, unreliable sources, credibility, editing techniques, and
narration." 

I'd like to see Jenny's documentary.

these "guides" are laughable at best.
Whats with these reviews? The "editing" in Loose Change? Like playing back to back mainstream news footage of eye witnesses all reporting explosions & more explosions?

Unreliable sources?
Like William rodriguez who was actually there when
A - the planes struck
&
B - as the towers came down.

Rodriguez: you know someone who is in a better position to make judgement than some internet film school bloggers.
Or how about more of these unreliable sources like taking an official document from the National Archives. Hmm... or actual firefighter tapes - again more eyewitnesses on the actual day in real-time.
Heroes in the building reporting quote "explosions."

Yeah letting an audience address the original footage from those at the scenes without the spell of the official myth - How amateur eh? Not very avant garde i must agree.

Well - you know maybe it was amateurish in look. Its hard not having unrestricted access to the best equipment at your finger tips, no corperate backing and limited funds. But hey, Dylan Avery made it a blockbuster in its own right with it bein translated into countless languages, aired on mainstream television in other continents, and soon to be in theatres.

All the film school credentials, certificates and jargon boasted by these type of people count for nothing in the real world. How many of you will achieve anything on the scale of Loose Change? I'd put 10 bucks on none.

Regardless you agree with the information or not. Show a little respect where respect is due.
Quote
Like
Share

lesbyfriends
Newbie
Joined: Dec 25 2006, 07:00 AM

Dec 25 2006, 07:15 AM #7

does anyone else note the irony of getting mad at film students for analyzing a film while fervently supporting a filmmaker? just curious.
Quote
Like
Share

NewtonFig
Newbie
Joined: Dec 16 2006, 09:12 PM

Dec 25 2006, 07:25 AM #8

dylan avery @ Dec 24 2006, 10:55 PM wrote:those guides made me laugh... these "guides" are laughable at best.
Thank God! I found your "documentary" the laugh-out-loud romp of the season! I'm glad we could make each other laugh so much!
dylan avery @ Dec 24 2006, 10:57 PM wrote: mise-en-scene?

look man, throwing around fancy film school terms does NOT make you an authority on the matter.

i have a question.  what have YOU kids done?  it's easy to throw insults and ad hominem attacks, but your guides fall very short on actually tackling the evidence presented.
Who ever said it was our intention to tackle the evidence presented? I was simply analyzing your techniques. The fact that you reference a Japanese horror film, Wikipedia, and an online Neo-Nazi publication doesn't make it true or false, but it is difficult to get around the dubious origins of this “evidence." The fact that you deliberately manipulate evidence and mask its source tells me that you needed to stretch the truth to make Loose Change at all plausible. If you'd like to tell me specific shortcomings of my essay or viewing guide I'd love to discuss them with you.

What have I done? Was a viewing guide and essay not enough for you? You want me to hold your hand through the process? I promise not to use big words like "mise-en-scene" (it's okay, you can use "ad hominem" all you want. How about “reductio ad absurdum”? Or “semper ubi sub ubi”?). I guess I'm not worthy of an opinion unless I cobble together copyrighted material and sell it online for personal gain.

If it makes any difference, I've produced numerous film projects. You may view some of the shorter ones on my YouTube account.
Starbelly @ Dec 24 2006, 11:29 PM wrote:All the film school credentials, certificates and jargon boasted by these type of people count for nothing in the real world. How many of you will achieve anything on the scale of Loose Change? I'd put 10 bucks on none.

Regardless you agree with the information or not. Show a little respect where respect is due.
Soooo if something is marginally popular on the Internet, I am obligated to respect it? In that case, I'll go ahead and respect Tubgirl, Goatse, and Lemon Party. A bunch of people clicked on those links, therefore it is a respectable form of artistic expression.

Instead of spouting off your knee-jerk response when you get wind of someone attacking your precious Loose Change, why don't you read my paper on mise-en-scene, and critique it in a calm and sensible fashion? Surely you're able to look at the film objectively, and see the sloppy (yet effective) way Avery manipulates the film stock to lead the audience to his predetermined conclusion. Even if you agree 100% in his claims, you can see the manipulation going on here.

Thank you all for your interest in the essays and viewing guides. If you have any more questions or criticisms, don't be afraid to address them in this thread.
Quote
Like
Share

Sunberry
Newbie
Sunberry
Newbie
Joined: Dec 25 2006, 08:10 AM

Dec 25 2006, 08:23 AM #9

Dear me. Good work, Nick. I thought we’d just post these things and that would be it.

Before I get into this, I’ll introduce myself. I’m Daphne, I wrote one of the viewing guides on Control Room (excellent film, by the way, I highly recommend it).

Anyway, the course we wrote these guides for was about documentary theory in general, with a special focus on how filmmakers use the documentary form to portray “truth” about the world. I put truth in quotations there because one of the first rules of documentary is that it is a representation, not a reflection, of the real world. I’m sure you see where I’m going with this.

Listen, you’re accusing the government of twisting the evidence in order to mislead people. Shouldn’t you be ready to defend yourself against the same accusations? The film Loose Change is a representation of truth. It is vulnerable and subject to analysis and questioning and all that other lovely stuff. Are you surprised?

Instead of getting offended at the mere idea that your thesis (let alone your techniques!) are being examined, why don’t you explain yourself? You seem to be trying to promote the idea that the film speaks for itself and anyone who doesn’t believe it at face value is an idiot. Our class watched an excess of films over the semester. Some were excellent and thought provoking. I’m afraid to report that Loose Change provoked mostly scoffing and laughter at our screening. My classmates’ criticisms are valid. Your sources include for American Free Press for god’s sake! Please explain.
Quote
Like
Share

Killtown
Advanced Member
Killtown
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:29 PM

Dec 25 2006, 08:25 AM #10

Sunberry @ Dec 25 2006, 08:23 AM wrote: Your sources include for American Free Press for god’s sake! Please explain.
Maybe YOU should explain why WE would need to explain about using AFP as a source?
Quote
Like
Share

Starbelly
Advanced Member
Starbelly
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 07:11 PM

Dec 25 2006, 01:30 PM #11

lesbyfriends @ Dec 25 2006, 07:15 AM wrote: does anyone else note the irony of getting mad at film students for analyzing a film while fervently supporting a filmmaker? just curious.
Thats not the case - and you know it.

The point is someone coming on here with extremely negative reviews in all aspects from sources to the directors ability. Yet, you somehow expect people to sit back and not put a word back? You say unreliable sources - i respond that using mainstram footage, documents from library of congress and eyewitness accounts. The reviews fail to even acknowledge the credibility of these sources. Instead, its ALL just unreliable sources.

So put on your little berets and laugh at the film, but know that not one of you will achieve anything in your lifetimes as massive or influential as Loose Change.

So yes - criticism is good. I have read many negative reviews of Loose Change. However, they were objective and i could respect that and agree with many the critiques in areas. These reviews are pathetic and reek of ignorance.

"... of what appear to be government documents and "top secret"..." - This document was reported by ABC news and many others in the mainstream press. Its not a secret - it is unheard of to the majority of the american public and is very valid in supporting the thesis of the documentary. However, instead of given a nod to the director for using official documents to back up the hypothesis. He is berated as using techniques which are manipulative.
Another tell-tale sign of this very objective review.

This is a blatant hit-piece in every aspect and if you expect to come on this forum and expect some kind of warm welcome then you are mistaken.

NewtonFig : Loose Change a "documentary" that made you laugh? This is exactly what i mean. You come on here opening with a post trying to portray objectivity and then list a bunch of links tryin to rip on this film. You are so transparent.

Again - laugh at the film. Snigger away. You will never achieve anything near it.
Sorry. :)
Quote
Like
Share

Avenger
Advanced Member
Avenger
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 22 2006, 06:40 AM

Dec 25 2006, 01:48 PM #12

Sunberry @ Dec 25 2006, 02:23 AM wrote: Dear me. Good work, Nick. I thought we’d just post these things and that would be it.

Before I get into this, I’ll introduce myself. I’m Daphne, I wrote one of the viewing guides on Control Room (excellent film, by the way, I highly recommend it).

Anyway, the course we wrote these guides for was about documentary theory in general, with a special focus on how filmmakers use the documentary form to portray “truth” about the world. I put truth in quotations there because one of the first rules of documentary is that it is a representation, not a reflection, of the real world. I’m sure you see where I’m going with this.

Listen, you’re accusing the government of twisting the evidence in order to mislead people. Shouldn’t you be ready to defend yourself against the same accusations? The film Loose Change is a representation of truth. It is vulnerable and subject to analysis and questioning and all that other lovely stuff. Are you surprised?

Instead of getting offended at the mere idea that your thesis (let alone your techniques!) are being examined, why don’t you explain yourself? You seem to be trying to promote the idea that the film speaks for itself and anyone who doesn’t believe it at face value is an idiot. Our class watched an excess of films over the semester. Some were excellent and thought provoking. I’m afraid to report that Loose Change provoked mostly scoffing and laughter at our screening. My classmates’ criticisms are valid. Your sources include for American Free Press for god’s sake! Please explain.
I see lot's of accusations from you without much substance.
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft.
-The first lie
The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately.
-Vin Narayanan, columnist for USATODAY, The Nation's Gatekeeper
Quote
Like
Share

Avenger
Advanced Member
Avenger
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 22 2006, 06:40 AM

Dec 25 2006, 01:57 PM #13

Dear me. Good work, Nick. I thought we’d just post these things and that would be it.
You really believed that?
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft.
-The first lie
The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately.
-Vin Narayanan, columnist for USATODAY, The Nation's Gatekeeper
Quote
Like
Share

dylan avery
Advanced Member
dylan avery
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Dec 25 2006, 05:23 PM #14

NewtonFig @ Dec 25 2006, 07:25 AM wrote: The fact that you reference a Japanese horror film, Wikipedia, and an online Neo-Nazi publication doesn't make it true or false, but it is difficult to get around the dubious origins of this “evidence."
what? are you serious?

which horror film? we took Wikipedia out of the 2nd edition. and we still only used AFP about two or three times.

your "guides" are terrible, and actually reading through and countering them would be a huge waste of time on my part.
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Quote
Like
Share

dylan avery
Advanced Member
dylan avery
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Dec 25 2006, 05:25 PM #15

NewtonFig @ Dec 25 2006, 07:25 AM wrote: What have I done?  Was a viewing guide and essay not enough for you?  You want me to hold your hand through the process?  I promise not to use big words like "mise-en-scene" (it's okay, you can use "ad hominem" all you want.  How about “reductio ad absurdum”?  Or “semper ubi sub ubi”?).  I guess I'm not worthy of an opinion unless I cobble together copyrighted material and sell it online for personal gain.
you're almost banned, smart-ass. keep it up.

i never "deliberately misled" my audience. i made a movie, on my laptop, in my spare time, and people started liking it. now, it's insanely popular for some reason, and I now have to tolerate snotty little college know-it-alls such as yourself who believe they actually know who I am.

end, of, story.
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Quote
Like
Share

dylan avery
Advanced Member
dylan avery
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Dec 25 2006, 05:45 PM #16

NewtonFig @ Dec 25 2006, 07:25 AM wrote: The fact that you reference a Japanese horror film, Wikipedia, and an online Neo-Nazi publication doesn't make it true or false, but it is difficult to get around the dubious origins of this “evidence."
I re-iterate. WHAT Japanese horror film? That sentence perfectly illustrates how clueless you are.
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Quote
Like
Share

IVXX
Advanced Member
IVXX
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 06:40 PM

Dec 25 2006, 06:23 PM #17

Sunberry @ Dec 25 2006, 03:23 AM wrote: You seem to be trying to promote the idea that the film speaks for itself and anyone who doesn’t believe it at face value is an idiot.
"But don't take our word for it. Research for yourself"

Where have I heard that before?? Hmmmmmmmm
"He told me there was new intel on Iran.
He just didn't tell me what it was."
~ George W. Bush
Quote
Like
Share

Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 08:16 PM

Dec 25 2006, 06:58 PM #18

I’m afraid to report that Loose Change provoked mostly scoffing and laughter at our screening. My classmates’ criticisms are valid.
Your classmate's seem to be high school-minded teenagers, adapting to college life. "Scoffing and laughter", that's what happens when you show LC to a bunch of 11 year olds who understand nothing about the seriousness of this issue. Your classmates laugh at something they hadn't analyzed nor research and on their zombie minds couldn't believe it. Dylan is not a multi-millionaire movie producer, you have to take into mind the circumstance of the production. I also work in a related area, and I was impressed to see how well the LC crew delivered their documentary given their limitations. Of course there are stuff which they have to work on, but they have shown growth by updating their documentaries as critics are received.

J
Quote
Like
Share

NewtonFig
Newbie
Joined: Dec 16 2006, 09:12 PM

Dec 25 2006, 07:36 PM #19

dylan avery @ Dec 25 2006, 05:23 PM wrote:your "guides" are terrible, and actually reading through and countering them would be a huge waste of time on my part.
How can you say they're terrible when you haven't read them?
dylan avery @ Dec 25 2006, 05:25 PM wrote: you're almost banned, smart-ass.  keep it up.
Hmmm... using fear to maintain power. Who does that remind me of?
dylan avery @ Dec 25 2006, 05:25 PM wrote:I now have to tolerate snotty little college know-it-alls such as yourself who believe they actually know who I am.

end, of, story.
I'm not even three years younger than you. I don't think you're in a position to lord over me just because your movie has gotten some attention. That's like William Hung getting a superiority complex because he made an album.

end; of? story!

And the Japanese horror film was Ringu. In 2nd Edition, when you're talking about the call from the flight attendant on Flight 93, you borrow some B-footage from Ringu. If I'm wrong, please tell me and I’ll correct it in my Forum Post 2nd Edition.
Jarroyo @ Dec 25 2006, 06:58 PM wrote:Your classmates laugh at something they hadn't analyzed nor research and on their zombie minds couldn't believe it.
We haven't done the research? Avery has altered his documentary numerous times just to correct all the stuff he messed up in the previous version. Explosives under the planes turns into controlled implosions in the towers, and yet the film makes no mention of these alterations. It seems like you all are the ones who need to do the research. How dependable is your "truth" when you’re constantly changing it?

I'm not saying there aren't questions. There are a lot of questions about September 11th. Tower 7? Why the hell did that collapse? It makes no sense.

You all are doing an important thing in asking the questions. They need to be asked. However, it is obvious that you don't know the answers to these questions, so you default on wild guesses and blanket government conspiracies. My main critique of Loose Change is there is no basis for its conclusions. The film is pretty solid in the first two thirds, but then ruins its ethos towards the end. What's wrong with just asking questions? Why do you have to come to hair-brained conclusions?
Quote
Like
Share

Killtown
Advanced Member
Killtown
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:29 PM

Dec 25 2006, 08:29 PM #20

NewtonFig @ Dec 25 2006, 07:36 PM wrote: You all are doing an important thing in asking the questions. They need to be asked. However, it is obvious that you don't know the answers to these questions, so you default on wild guesses and blanket government conspiracies. My main critique of Loose Change is there is no basis for its conclusions.
Well why don't you guys make a better documentary then? It's easier to sit back and critique someone else's documentary.
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: