Loose Change: Final Cut press conference in England

[simuvac]

I just received my copy of Final Cut, and will watch it tonight, so I can't comment on the film itself; but here's a press conference from yesterday involving Dylan Avery, Gordon Ross, and Tim Sparke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7Q3QkfRSz8


It's good to see Dylan admit publicly he made some mistakes with versions 1 and 2 of Loose Change. I credit him with being open to revisions, and with being able to admit mistakes, unlike the debunker crews who assault him and his film daily without admitting where they themselves have erred.

[beltman713]

I saw it the other day on google, it was real good.

[Gold9472]

You need to see "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families." That's beyond "real good."

[Gold9472]

Unfortunately, it's not available online at the moment.

[simuvac]

So, I saw Loose Change: Final Cut last night. I'm sorry to say I'm disappointed in the result, and probably not for the reasons that "hardcore" types will be disappointed ("There's no mention of the Dancing Israelis!" they'll cry).

I find it hard to believe that David Ray Griffin was the script consultant for a film that seems so incoherent. Many pieces of evidence are shown briefly but never explained. For a random example, consider the part where Dylan shows the white smoke apparently rising from the base of the Twin Towers. If you follow 9/11 Truth forums, you know the implication is that a bomb went off in the sub-basement of the North Tower. However, Willie Rodriguez is never shown in this film, and Dylan never explains why that evidence is presented. It is assumed the viewer will make the connection. Many such examples exist.

LCFC also ignores Sibel Edmonds, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a new investigation. Some of the deep politics are presented, such as the ISI connection, but they are treated superficially and then disappear.

For some reason, Bush's lies about seeing the first plane crash are relegated to the Deleted Scenes. That stuff should be front and center. Bush and Cheney should testify under oath about their whereabouts on 9/11. If Bush saw the first crash live on TV, let's ask him to give more details, because we know his statement is impossible. That's how this thing will unravel, not by challenging the NIST investigation (though it should be challenged).

Often, the film feels like it is exposing Dylan's limitations as a filmmaker. That is, he had an entire year and additional funds, and yet the Final Cut is less coherent than LC2E, even though it has more material in it.

On the positive side, LCFC has some very rare TV footage, and it removed most of the dubious material from LC2E. The special effects are quite good, too. I also thought they did a good job of locating incriminating statements by government sources (such as the NIST study).

What Dylan doesn't seem to understand is that a film of this kind needs some kind of narrative to help the uninitiated navigate a great deal of information. What he seems to have done with LCFC is strip away the more speculative elements of LC2E but leave the basic structure of the film intact. The pacing of LC2E is lost in the process. Instead of discussing all of the collapses in one section, he leaves WTC7 to the end, apart from WTC1&2.

A minor quibble: I can't stand how Dylan says "a hundred" (sounds like "ahunderd") instead of "one hundred". He says it often. But that's probably just me. :-)

9/11 Press for Truth is still by far the best overall film about 9/11. Its production values are superior to LCFC, even though Dylan says they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this version. PFT has a point, and it's clearly articulated and the production values are flawless. One really noticeable flaw in LCFC, BTW, is the audio: It jumps up and down, and there are segments from other sources that are almost inaudible (a speech by Dan Rather near the beginning, in particular).

I expected better for my money.

[BASE701]

My thoughts...

I think it did a very good job of introducing the problems with the official 911 story. I think it also did a good job of staying away from the arguments that are questionable.

For me anyway, this movie shows how the true 911 truth movement is getting away from the conspiratorial ideas and is starting to hone in on the real questions.

IMO, the best loose change movie to date.

[simuvac]

An AP interview with Dylan Avery:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...89000&hl=en-GB

My heart goes out to this guy. He has matured over the years, and his passion for the subject shows.

Some will malign him for mistakes that might be attributed to "youthful enthusiasm," but why should Dylan be called out for such mistakes when some like Bush can become president after being an alcoholic crackhead with a DUI and insider trading on his record?

Anyway, check out the interview. Dylan even recommends the interviewer talk to Sibel Edmonds, which is a shrewd call on his part (though for the life of me I can't remember Sibel in LCFC?).