covered and identified there. It disappeared and no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or
its passengers. The Pentagon was probably struck by a smaller military plane or a missile.
• Flight 93 did not crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to storm
the cockpit. No aircraft wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified there. In-
stead, flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland where its passengers were removed and presumably
killed. That plane may have contained not only flight 93’s passengers, but all the passengers from
the other three planes as well. The actual plane, tail number N591UA, was still in use as of 2003.
• None of the many calls made by passengers on the hijacked aircraft were real. All the calls were
perfectly faked by the conspirators using “voice-morphing” technology. The fakes occurred in real
time as events unfolded, and were good enough to fool all the relatives of the “alleged” callers.
• At least 9 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11.
• al Qaeda had no role in the attacks. A video of bin Laden admitting his involvement was faked.
• World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by pre-planted explosive devices. Addi-
tional explosive devices blew up in the Twin Towers prior to the demolition charges going off.
The towers did not collapse due to structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft striking
them. Fires were not severe in the towers. WTC 7 sustained slight structural damage and fires.
• One of the cleanup contractors at the WTC, Controlled Demolitions Inc., may have been involved
in the WTC’s destruction, as well as in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in
1995. CDI executed an “unexplained” demolition of two 400-foot gas tanks in NYC in June, 2001.
• No inspection was allowed of WTC debris. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered all potential
evidence to be removed from the site.
• Investors with advance knowledge of 9/11 made millions in the stock market.
• A document produced by prominent Neocons in 2000 called for a “New Pearl Harbor.”
• Prominent U.S. politicians and military personnel avoided air travel on and before 9/11.
• Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the World Trade Center, profited by over insuring his buildings.
• George W. Bush’s brother Marvin ran WTC security operations.
• $166.8 billion in gold was stolen from the vaults beneath the World Trade Center.
• No real investigation of the causes of the attacks was done.
All of these claims made in “Loose Change” are false, as my critique demonstrates. Many of the claims
are easily disproved with just a few minutes of web searching. What do Avery, Rowe and Bermas do with
the towering mountain of evidence that comprehensively refutes their claims? They ignore it. They don’t
acknowledge that such evidence exists. They don’t acknowledge the work done by thousands of investi-
gators. They publish rumors gleaned from conspiracy websites as facts, but they refuse to talk to any of
the thousands of experts who were at any of the scenes, or who worked behind the scenes analyzing
evidence. Instead, they deny that any “real” investigation took place.
In the case of the Pentagon, amongst many egregious mistakes, the creators of “Loose Change” don’t
think it’s worth mentioning that dozens of people saw the 757 hit the building right in front of them, and
reported what they saw immediately afterwards. They ignore the fact that the remains of all but one of
the victims on board were collected at the Pentagon and positively identified. In the case of flight 93,
amongst many other errors, the creators of “Loose Change” do not explain how passengers from four
flights that departed from Boston, Washington D.C. and Newark could have ended up on a single plane
in Cleveland. They ignore the fact that 95% of the plane was recovered from the crash site in Pennsyl-
vania, and that the remains of all the people on board were collected there and positively identified.
These are apparently minor facts that should not keep the “truth” from spreading.
It would be easy to dismiss Avery, Rowe, and Bermas’s outrageous claims if their video wasn’t so popu-
lar. Even Roger Ebert, the famous film critic of the
, reported that he finally watched
as much of it as he could bear, after being bombarded by emails from “Loose Change” supporters:
“I watched the first 20 minutes of the film and, bored and unimpressed, skipped
through the rest, pausing here and there. You really should take a look at it. Not be-
cause it in any way proves its extraordinary premise -- that the United States govern-
ment was behind the Sept. 11 attacks -- but because it may interest you to see the kind
of parody of critical analysis that convinces too many people.” (April 24, 2006)
After writing my critique – in which I point out 115 false statements involving 81 errors of fact – and
having it dismissed by Avery as “not refuting anything,” I became interested in the question of what mo-
tivates these people to promote such absurd ideas. Do they really believe what they are saying? How
can they ignore the enormous amount of evidence that proves, beyond a doubt, that their claims are
false? What have they learned since they began promoting the video? What is it about their presenta-
tion that is attractive to so many people, especially to young males? How do they deal with critics, if at
all? How do they intend to sustain their views in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence?
When I started examining these questions a month ago, I thought, “These guys were surprised by the
popularity of their hastily-produced video, and now they’re in the awkward position of either admitting
they screwed the whole thing up, or affirming a lot of ideas that they don’t believe. They’re not wiling to
swallow their pride and say,
I now believe that my first impression was wrong. After reviewing many hours of recorded interviews
with the “Loose Change” creators, I am convinced that they believe most of the claims they make.
I think that they avoid examining their beliefs at all costs, which leads to them lying and behaving hypo-
critically, but I get the impression that they sincerely think that the attacks of 9/11 were the work of the
U.S. government. I have also seen Avery and Bermas hawking their DVDs and presenting their ideas in
person. Their presentation is very aggressive, passionate, and rapid-fire. They SWEAR that their DVD
contains the “truth.” They have no qualms about protesting at events attended by families of 9/11 vic-
tims. They frequently and consistently state that everything the government has said about 9/11 is a lie.
Especially disturbing are the interviews involving Jason Bermas, the “researcher” who all involved tout
as the most knowledgeable about 9/11 and about history in general. He may be the most ill-informed,
consistently wrong person I have ever come across. Top that off with his willingness to believe just
about every conspiracy theory, including that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and you have the
worst possible contributor to a “documentary.” (That’s right, I forgot to mention that “Loose Change”
began as a work of fiction but transmuted into a “documentary.”) At the end of this document is most of
an interview with Bermas. In it, he not only mentions 18 conspiracy theories, he believes that most of
them are connected to each other. To live in his world must be confusing and frightening.
An open letter to Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas
As someone who takes you and your work seriously, I am asking you to pause
and to step away from the details of that work for a moment, in order to gain
some perspective. I know that this is a lot to ask. You are all extremely busy
promoting your video and working on the new version for theatrical release.
You claim to be seeking the “truth” about 9/11. That claim is hypocritical in the
extreme. I have shown you that every major claim you make in “Loose
Change” is false. You managed to get everything wrong. My assertions are
backed by abundant evidence. Your claims are not. You continue to promote
those claims, and in some cases you are straying farther and farther from the
truth as time goes on.
Your contradictory claims do not comprise a coherent hypothesis of what hap-
pened on 9/11. You show no willingness to face the existing evidence or to do
actual research. For your new video, rather than interview experts who were
involved in the 9/11 investigations, you have been interviewing other conspir-
acy theorists, as shown by the hour-long preview you recently released and
your comments after attending the recent 9/11 “Truth Conference.” Although
you constantly call for a “real” investigation, you refuse to talk to a single one
of the thousands of experts who have investigated the events of 9/11, and
whose conclusions comprehensively refute your conjectures.
If it’s affirmation, not truth, that you seek, why not save your money and just
interview each other?
You sometimes complain that people dismiss your work because you are in
your twenties. You may want to consider the ammunition you give your critics
by your cowardly behavior and complete incompetence in the realm of “re-
Yes, you are behaving like cowards. (I have no doubt that each of you is the
kind of person who would rush into a burning building to save someone in
need. That’s not the kind of courage I’m talking about.) You are intellectual
cowards. You claim to be seeking the truth, but you refuse to even look at the
evidence that’s right in front of you. You largely restrict your “research” to in-
formation gathered in the first confused days after 9/11. You rely on the horri-
bly inept and deliberately deceptive reporting of other conspiracy theorists. The
moderators on your internet forum delete the accounts of people who present
evidence that contradicts your claims. You publicly mock the people who reveal
your errors. You publicly mock all legitimate investigators.
Worst of all, you publicly mock the victims of 9/11 who agree with the “official
version” of events, a version that has the inconvenient qualities of being coher-
ent, comprehensive, and supported by facts gathered by thousands of qualified
investigators who worked with primary sources. That’s as opposed to your ver-
sion of events, which is incoherent, exclusive of all data that you don’t like, and
is not supported by any of the investigators who worked on 9/11 issues.
It’s instructive to look at the progression of what you consider to be the “most
powerful piece of evidence” in favor of your conspiracy theory. In the first ver-
sion of “Loose Change,” it was the “pod theory.” When that was laughed out of
town, you dropped it and began promoting the “no 757 hit the Pentagon” fool-
ishness for the Second Edition. Well, most of the “Truth Movement” has prob-
lems with that idea, so now you’ve chosen the collapse of WTC 7 as your
strongest “evidence.” What will it be next month?
Likewise, in the first version of “LC,” flight 93 did crash in Pennsylvania. In
your second version, it landed in Cleveland. There happens to be zero evidence
for it landing in Cleveland and 100% evidence for it crashing in Pennsylvania,
but that doesn’t matter at all to you. You found a more entertaining and “mys-
terious” story, and went with it, the evidence – and the victims – be damned.
Why are you behaving this way?
Another form of intellectual cowardice you practice all the time is your mantra,
“We’re just asking questions.” That’s false. You constantly make specific accu-
sations, but you don’t feel the need to back them up with evidence. When chal-
lenged, you retreat to the “just asking questions” excuse. I’ve taken the time to
answer many of your questions, but you’re not interested in answers. You’re in-
terested in milking a conspiracy theory. See the section “We’re simply just
Americans asking questions” for many examples of your accusations.
You like to couch your rhetoric in patriotic terms. “Loose Change” ends with a
long shot of the U.S. flag waving. You use the phrases, “Restoring the Constitu-
tion,” and “bringing America back.” Really? Let’s have a look at America if the
laws of the land were based on your rules. Imagine that the laws of the land
were based on your rules. Imagine that you were accused of murder.
• By your rules, you would be considered guilty until proven innocent.
• Rumor and hearsay would be valid evidence against you.
• The “investigation” into the crime would be done by hacks with no rele-
• The burden of proof would be on you, the accused.
• The mountain of factual evidence proving your innocence would be in-
Is that your vision for America?
On June 10
, in a post on an internet forum discussing the absurdity and lack
of awareness of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I sarcastically wrote, "Who will be
the first to compare Dylan Avery to Martin Luther King Jr…?"
The next day, June 11, you posted this new literature on your blog, and said
it would be included in your DVD packaging:
Part of your text reads, “We will be there in order to educate the police,
fireman (sic), family members, and citizens who are still unaware that
911 was indeed an inside job!”
It is incredibly inappropriate for you to use the images, not only of
Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, but of the
Black Power Movement. Mr. Avery, you have laughed along during
two radio interviews with far-right wing, militia-promoting, anti-
multiculturalist John Stadtmiller. Like you, he expresses the desire
to see certain people tried for their crimes once the U.S. is
“retaken” by “patriots.” Apparently he thinks that one of the first to
be tried should be Morris Dees, Director of the civil rights
organization The Southern Poverty Law Center.
Worse than that, the three of you spent an hour being interviewed by Eric Huf-
schmid, who proudly calls himself not merely a Holocaust denier, but a “HoloHoax
Exposer.” During that interview you respond to Hufschmid’s criticism that you
don’t place enough blame on the Jews by saying, “Take our word for it: we're
well aware of the Illuminati and the New World Order, and we're well
aware that there are people who want an all-Jewish state. We realize
that all these things exist, but that's not what we're about. Your video,
and Alex Jones's video, cover these things beautifully, and there's no
need for us to cover these same topics. …I just hope you can support
us.” Jason Bermas tells Hufschmid, This not just about Cheney and Rumsfeld and
those guys. But by piercing them, we're hoping to get to the bottom of this
criminal network that you talk about.
Sucking up to a Holocaust denier? How low can you go? I submit that if you
need people like Stadtmiller and Hufschmid to advance your message, there’s
something very wrong with your message.
Do you really think you have earned the right to use Dr. King’s words and im-
And what is the purpose of that flyer? To encourage people to join your pro-
test at the Ground Zero memorial on September 11, 2006. Later in this
document we will find many more quotes like this one:
Avery: "I'm organizing the biggest protest ever for this year at
Ground Zero on Monday
We've got a few hundred
people already, and we're trying to get it to a few thousand. This is
gonna be the mainstream media event of the year! The major media
everywhere is gonna be there, and if they wanna cover the memorial,
they're gonna have to cover us, because there's so many of us in
numbers. And that's the first step. Because if we don't do it this year,
the mainstream media is going to be able to continue to ignore us. If
nothing happens, a year later we're just gonna go to the White
House and wait there until something is done." (2)
You may be joined on 9/11/06 by thousands of supporters, but judging by your
past behavior, I know two things that will be missing: facts that support your
allegations, and respect for the victims of 9/11. If that’s your choice, then I’ll
be by your side the whole day, quotes in hand, making sure the media and the
public see how selfish and ignorant your message is.
From the “Loose Change” DVD package
What if September 11th was not a surprise attack on America,
but rather a cold and calculated genocide by our own govern-
We were told the twin towers were hit by commercial airliners and sub-
sequently brought down by jet fuel. We were told the Pentagon was hit
by a Boeing 757.
We were told that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pa. We were told that
19 Arabs from halfway across the globe, acting under orders from
Osama Bin Laden, were responsible.
What you will see inside will prove without a shadow of doubt
that everything you know about 9/11 is a complete fabrication.
Provocative words. I’ll bet that text sold a lot of DVDs. Unfortunately, what I
found inside the DVD package is that almost everything you know about 9/11
is a complete fabrication. Did you really not expect anyone to check?
Let’s take a look at one simple claim you make in “Loose Change Second Edi-
tion,” which is that approximately $166.8 billion ($166,800,000,000.00) worth
of gold was stolen from vaults beneath the World Trade Center. You imply that
the aircraft attacks were a diversion that allowed the thieves to escape with the
gold, but that the thieves’ timing was off and that some of the gold was found
in a dump truck on a ramp beneath the WTC. In my critique I showed you that
these claims are completely wrong, and that the $230 million of silver and gold
(the vast majority was silver) beneath WTC #4 was all recovered from the
locked vaults where it was stored.
I also point out to you that $167 billion in gold is far more than the entire U.S.
gold reserves, and would be about 56% of the world’s supply as of September,
Okay, you screwed up and didn’t take the five minutes necessary to check your
story. That’s an easy correction to make.
But you’ve done the opposite. In recent interviews, which I transcribe in this
document, and in which all three of you participate, you claim that the stolen
gold may amount to more than $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000.00). That is
several times the amount of the entire world’s gold reserves. If that gold ex-
isted, and if each getaway truck carried 10,000 lbs of it, it would have taken
over 22,000 truckloads to move it.
That’s one small example of how your methods have failed and continue to fail.
Do you intend to present this kind of “research” in the upcoming version, which
you say will be released in some theaters? Mr. Avery, you’ve said that the new
version will be “100% airtight.” Pardon me if I’m skeptical. You’re STILL claim-
ing that flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 didn’t crash in Penn-
sylvania. In fact, you and Mr. Bermas took the time to come to New York to
PROTEST and distribute DVDs at the premiere of the movie “United 93,” an
event attended by families of that flight’s victims. I was there. I observed your
disgraceful behavior. (More on that episode below.)
We’re talking about the events of September 11, 2001 here, guys. Does the
truth matter to you at all? Is any of this sinking in? Are you going to stay on
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested