Reply #14: The original debunking of loose change predates this...

[JackRiddler]

and is by 9/11 skeptics:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

Much of what Roberts and other anti-LC sites address was originally brought up by Mark Green, Mark Robinowitz, Jim Hoffman and other 9/11 skeptics.

Here is a complete, step by step critique of LC2 by Jim Hoffman:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Great work.

Since LC/LC2 does not address the best evidence for 9/11 as inside job - in fact, does not for the most part deal with the best evidence for its claim of demolition - and since the case for inside job predates LC/LC2 by three years, all the "debunking" directed at it is irrelevant to the main question of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

LC=sideshow of convenience for the Official Conspiracy crowd.