Loose Change (2006)

Loose Change is an interesting consipracy-theory documentary on some inconsistencies of the eye-witness reports and physical evidence that contradict the official government version of the tragic events on September 11, 2001.

I came across this film from the blog of another filmmaker, Amit Tripuraneni. The documentary, created by Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, contends that:

1) The planes flying into the Trade Center were potentially cargo planes fitted with missles.
2) That the Trade Centers fell due to other explosives, not due to the fires created by the plane crash.
3) That a missle, not a plane, created the destruction at the Pentagon.
4) Insinuates the Flight 93 was shot down.
5) That the phone calls from passengers and flight attendants on the planes were faked.
6) And that this was all orchestrated by the evil Bush administration.

Sounds pretty outrageous, but I'll give the filmmakers credit... they do make some compelling arguments on some fronts, yet throw darts blindly on others.

Here's the problem in a post-Michael Moore era... why should I believe any documentary anymore? Michael Moore is a self-loathing liar who manipulates the truth... not to represent reality, but to represent his version of reality. Granted, every documentary has a purpose, an angle to shed light on one possible explanation of an event or issue, but Michael Moore continues to re-write recorded history to fit his own pathetic vision of the U.S. He edits together non-linked speeches as if they were one speech, one thought process, to the same audience. Or, he simply stops showing a speech when it no longer represents his warped version of the speech itself. He bashes Haliburton when he, himself, owns stock in it. Okay, he'll say he doesn't, but his company does and of which he and his wife are the only share holders. For a man who feels he can link Bush to falsely waging a war on terror, I'm surprised that he publically denies this and can't make the link between his shares in Haliburton and his bank account.

The point is, Moore has pretty much screwed it up for everyone else. Including Loose Change. I'm not saying that Loose Change is wrong or lying, I'm simply saying "prove it." They quote sources, but why should I believe that one report on an internet site is accurate? They state it as such, but after Moore, you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical. They show pictures of the suspected hijackers, as proposed by the government, and state that nine of them are still alive. Okay, prove it? Show me a video of them alive and well after 9/11. Or, maybe the list of hijackers they showed had since been updated by the government. But, we don't know.

They also quote many eye witness accounts that refute certain government claims. Again, I kept asking myself, why should I believe them? Can't the government give me a thousand others that don't refute their version?

I hear people try to discredit the Gospels in the Bible because the facts don't match up. But, now I'm supposed to add credence to people's accounts because they don't match up? Pick your poison, I guess.

All that being said, Loose Change is worthy of viewing because it asks good questions. I recommend ignoring most of their answers, but some of their questions and analysis should require governmental clarification and/or explanation.

I personally find the idea of the U.S. Government behind the 9/11 attack ludicrous. Beyond the obvious leap of faith one has to make to believe such an assertion, it's difficult to believe that an administration that had been in office only a few months could have orchestrated such an event. And to what end? To bomb Afghanistan? To invade Iraq? To enter a state of war where the rules of government change? Please. The government can't run the public schools effectively. They can pull off this? Ahhh... right!

However, I found it very plausible that the inconsistencies in their documentary do not point to a Bush conspiracy, but could very well show that the terrorists used methods the government does not want us to know, for whatever reason. And that intrigues me.

I do find the questions about additional detonations in the tower, the analysis of the pentagon impact and the potential reason for Flight 93's crash all intruiging arguments. Especially the pentagon crash... something is fishy there. Even some of the cellphone conversations with passengers and flight attendants are very strange... but then again, you never know what you'd say or how you'd say it in situations such as those.

As I said, I think it is compelling in the sense that it may offer light into the different ways the terrorists actually implemented 9/11 attacks, but I don't buy the connection to the government.

In their true consipracy-theory approach, and where the film struggles most, is that the authors seem to expect every event in a very chaotic and unpredictable atmosphere to have a linear connection, when life just doesn't work that way. Sometimes things as vaguely connected as a butterfly flapping it's wings in Africa can effect weather patterns in the U.S. (this is actually true).

In the end, I don't think the authors' overall conclusions are accurate, but certainly some of their questions bear further investigation.

You can check out the documentary online for free at Google Video and judge for yourself.