Loose Change: Second Edition (2006)

User Rating:

7.1/10   

Director:

Dylan Avery

Writers:

Dylan Avery (writer)
Jason Bermas (writer)

Release Date:

1 June 2006 (USA)

Genre:

Documentary | History | Mystery

Plot:

An exploration of the viewpoint that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned by the United States government. |

Plot Keywords:

September 11 2001 | Conspiracy | Based On Supposedly True Story | Number In Title

Also Known As:

Loose Change Second Edition (Australia) (DVD title)

Runtime:

USA:82 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Certification:

Australia:M

Company:

Louder Than Words

Quotes:

[first lines]
Title Card: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the WTC." - National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Title Card: "There were lots of warnings." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Title Card: "No warnings." - Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
Title Card: "Your government failed you, and I failed you." - White House Advisor Richard Clarke
Narrator: March 13, 1962. Lionel Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presents a proposal to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara named Operation Northwoods. The Document proposes staging terror attacks in and around Guantanamo Bay to provide a pretext for military intervention in Cuba. The plans included: starting rumors...
[...]

Movie Connections:

Spoofed in "South Park: Mystery of the Urinal Deuce (#10.9)" (2006)

suggested viewing method: do your own research

a buddy and i recently sat down on a slow Sunday at work at watched this movie online. i'd say in all it took about four to four and a half hours to complete. this was also followed by the "loose change vs popular mechanics" videos. (the funny part about that was that as magazine editors, the popular mechanics reps were no more "experts" than the loose change guys). now the reason it took so long to view this movie was due to the constant stopping to get more information about the various points mentioned.

this may not be the preferred viewing method, but i suggest anyone else viewing this movie do the same. actually some other interviews of the loose change producers suggest you look into the events more closely for yourself and not just take their word on it anyway.

i say this for both the people that think this movie is "proving the real truth" or "a bunch of bull****! cause my government would never do anything wrong ever!".

while this movie might be viewed as amateur sensationalist conspiracy buff fodder, it also mentions a lot of questions that really haven't had any really satisfactory answers. (at least not for anyone that understands that any government, no matter which country you live in, will occasionally put it's own interests ahead of it's people's.) history is full of examples (watergate, jfk's murder, prohibition, Vietnam, enron, etc.) where people in power either misuse that power, mislead information, or just generally do things that are influenced by their own basic greed.

what this movie seems very effective in doing though is getting people talking. unfortunately the minority of people who actually do the research with an open mind are flanked by a much larger number of "debunkers" and "believers" who only concentrate on the information that backs up their predispositions. this is similar to the "Fahrenheit/Fahrenhype 9/11" movies that present the information in a way to support their cause. (although Moore's version was far more entertaining, and Peterson's rebuttal was more petty) basically this movie should be looked at as a perspective. one that would allow you to dismiss it once all the questions have been answered. whether they area right or not in some of their assumptions is irrelevant when you consider that if the entire event was cut and dry, then people wouldn't feel the need to fill in the blanks with their own ideas.

and for the people that are likely going to get mad at this perspective, you should probably realize that "patriotism" denotes positive and supportive attitudes to one's nation-state. we'd be a lot closer to Orwell's vision of the world if we truly believed that questioning the belief that we should blindly following a government despite questionable/corrupt motives, was the same as an act of treason and being unpatriotic. where i come from we have a proverb: love my country, fear my government. my country never let me down. i can't say the same about the people that run it.