IMDb user comments for
Loose Change: Second Edition (2006) More at IMDbPro »

4 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Legitimate questions are undermined by this rubbish, 25 June 2007

Author: thor-teague from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I saw this film for the first time over the weekend and viewed it with an open mind, and made an honest effort to do my own homework. I read a number of physics publications as well as some published news stories. While I won't stoop to the level of those who rail on this film merely because they don't agree with it on a political basis, I have come to the conclusion that it is essentially bunk. Furthermore, it is reckless, baseless, and robbing people who have legitimate questions about 9/11 of a thoughtful, meaningful dialog by undermining the entire notion that circumstances surrounding 9/11 could, and, possibly should be questioned.

This film makes a number of assertions, many of which are at best questionable, several of which are easily debunk-able. For instance: The entire film rests on the baseless assumption that the towers and building seven were intentionally brought down. It brings up, for example, Popular Mechanics articles that were intended to put to rest this, and other claims like it. It never mentions the content of these articles, merely their existence.

First, buildings half the size of WTC are brought down with 4,000 charges. So assume 8,000 charges for both buildings, and an additional 4,000 for building 7. (REALLY rough guestimate but it's not necessary to be exact to make my point) for a grand total of 20,000 covertly placed charges.

An army of engineers, paid off to do this, would take months, working covertly and never spilling the beans. Assuming they worked from 5:30pm until 8:00am (and I think I know a thing or two about corporate America--that's too much to assume), it'd be a veritable miracle if they completed the task in less than a year. The WTC had a battalion of bomb-sniffing dogs, which, while off-duty for a few days leading up to 9/11, were not off-duty for months on end prior to the event. Not to mention someone outside of the conspirators might have noticed the 20,000 charges that had been installed.

There's a great article floating around on the sheer dollar amounts to pay off all the required people. Making a bold assumption (though certainly no bolder than the assumptions this film makes) on the poignant question of how much one could be paid to participate in the mass-murder of thousands of innocent people--American or otherwise; patriot or not--I think the number it comes up with is in the trillions.

Additionally, if I am to assume the government staged the attacks, it would seem useless to fly planes into the buildings *and* set charges. (The first edition asserts missiles, actually, but the second edition changed its mind to pre-set charges.) It begs the question, why bother with both? Would one or the other not have been enough to mobilize neocons? Or even a simple low-yield nuclear charge in one of the lower floors of both towers. Far, FAR fewer personnel required, far fewer variables in this scenario, and far cheaper. In the world of conspiracy, it's always best to keep the plan as simple as possible. Remember, most real conspiracies fail.

At any rate, debunking the crux of the film is enough for me--many, many published articles, books, papers, magazines, PBS and other documentaries--a veritable mountain of evidence, you might call it--to the contrary of this film already exists. An army of engineers and physicists, from this country and others, have picked the event apart down to the micron. If you bother to educate yourself, you will see Loose Change for what it is: an elaborate fraud, fabricated by charlatans. To what motive we can only guess.

And this only addresses the heart of the film, which is clearly not feasible. It does not touch on the manipulative use of out-of-context, misrepresented interviews, nor the slew of other "facts" which have been wholly debunked. Repeatedly. Independantly.

However, the deeper problem of Loose Change than its staggering factual inaccuracies is what it's doing to the dialogue. It is part of an alarming cultural climate in which there is no real discourse, merely a shouting match between two manufactured viewpoints.

Valid questions exist about the event, some not even asked by the film. Was this film the tipping point of reason? Would there have been a meaningful investigation if Loose Change never happened? I believe it's plausible.

Because of this film and others of its ilk, legitimate questions about some of the more dubious circumstances surrounding 9/11 will, to some degree, be lumped in with the obviously inaccurate and baseless claims recklessly made by this film. No voice of reason is allowed as illustrated by the Loose Changians who troll all negative IMDb reviews (this comment's rating is artificial.) Marginalized to the fringe, the rational are robbed of potential thoughtful discourse on the real questions surrounding 9/11--and ultimately, therefore, of a voice. This film is contributing to a cultural climate that robs us of meaningful, thoughtful dialog, potential investigation, and therefore ultimately of democracy.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has written that the 9/11 truth movement: "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."

With all my heart I condemn this film.

Add another comment

Related Links