Conspiracy Furry

I came across the film, "Loose Change," while browsing Google's video website. I have an obligation as a scientists (and often as an American citizen) to be as objective as possible. This, of course, can be very difficult at times -- even impossible. But restraint and time seem to be the best tools toward reaching clear conclusions. Therefore, I have not made my conclusion about "Loose Change". But the film is at its least intriguing and challenging. Now, I am not about to dive into the "conspiracy of 9/11" or my own beliefs; this is not the place for that as it would easily be the match for the forest fire. Rather, I want to concentrate entirely on the film.

I have been familiar with most of the arguments made in "Loose Change," such as the possible demolition of the Twin Towers and the cruise missile strike against the Pentagon. These theories have been circulating for some time, but with disparate evidence. So it was interesting to see additional evidence supporting these theories, as well as evidence (or lack there of) for theories that have not been highly circulated, such as incorrect engine turbines found at the Pentagon crash site. The film producers have done an enormous amount of research. This is essential when presenting such polemical -- even blasphemous -- arguments. Nearly every point made is supported with some form of evidence, whether documents, witness interviews, or pictures and film. And I especially enjoyed how "Loose Change" used initial media reports from major news organizations, such as ABC News, to support some of the film's claims. For example, soon after the first tower collapse, Peter Jennings comments how similar the collapse looks to a controlled demolition -- not what one would expect from a catastrophic structure failure. Similar descriptions were given on CNN and other networks. The film presents much more evidence than this, of course, but it demonstrates that after years indoctrinating the "The Official Story," we easily overlook some of the initial observations.

The problem with "Loose Change" is that the producers made a short story, not A Story. After touring all three events on Septermber 11th, 2001, exposing holes in The Official Story, the film ends without stating a motive or tying its points together. In other words: why? If the events of September 11th are indeed an unthinkable government crime or cover-up, what is the motive? I can think of plenty of motives, but the film leaves this question a hanging chad. If "Loose Change" wishes to make a cogent argument to skeptics, it must address evidence for a motive. Moreover, some of the evidence they use is dubious at best. An example of this problem is the often grainy video used by the film to draw conclusions. These problems, however, should be taken with some forgiveness as the film is in its nascent stages. "Loose Change" is scheduled to be revamped into a full-length theatrical release later this year. I will expect a much more polished, cohesive story.

Regardless, "Loose Change" makes one very strong point that is difficult to refute: The Official Story has many holes -- so many holes that it may be a conspiracy theory itself. Clearly, "The Truth" about the events that took place that day will never be known. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue answers. This, however, is an argument I've already made (see my 01.17.06 blog post).

I encourage you to watch this film and draw your own conclusions. Just click on the link below to watch Loose Change. There is also a "Version 2," but I think "Version 1" is better for brevity's sake. Importantly, downloading the film (right column) and then watching it will allow for a higher resolution viewing.

Loose Change