Back to the Lesson Page: http://www.itsmyhomework.com/lesson/WorldWeLIveIN/index.html
|
Loose Change |
|
|
Directed by |
Dylan Avery |
|
Produced by |
Korey Rowe |
|
Written by |
Dylan Avery |
|
Music by |
DJ Skooly |
|
Editing by |
Dylan Avery |
|
Distributed by |
Louder Than Words LLC |
|
Release date(s) |
April 13th, 2005 |
|
Running time |
82 min |
|
Country |
|
|
Language |
|
|
Budget |
$2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loose Change is a
documentary
film written and directed by Dylan Avery, and produced by Korey Rowe with Jason Bermas. It
claims that the September 11 attacks were planned and
conducted by elements within the United States government, and bases these
claims on perceived anomalies in the historical record of the attacks. The film
was originally released through the creators' own company, Louder than Words,
and received widespread attention after Loose Change 2nd Edition was
featured on a Binghamton, New York local FOX affiliate, WICZ-TV (FOX 40).[1]
Some
of the claims contained within the film have been refuted by mainstream media
outlets,[2][3] independent researchers,[4][5] and prominent members of the scientific and engineering
community.[6] Some of the alternative theories outlined by the film
are supported by a minority of academics, mostly from within the Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement.[7][8]
The
original film has also been edited and re-released as "Loose Change 2nd
Edition", and then subsequently re-edited again for the "2nd Edition Recut", each time to tighten the focus on certain key
areas and to remove inaccuracies and copyrighted material. A further
"Final Cut" version was planned for release on "the weekend preceding September 11th 2007" and planned to be
screened in key cities in the
Avery
had originally been planning to make a movie about conspiracy theories related
to the attacks of 9/11, called Loose Change.
Avery stated that he began to believe that there was in fact an actual 9/11
cover-up, and changed the film into a documentary after discussions with his
childhood friend Korey Rowe.[citation needed] Rowe, a soldier
who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, became the producer
of Loose Change while Jason Bermas became the
film's researcher.
There
have been two editions of the film released thus far. The first edition, made
on a laptop computer, cost around $2000 USD to make and was
released in April
of 2005. This edition of the film featured material on a device (which the
filmmakers refer to as a "pod") under the fuselage of Flight 175
that struck the
The
second edition, released in November of 2005 was made for an estimated $6000 USD.
This edition was heavily revised and included a new introduction, as well as
extra footage which Avery purchased on eBay. The
"pod" segment was also removed.[10][11] This film also took a different stand on Flight 93
than the first edition, which claimed the flight was intended to be shot down
by a military aircraft, and instead claimed that Flight 93 actually landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport.
In August of
2006 a recut version of Loose Change 2nd Edition
was released, which corrected some errors in the original release, as well as removing
some allegedly infringing material taken from the Naudet brothers documentary 9/11.
This version is available for purchase and distribution through its official
website.[12] It can also be viewed for free online and downloaded
from Google
Video, where it held the first position in the top ranking of available
videos until mid 2006.[13]
According
to Broadcast magazine, the video was to have a
special screening at the UK Houses of Parliament on June 14, 2006.[14][15][16] Michael Meacher, the British MP who had considered
sponsoring the screening, decided against it. During that same month of June
2006, a former engineer from Microsoft developed a site, www.loose-change-911.com, to
stream the movie in seven different languages.
On September
11, 2006 Dylan
Avery and Jason Bermas appeared on Democracy
Now! the War and Peace Report, to debate with
James Meigs and David Dunbar,[17] two of the editors of Popular Mechanics and the book Debunking 9/11 Myths.[18]
After
releasing the film, Avery, Rowe and Bermas set up an
independent movie production company called Louder
than Words. The company is also a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Avery
is from Oneonta, New York. After being denied admission
twice by
Avery
appeared on BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files in February 2007.
Korey Rowe is a producer of Loose Change. Rowe was born in
Jason Bermas is a graphic
designer and producer of Loose Change located in
Loose
Change is approximately
one hour and 22 minutes in length. The film consists of Dylan Avery narrating
over photographs and news footage relating to 9/11, with an underscore of hip hop and
other urban style music. Avery does not appear in the video, though is shown in
the bonus features. Video and still footage used includes considerable video
content from CNN, NBC, and FOX News, as
well as a number of other sources.[27]
The
end of Loose Change 2nd Edition shows a clip from The American Scholar's
Symposium that was aired on C-SPAN on June 25, 2006 at the Sheraton Hotel in Los Angeles.
Jason Bermas, wearing the signature "Investigate
9/11" t-shirt that he designed is describing their plans to peacefully
demonstrate at Ground Zero on September 11, 2006.
Flyer for a screening of the film
The
video opens with a brief description of past suspicious and questionable
motives in the history of American government. This discussion includes
mention of Operation Northwoods,
a plan put forward during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to create and utilise bogus terrorist attacks against the United
States, which were to be blamed on Cuba, as a pretext for
invasion of the country. Focus is particularly directed at the previously
proposed plans to substitute real commercial airliners with pilotless drone
aircraft in order to investigate the plausibility of covertly using them as
weapons, whilst maintaining the cover of an accident.[28]
Attention
is also given to the Project for the New American
Century, a neo-conservative think-tank,
which released a report in 2000 titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".
In particular the film points out a line from that report which states
"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a
new
This
is followed by an examination of the attacks on the Pentagon. The film opposes
the official story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon,
alleging that the path of destruction does not match that which a 757 would
leave. In particular, it points out the size of the hole in the Pentagon caused
by the crash, examining a lack of debris and landscape damage seemingly
inconsistent with prior airliner crashes. It is also alleged that too few parts
were recovered from the crash site to reliably ascertain that they were of a
Boeing 757, and a certain flywheel observed at the site seemed too small to
have been part of the aircraft's engine turbine. The wheel was officially
declared to have been part of the APU but disputed by some experts as not to
have come from the APU of a 757 but likely from an E-3 Sentry
aircraft. It is also claimed that Hani Hanjour, the hijacker pilot, had difficulty performing
basic controls on a small Cessna at a flight school where he rented, and that perhaps
not even an experienced pilot could have maneuvered the reflex
angle of turn at the airspeed and altitude at which the aircraft approached
without going into a high speed stall.
Mention is also given to three cameras on nearby buildings that allegedly
caught the entire incident at the Pentagon on film, which the government
confiscated and has refused to release in full.
The
next section focuses on the destruction of the
In
particular, the video alleges that the fires inside the twin towers were not
hot enough to bring the buildings down. An audio tape is presented in which the
Captain of Ladder 7 claims that the fires can be brought under control by two
lines, and it is mentioned that building 7 had taken only minor damage before
its own collapse. These allegations follow a listing of buildings that burned
with more intense fires than the
For Flight 93, the video ignores the more
mainstream theory of the plane being shot down to instead allege it was landed
safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport where it was
evacuated by government personnel into an unused NASA research center. Evidence cited included
photographs and eyewitness reports of the crash site as evidence, a
corresponding evacuation at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to another hijacked
plane and the corresponding reports, oddities in the transcripts of cell-phone
calls supposedly placed from the plane during the hijacking, and the sighting
of the tail number of Flight 93 on an aircraft in use at a later date.
This
is then followed by a more miscellaneous listing of allegations. It is claimed
that cellular phone calls could not be made from American Airlines flights at
the time of the crash, asking why American Airlines had to install a system in
their own airplanes to allow the reception of cellular signals within the
planes if they could do this regardless on September 11. It is suggested that
the calls from passengers and crew were faked using sophisticated
voice-morphing technology developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
and that the December 13, 2001 video of Osama
Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks was also faked, which was
claimed to be achieved by editing a former video of Osama Bin Laden with a
bogus confession tape of what appeared to be an overweight lookalike version of
Bin Laden. Finally, it is alleged that, of the list of hijackers initially released by the government,
many were not in the planes and were alive after September 11, 2001 and may
even still be alive.
In the
end, the film gives out motives for people who would have benefited from
launching the attacks themselves. Mention is first given to financial motives,
including those of Larry Silverstein, who stood to receive a
substantial insurance payout after the attacks due to a specific anti-terrorism
clause (although not enough to cover his losses), as well as other allegations
of insider trading and Halliburton's
benefiting from the subsequent launch of America's "War on
Terror". Most of the blame, however, is placed on the aforementioned Project
for the New American Century think tank and the Rebuilding America's
Defenses report.
On May 26, 2006 a certified letter
was sent to Dylan Avery regarding copyright and trademark infringement
resulting from the use of footage from French film makers, the Naudet
brothers. The letter states that Avery used, "copyrighted images from
the 9/11 Film," and also states the images
violate, "the Federal Lanham Trademark Act by suggesting that the Naudet brothers or Mr. Hanlon have endorsed or sponsored
the controversial views in your film." The letter concludes:
"Accordingly, we hereby demand that you confirm to us within three (3)
business days of the receipt of this letter that you have removed all footage
taken from our clients' 9/11 Film from your Loose Change Film, including from
the version of your film that can be downloaded on the Internet, the DVD
version of your film, and anywhere else you have used or are using our clients'
footage."[29] In July of 2006 Dylan Avery announced that the recut version of the film would omit "some" of
the infringing material.[30]
Three
different point-by-point critiques were prepared by 911research.wtc7.net,
Internet Detectives
and Mark Roberts. Two commentators run
a blog called Screw Loose Change. Mark Iradian prepared an edited
version of Loose Change under the SLC moniker, subtitled with
criticisms drawing on work by Roberts, Screw Loose Change (which also gives
credit to the video), and his own efforts. Mark Roberts also compiled a lengthy
selection of interview quotes in which the Loose Change creators
elaborate on the claims made in the film.[31]
Many
of the critiques argue that Loose Change uses unreliable sources,
oversimplified arguments and selective facts to claim that there are serious
problems with official accounts of the events of September 11.
Loose
Change suggests a missile
hit the Pentagon, yet only briefly acknowledges the eyewitnesses at the scene
who reported seeing a large commercial jet.[32] The lack of readily visible airplane debris and bodies
in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes is focused on by Loose
Change and it uses other airline disasters as evidence there should be
larger debris found. However, according to 911 Review.com, those crashes
were accidents where pilots were trying to save their aircraft over terrain;
rather than deliberately crashing them into the ground or buildings. A fighter
jet crashing into a concrete barrier[33] and other jetliner crashes[34] provide precedents for comparison. Substantial amounts
of debris and body parts were recovered from both crash sites as the recovery
operations began.[35][36]
While
some of the calls from Flight 93 were made with Airfones,
the documentary asserts that other calls made with cell phones could not have
happened from cruising altitudes; and that new cell phone systems being tested
in airplanes support this point. In the recent book Debunking 9/11 Myths by Popular
Mechanics, the editors reply that Flight 93's
altitude was lower and it was frequently over rural areas with powerful cell
towers.[37] Commercial airlines are testing new cell phone systems
as it is a cost effective replacement to the unpopular Airfone
being phased out. Reception is also improved (cell calls were dropped on Flight
93), works over the ocean, decreases avionics
interference and flight crews can disable the phones.[38][39]
Loose
Change compares the Collapse of the World Trade Center
to other notable high rise fires, but the National Institute of Standards and
Technology clarifies there are differences in building design and size,
structural damage and compromised fireproofing.[40] Popular Mechanics points out in many conspiracy
theories there is no exploration on the effect of fire on unprotected
structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at
1100°F."[41] Kevin Ryan, the "expert" source from Underwriters Laboratories, is actually a
non-expert from a subsidiary for water testing,[18] Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural
steel,[40][18] and ASTM E119 certification involves intact
fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004.[42] The NIST could find no record of any previous
certification tests ever being conducted on the novel WTC floor system.[42] The NIST demonstrated the fireproofing was not intact
by firing shotguns
on fireproofed steel; conspiracy advocates find this unconvincing.[43]
The National Institute of
Standards and Technology, a government agency has released a point-by-point
rebuttal of many common alternative theories of the WTC collapse, including
theories which Loose Change used. On September 11, 2006, Democracy
Now! conducted an exclusive discussion with Loose
Change's creators and Popular Mechanics editors, where they debate
various aspects of the documentary.[18]
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."[44] Critics also point out the documentary quote
mines sources, uses unreliable or out of date sources and cherry-picks
interview footage. It quotes Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic controllers thought Flight 77
was a military plane based on its maneuverability; but it leaves out the end of
the statement, "... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."[45] Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller, as
seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash; over the next several
weeks Miller goes on to identify 12 passengers "using mostly dental
records."[46] There is an interview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills when
he took lessons at Freeway Airport; it fails to clarify Bernard's
expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to hit the
Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet]
got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."[47]
In
addition, many within the 9-11 research community point out the film's focus
upon the Pentagon crash as a weakness. Chris Farrell, the Director of
Investigations & Research at Judicial
Watch, warned in an interview that his organization "could be the
water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts
overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the
9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear
footage of Flight 77."[48] He stated, "Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're
compromised."
In a
debate against Mark Roberts, creator of the "Loose Change 2nd Edition
Viewers Guide" and Ronald Wieck, contributor to
the American Thinker, on Hardfire,
a local NYC cable program, Dylan Avery stated that:
|
“ |
I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts.[49][50] |
” |
The
original release of Loose Change Second Edition had factual
inaccuracies; some of these have been corrected (or removed) in the recut Second Edition.[51] The most notable are:
|
This section does not cite any references or sources. |
BNN
(Bart News Network)
Several
individuals have lampooned Loose Change with parody movies such web satirist Maddox (as an April
Fool's Joke) attempting to prove a conspiracy involving RMS Titanic
in Unfastened Coins.
They launched the newly formed "R.M.S. Titanic Truth Movement," which
alleges that the R.M.S. Olympic was actually sunk in the Titanic's place as an
insurance fraud. Another such parody is Jared M. Gordon's Moose Change, alleging
that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by alien moose.
Back to the Lesson Page: http://www.itsmyhomework.com/lesson/WorldWeLIveIN/index.html