Loose Change (2005)

Undescribable Perfection

Purely Joyful Movie!

A Major Disappointment

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I know what people are thinking, another documentary based on conspiracy theories, but just for one minute ask yourselves, why are there so many of these films (documentaries) barking up the same tree?, maybe, just maybe there's some fact in what is being told. Also remember most if not all of these films are made by Americans not by outsiders and as a result of the attacks on the Twin Towers 100,000 Iraqis' have perished, and now in Britain the US and majority of the world the war is being called illegal but we cry for the 179 soldiers (UK) that have died out there fighting for their country but not for one minute do we realise the chaos and death we have caused. Watch it with an open mind and question it but if you have already come to a conclusion that this film is a farce then avoid it and God help you.

I would rate this a 0 if I could. This "documentary" was started as a joke and when Avery realized stupid people would actually believe the crap in it he decided to sell it as a documentary. If you want to throw an hour of your life down the drain then you should watch it (if only for a laugh). Here are some "stats" from Loose ChangeErrors of fact: 81 Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92 Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92 Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48 Non sequiturs: 24 Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22 Anonymous sources: 19 "Straw man" arguments: 10 Overgeneralizations: 10 Arguments to authority: 3 Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12 Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25Total flubs: 426If you want to see what kind of crap Loose Change tries to claim then go to loosechangeguide. com

When it comes to documentaries, it's important to avoid the pitfall of attacking the substance or politics of the film at the expense of analyzing the cinematic qualities. But with this particular documentary, the quality of the production is poor. It looks like it was mixed together on someone's home PC... with a bad microphone to record the narration. The music at times was a little bit odd, given the subject matter. I don't really like watching the WTC collapse to music I can dance to.But in terms of actually putting together something intriguing and highly watchable, I give it a lot of marks. It's the kind of thing that you show to your friends and say "yeah... I don't really believe this one, but it's interesting viewing anyway!!!" So... now the cinematic stuff is out of the way, let's get to the conspiracy theory itself. First of all, the overall theory was way too ambitious. I'd say a plan as elaborate as that would require thousands of people working for you, leaving yourself dramatically open to one (or more) of them "going public." This says nothing of the fact that such a conspiracy is way too open to error (like conducting controlled demolitions while the entire world's media has their cameras watching).General opinion aside, there is an extreme lack of credibility and evidence that most will miss on the first viewing. If you watch it a second time, you'll notice how much that doco-maker relies heavily on highlight portions of articles and reports. I have little doubt that some of these "references" are from articles written by other 9/11-conspiracy theorists. For instance, if the WTC was demolished by demolition explosives and evidence of this can clearly be seen in the videos, let's have a demolition expert being interviewed and guiding us through the collapse with explanations that can be difficult to dispute. I don't like it when the documentary seems to pass himself off as an expert of all these sorts of things, thereby giving credibility to his own work (seemingly). There are also things mentioned in passing raise obvious questions that are conveniently side-stepped by the doco-maker. Sometimes it was subtle. For example, he states that the hole in the pentagon was so small that it could not have been created by a passenger jet. Yet he also mentions that the side of the pentagon that was hit was built to withstand bombs and blasts. This raises the obvious question: couldn't the high strength and durability of that pentagon wall have limited the damage caused by the impact of the plane? This seems to explain why the hole is smaller, but is not discussed or dealt with. Furthermore, when talking about the collapse of the WTC, he harps on about how fire can't cause a building to collapse. But then again, these buildings were hit by planes traveling at full speed and there's little doubt that the impact would have damaged the core support structures. But that point seems to have been side-stepped as well!Other times, the side-stepping was more obvious. He claims that some of the 9/11 hijackers that are still alive. If that's true, why didn't he travel over and interview one of them, especially since he has the name, job and country of some of them. Can't be that hard to track one of them down!. Again, it seems that he's relying on fellow conspiracy theorists for credibility and offering nothing irrefutable.That aside, the large conspiracy theory probably falls to bits with Flight 93. I believe there is a fairly reasonable chance that the US shot it out of the sky and covered it up. This explains a lot of unusual aspects about the wreckage and sightings of military planes in the area. But how does it fit with the grand conspiracy theory offered in this film? If the planes that were hijacked were not the same planes as the ones that hit the WTC or pentagon, and the WTC was brought down with demolition explosives, and the phone calls from the hijacked flights were fake, and (to use Dylan's words) it was carried out with "military precision", what exactly is the purpose of Flight 93 in all this? The conspirators were fully in control of the 9/11 events, so the obvious question then is: how did the flight 93 incident play a roll in September 11 since it did not reach its intended target. To believe the conspirators went to all that trouble to create a tale of American heroism doesn't really wash with me whatsoever. This point again seems to have been side-stepped. Then there is the ultimate big picture question: what did September 11 achieve for Bush? If he was ultimately after Iraq, which is beyond dispute, then why put together this incredible plan together, then allow blame to fall towards radicals in Afghanistan? If Bush put it together, he would ensure that blame would fall at Iraq's door, wouldn't he?And furthermore, it's one hell of a long bow to draw, if you want to argue that they planned to go into Iraq by first starting a mock war with Bin Ladan and Afghanistan and then allowing that to open the door to WMD accusations that would in turn justify (by the US standards) a war in Iraq. Oh and one more thing: in order to put that one together, you'd also need Sadam to ban weapons inspectors from doing their jobs, thereby convince him to provoke a war with the US which in turn would lead to his own death.All that aside, a good watch, even though it severely lacks credibility and the narrator was a bit too irritatingly pompous and overly self-confident about his claims at times.

After seeing this documentary, I felt a little uneasy. It has long been presumed by a growing number of people that the Government used 9/11 for their benefit, but to cause it may be a bit much. I have no doubt our government faked a number of things. My roommate freshman year of college was at the pentagon to clean it up the next day after 9/11, and i'm telling you no 757 hit it. But then again people will believe what they want to. And I doubt we may ever know what type of plane hit the pentagon anyways. As for the trade center, this documentary says there were a lot of explosions, and clearly, in the video evidence, you can see that with shattered windows, and outward explosions during the collapse of each building. But to believe our government did it, and not the possibility it was a continuing effort of terrorism is insane. Not to mention the fact that the trade center imploded so it is possible that could cause all those internal explosions floors away from the free fall. And there facts saying no building has ever collapsed from a fire is true. But its once again only half right. How many sky scrappers have been hit by large commercial airplanes??? How many of the previous office building fires they show examples of had the excessive weight of the trade centers beams? And finally, if a full size plane at full speed ends up going into the middle of a sky scrapper, doesn't it take out AT LEAST half the support beams for the coinciding floors, which in this case was around 4-5 floors? People have to remember, this documentary is only half right. The are 100% right on how many things from 9/11 were lies, made up, and misleading. There explanations though, totally ridiculous. I guess they truly despise this president even more than the rest of us to go that out on a limb. My advice to anyone who has seen this movie, be open to the lies this documentary goes over, just not the explanations.