In May 2002 three young men Dylan Avery, Korey Row and Jason Bermas, all in their early 20’s and from the small town Oneonta in New York, had the idea of making a fiction film which would blame the terror attacks on September 11th 2001 on the U.S. government. But as they did more research on the subject, they decided that the plot was actually plausible. The fiction film then turned into a series of documentaries which assert that the official story of what happened on 9/11 cannot be true, and that the American government, in one way or another, was involved in the attacks.

This explosive message has touched a nerve globally. Millions have been gripped by the Loose Change-phenomenon by watching it on YouTube, by free downloading, streaming, cinema screenings or the occasional broadcasting on various TV-channels. Nancy Jo Sales wrote in Vanity Fair in August 2006 that the documentary “just might be the first Internet blockbuster”. A fourth version of the film was released this autumn. It is called Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, and compares the events on 9/11to the German Reichstag fire and the attempted coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. The price tag of this latest version was one million dollars, a big leap from the first documentary named Loose Change which was released in April 2005 and cost 2,000 dollars, financed mostly by Dylan Avery’s savings from working in an ice cream bar.

The budget rise has bought with it advanced graphics, editing and rare recordings from a range of American TV-channels. The argumentation and script have also become more sophisticated. The number of assertions about what happened before, during, and after the terror attacks on 9/11 has been reduced and refined in the progressive development of the four different versions. In the last version you will fortunately not find any lengthy depictions of how an airplane with a “pod” or missile underneath it rammed the Twin Towers, or how someone stole millions of worth of gold from vaults inside the skyscrapers during the attacks. The filmmakers have also let go of the odd claim that BBC somehow predicted the collapse of the third building, WTC7, located just across the street. Even though numerous changes have been made, the filmmakers have always been
true to a core set of claims: The Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition, and there is nothing to suggest that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon or into the fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The filmmakers still suspect that several of the hijackers were “patsies” with connections to American intelligence and that Osama bin Laden was not the mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11.

Russian authorities were exposed for falsely blaming Chechens for the demolition of a tower block in Moscow in 1999.1)See also Andrej Nekrasov: Disbelief (2004). Many FSB (KGB) agents seemed to be involved.

The lack of resources and professional experience is probably why these filmmakers are having a hard time proving, through their chain of evidence, a similar scenario regarding the WTC-buildings. Loose Change is not a result of classical investigative reporting as such, where you are presented with statements from witnesses who can identify alternative perpetrators. The filmmakers have not found receipts from anyone buying the actual explosives or contracts with demolition teams. What you find in the last version of Loose Change is mostly circumstantial evidence, gathered from open sources. Does that make the material irrelevant? Not in my opinion. The reason is that the documentary does highlight several paradoxical events that deserve closer examination.

The film starts with an interview with Dr Abdel El M. Husseini, a specialist in the Arabic language, who finds the U.S. government’s translation of Bin Laden’s confession video very problematic since the translated text is not identical to the original statement. Another major issue in the documentary is the background and behaviour of the hijackers prior to the attacks. Who were these people? Mohammed Atta went to strip-clubs and drank alcohol although he was supposed to be a devout Muslim. Two of the hijackers lived together with an FBI-informant in San Diego, where they were paid visits on regular basis by Hani Hanjour and Mohammed Atta. And perhaps more importantly: how did the hijackers enter the country so easily without being noticed? These are some of the questions which the mainstream media has not taken seriously.

Login or signup to read the rest..

If you do not have subscription, you can just login or register, and choose free guest or subscription to read all articles.



References   [ + ]

1. See also Andrej Nekrasov: Disbelief (2004).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here