Boom
9/11 is a joke - or is it?
OK, you've probably heard about Loose Change. It's a no-budget, homemade documentary methodically questioning the veracity of the official version of events on September 11, 2001. In its initial incarnation it was available to view and download for free on the internet - then it was taken down, as it used certain footage without permission. That seems to have been cleared, and for a few months now the Second Edition has been back up, on Goodle Video, again for free, although you can buy a hard DVD copy via mail order, which I have done. The free video is here and the mail order site is here. The filmmakers encourage you to view their work, now an hour and a half in length, for nothing, and have offered free copies to relatives of the victims. If the first time you head about LC was in George Monbiot's article in the Guardian this week, you may have a distorted view of it - and its advocates, who are all apparently off their rockers. I don't know why he's taken against it so, when all filmmaker Dylan Avery is doing is asking questions and offering up alternatives, something Monbiot is known for doing on his own issues, such as the environment. (Remember when he had a go at The Day After Tomorrow as "lousy science"? He does seem niggled by anyone else dealing on his corner.) Anyway, I say, watch the film. It doesn't really have the "authoritative voiceover" that George rails against - it sounds like a young American bloke reading, which it is. Dylan Avery himself. It's assembled from fragments of other people's films, plus lots of telling on-the-spot news footage from the day, and some computer graphics. But the way it refuses to take at face value anything the mainstream media or the 9/11 Commission tells us is certainly bracing.
I am a "gibbering idiot", according to Monbiot, for believing any of it. Loose Change goes out on several limbs and suggests that September 11 was stage-managed by the Bush administration to put the American people at a psychological disadvantage so that it could rush through draconian new laws and throw its weight around globally, which it certainly did, and has continued to do. This is a big mental leap for some people, not so for others. I personally wouldn't put anything past any government. The more powerful, the more corrupt and venal they are likely to be. I'm currently reading The Trial Of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens (written, crucially, before September 11 turned his head) - nobody would call him a gibbering idiot, and yet the crimes he uncovers, in Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia, are very real, all covered up at the time. It's safest to distrust those in power.
Here are the main points in Loose Change: the Pentagon was hit by a Cruise missile, not a commercial airliner; the Twin Towers collapsed after controlled explosions set off inside the buildings; Flight 93 never crashed in a Pennsylvania field. The pumping soundtrack of the film gives these theories a certain compulsive momentum, and while watching it, you may become convinced. It doesn't all stand up, but it does make you think, and that can't be a bad thing. It's certainly a compelling 90 minutes, occasionally chilling.
There are arguments and counter-arguments, the most thorough of the latter I've found being this one, which literally takes Loose Change word for word and refutes or challenges it, using detailed evidence against it, and sources. It's all rather thrilling, if you like that kind of thing. The same scrutiny fell upon Michael Moore's films, and Moore in general. It's interesting how much time those who seek to debunk the debunkers have on their hands. The left are usually seen scrabbling around for bits of truth, piecing it together as best they can, while the right systematically bring them back in line. There's a pattern.
At the end of the day, I'm just glad people are going to the trouble of questioning events as they are handed down to them, whether it's the government or the media, or even fellow conspiracy theorists. I know I am obsessed with that day, but it's too significant not to be. I expect I'll be on an FBI list for writing this. I'd just like to know why it's called Loose Change. Somebody's hiding the truth about that.
What do you think? No gibbering idiots please.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 7:58 PM
17 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
17 Comments:
This certainly sounds like an interesting film, and I'm keen to see it now.
I certainly agree with the points made about the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11. As I sat watching it on TV, I thought to myself "this is the sort of thing that starts wars", and in a way, Bush must have been rubbing his hands with glee, having finally found his (very flimsy) excuse to invade Iraq.
I often wonder if Osama Bin Laden actually exists, or if he's just an Emmanuel Goldstein-type figure, touted around so that people have got someone to hate, with George Bush as Big Brother heroically seeking to destroy him...
"See, the people who have told us they had to invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction are exactly the same people - never mind the same authorities, they're the same personalities - who told us the official story of 9/11." Who said that? Well, totally shamelessly, I'm quoting David Icke from an interview he gave me, which is online here.
As for my opinions on 9/11, honestly, it's something I can't even get started thinking about...
I've not seen Loose Change so can't really comment. But I think you raise an interesting point about the capacity of powerful governments to do pretty much anything they want (and then cover it up).
There's no doubt this has happended on a systematic basis throughout modern history - with Kissinger perhaps the arch exponent in recent times.
But I actually think we're moving further away from this form of international politics - what used to be called realpolitik - particularly since Blair and Bush came to power.
Where once all manner of skullduggery was justified on grounds of national security and strategic imperatives we now seem to be living in an age where are leaders genuinely believe they're engaged in a battle of good against evil.
I grew up with the assumption that whatever governments said in public, behind closed doors they knew far more than they were letting on and were operating a foreign policy of such fiendish complexity that it was probably best to just let them get on with it.
I don't think that's the case these days. Our foreign policy lacks any sophistication or subtlety.
There was a piece in the London Review of Books the other week by an academic who specialises in the history of modern Iraq. He told of being called to a high level meeting at 10 Downing Street with Blair, Jack Straw and various other experts in the field to discuss the impending war in Iraq and its possible consequences. Apparently Straw made a valiant attempt at intelligent analysis but just wasn't up to the job and got it all wrong. Blair, on the other hand, didn't seem remotely interested in the complexities of the issue and was only concerned about whether the removal of Saddam would 'rid the country of evil'.
Now I'm no supporter of Kissinger-style black ops. But I'm much more frightened at the prospect of being led by people whose view of the world encompasses no shades of grey.
To drag this back to your original topic - I'm sceptical about 9/11 conspiracy theories mainly becasue I don't think the Bush administration would have felt the need to create a justification for its subsequent actions. When you only answer to God and have right on your side the world seems a much more straightforward place.
I don't buy the conspiracy theories myself. Do you really think the Bush administration would be able to orchestrate something like that involving hundreds of people without it leaking out? I do believe that they are cynical enough to have not taken action when warned about possible plots, and then used the resulting carnage as an excuse to do whatever they please in the name of the war on terror ...
We all love a good conspiracy theory - I know I do - but on this occasion I really don't think there is one.
I agree with neil h - I wouldn't put it past the government(s) to turn a blind eye and let it happen, but I just don't buy that they actually did it. Bit like Pearl Harbour perhaps...allegedly...
I can't see how a Bush administration capable of the balls up in Iraq (amongst many other things) can be credited with successfully carrying out such a mass deception. I do suspect Flight 93 was shot down though. And I can't believe they didn't have more and better security cameras at the Pentagon.
I suppose 9/11 did let loose the, er, dogs of change. Possibly that's one of the meanings of the title?
I've not seen the film, so also cannot comment. I agree that we should we should be skeptical (not cynical) about any information we are fed, but equally skeptical of the conspiracy theories.
Check out Robert Todd Carroll's excellent website www.skepdic.com.
Specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html
The reason I haven't seen this film or 'Flight 93' is that I have an aversion to the subject matter (I find it traumatic and depressing). The reason I haven't seen 'World Trade Center' is that I have an aversion to Nicolas Cage (I find him traumatic and depressing).
Felt sufficiently interested to spend an hour and a half watching 'Loose Change' this morning...it deftly tied together many 'snippets' I'd been aware of over the last few years. I suppose everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing on Sept 11 '01 - I certainly remember, as the stories of the 'heroics' aboard Flight 93 emerged, saying something to the effect that this was a piece of American Folklore in the making. I never believed that version of events for a moment, still don't, and that's why I didn't watch 'United 93'.
I have no trouble believing in the amorality of most governments, and I think most civilians are seen as expendable. Steve Lake's point about the recent change in rhetoric is interesting, but I think similar extremes were being evoked during much of the Cold War,with its talk of 'Evil Empires'. America has, since its inception, claimed to have god on its side.
A mad world, my masters.
PS. it's not all gloom and doom though. A friend alerted me to this site, and I've been making merry on it this afternoon.
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/conspiracy.html
You are of course right to say that the rhetoric of good and evil was used throughout the Cold War (and on many more occasions besides). The point I was making is that it is no longer just rhetoric - the major players really do believe this stuff.
The genesis of this black and white view can perhaps be traced further back than the current Bush to Reagan in the 80s - he was the first to coin the 'Evil Empire' phrase.
But even there I think there's a difference in that Reagan was surrounded by hard-headed veterans of realpolitik. Bush seems to be surrounded by people who think along the same lines as he does.
Still, the coming presidential election is I think the first for many decades where there will be no sitting President or Vice President among the candidates. So maybe there's some chance of a change of direction...
Not sure that Reagan WAS neccesarily surrounded by hard-headed veterans of realpolitik. Unless you are including under that banner the 'original' neocons, who were largely disaffected former liberals, to whom Reagan was something of a gift ( he, and obliging semi-tame apes like Oliver North). This era was the spawning ground for the current generation who flock around Bush. The whole picture these days is so hugely complex and involved that it's hard to really figure out where the actual power resides - Bush may be the tail, or the dog.
But the absence of an incumbent president or VP does provide an interesting twist. Let's see if the Democrats canuse that to their advantage....
I think you're right to say that the Reagan administration was the spawning ground for today's neo-cons but - if it's not stretching the metaphor too far - they were tadpoles then rather than the frogs they are now.
They clearly formulated many of their views in the sympathetic environment Reagan offered but it wasn't really until Bush snr that they started to have an influence on policy.
The big hitters in the Reagan cabinet, at least when it came to foreign affairs - Haig, Shultz, Weinberger - were far closer to the world of Kissinger than Rumsfeld.
Be nice to think that the Democrats could take advantage wouldn't it? How confident are you? Haven't exactly covered themselves with glory over the past 6 years. The new mixed race guy - whose name escapes me - sounds promising but then so did Howard Dean before people cottoned on to the fact that he might actually have some radical ideas at which point he was dropped like a hot potato.
Not only have the Democrats failed to cover themselves in glory during the last six years, they were a huge disappointment when in power. Clinton delivered practically nothing of what he had promised, but history has been kind to him.
There may well be new blood on the rise there, and the 'new guy' seems engaging, but I've heard nothing radical in anything he's said. Though he must be smart enough to know that America is at heart a deeply conservative nation. Radical = bad.
Took me a while to have another look at this thread - such has been all the excitement about Andrew and Gillian McKeith! Shows what really fires people up, anyway....
I think Charlie Brooker's article from today's Guardian sums it all up rather neatly, as well as making some points about rational thinking that are pertinent to the McKeith thread:
Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway round the world before the truth can put its socks on. Now, thanks to the internet, a lie can travel round the world, head home, take a dump, watch the entire Lord Of The Rings trilogy on DVD, make supper and die of old age before the truth has opened an eyelid. It's not Twain's fault. In his day the internet was made of string.
Chinese whispers spread online faster than any computer virus. I know this better than most because I was at the centre of one a few years ago, when I ended a Screen Burn column by recycling a very old tasteless joke (a variant of a graffiti I first saw during the Thatcher years), and within minutes half the internet seemed convinced the Guardian was officially calling for assassination.
My inbox overflowed with blood-curdling death threats, and it was all very unfunny indeed - a bit like recounting a rude joke at a dinner party, only to be told you hadn't recounted a joke at all, but molested the host's children, and suddenly everyone was punching you and you weren't going to get any pudding. I've had better weekends.
Incidentally, in case the entire internet is reading, it seems prudent at this point to unequivocally state that I've never wanted to see ANYONE murdered, injured, or even lightly bruised. Not even Mac owners, and frankly they're pushing it.
As anyone who read the original column will know, I'm not a huge fan of Bush. He's a dangerous idiot who's dragged America's name into the mud, and crapped all over it, grinning as he does so. As for Americans themselves, I can honestly say I've never met one I didn't like. Maybe I'm shallow, maybe it's the accents. But really - every single one of them: lovely.
So, having established that a) I don't like Bush but b) I love Americans, it's time for a third revelation - namely c) I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the Bush administration. Which is a pity, because I love a good conspiracy theory, and that's a humdinger.
Thing is, people like me will eventually be in the minority if the Chinese whisperers have their way. I'd like to think tomorrow's excellent documentary 9/11: The Conspiracy Files (Sun, 9pm, BBC2) will redress the balance - but I doubt it, since the story it tells (ie the real one) isn't half as exciting as the other story doing the rounds (ie the bullshit cuckooland version).
In cool, measured tones it steadily dismantles the Loose Change conspiracy theory until there's nothing left to see besides a slightly snotty young director and a few unhinged talking heads. No rational person could watch this and come away thinking otherwise.
But whoops: people aren't rational. They believe what they want to believe, and when evidence mounts to the contrary, dig their heels in and refuse to change their minds, like dogs that won't be dragged through a doorway. Sometimes the sheer pressure of all that stubbornness causes them to lose their senses completely and become creationists, at which point they're beyond help.
But there's still hope for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Their hearts are still in the right place, even if their brains have fluttered off to spaceland. One day they'll return, like butterflies, and all will be well.
Here's what really happened on 9/11. A terrible crime was committed by a group of determined terrorists. Appalling mistakes were made both before and after the terrible crime. The terrible crime was capitalized upon. The world was shit before the terrible crime, and got steadily shittier afterwards. That's it! So please, please, stop pissing your pants about controlled demolitions and the like - you're wrong. You're wrong! And it's OK to be wrong. You can still distrust or even hate the government. But on this one? You're wrong. And continuing to bang on about it isn't heroic, it's embarrassing. The rest of the world isn't asleep. You're just dreaming out loud.
Another good column by Charlie Brooker. And, once again, I admire his cast-iron belief in the official version of events. The book I'm reading at the moment, The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin, would beg to differ. Rationalists would love it - he merely gathers up evidence and presents it as a series of questions. There is no hysteria. It's not on the internet. It's in a book. I find many of these questions stimulating. It's a great book if you prefer to question rather than accept.
For a fascinating point by point rebuttal of 'Loose Change', there's "Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition", also available for free on Google Video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561
I know 9/11 truthers like to say they're "only asking questions", well the film above is full of answers, so they should be delighted with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home