A few years back I watched the internet phenomena Loose Change (2nd Edition) and was impressed a group of college kids could piece together such a convincing argument/conspiracy theory about the attacks of 9/11. That's not to say this argument was a flawless one, in fact, it was wrought with innuendo, hyperbole and a handful of logical gaps. Regardless of its shortcomings, LC strung together a staggering amount of coincidences, so many that any reasonable/logical person would be compelled to ask the incredibly important question: what really happened on 9/11?
Last night I watched Loose Change Final Cut, expecting it to be a less didactic re-vision of the first two editions. I was wrong. The Final Cut is a completely new reinterpretation of what went down on 9/11, with new evidence, new footage, new questions and a refined journalistic emphasis on fact vs. fantasy. FC is not only a dramatic improvement over its predecessors, it's a documentary that stresses how far the truth movement has come and how much the filmmakers involved have matured.
In the years between the 2nd Edition and the Final Cut, writer/director/editor Dylan Avery has taken painstaking efforts to correct inaccuracies, remove hyperbole, and counter his critics/detractors with a damning pile of evidence that simply cannot be ignored. Instead of leaping to wild conclusions (as he did in the 2nd Ed.), Avery soberly lets the (readily available, yet widely ignored) facts speak for themselves. In the end the viewer is left shaking his/her head in disbelief by the volumes of questions the government of the United States of America should be forced to answer in a court of law. The bottom line here is that where there's smoke, there are usually liars and the overwhelming amount of evidence stacked up that contradicts the findings of The 9/11 Commission Report, causes pause for very serious concern.
While the Bush administration may or may not be directly linked to the attacks, there is no doubt they should be forced to prove (in court and under oath) what exactly their role was. Will any of these players ever be forced to reveal the truth? Probably not since they not only create the laws of this land, they also enforce them...legally and (debatably) illegally. Perhaps one day we'll live in a country where the government fears its people, but until that day Loose Change Final Cut proves we have should fear our government...if not for anything other than their ineptitude.
As a sidebar, I watched "Screw Loose Change" in an attempt to form as objective a stance on this topic as possible. Unfortunately the maker of SLC was never a student of The Art of Reasoning and thus, would not only make a pitiful lawyer, but also proves to be incredibly incompetent as a documentary filmmaker. Unfortunately, SLC wears its bias on its sleeve and loses all credibility as a result. In SLC's zeal to refute everything contained within LC 2nd Ed., it jumps logical barricades with shameless ease. One example: SLC attempts to refute LC 2nd Ed.'s first bit of evidence: the presentation of declassified files of operation Northwoods. SLC's contention is that LC "does not display any effort whatsoever to connect the two events, instead it merely describes Northwoods." Instead of making a very basic observation that LC is merely attempting to establish a trend/pattern in the actions of the US Government, SLC asks LC to do something it later attacks it for: reaching unfounded conclusions through leaps in reasoning. Perhaps SLC will follow the lead of LC and go back to the drawing board in an attempt to make a better, more truthful film. If not, SLC is destined for the garbage heap while LC Final Cut will likely end up being studied in Journalism courses.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
Last night I watched Loose Change Final Cut, expecting it to be a less didactic re-vision of the first two editions. I was wrong. The Final Cut is a completely new reinterpretation of what went down on 9/11, with new evidence, new footage, new questions and a refined journalistic emphasis on fact vs. fantasy. FC is not only a dramatic improvement over its predecessors, it's a documentary that stresses how far the truth movement has come and how much the filmmakers involved have matured.
In the years between the 2nd Edition and the Final Cut, writer/director/editor Dylan Avery has taken painstaking efforts to correct inaccuracies, remove hyperbole, and counter his critics/detractors with a damning pile of evidence that simply cannot be ignored. Instead of leaping to wild conclusions (as he did in the 2nd Ed.), Avery soberly lets the (readily available, yet widely ignored) facts speak for themselves. In the end the viewer is left shaking his/her head in disbelief by the volumes of questions the government of the United States of America should be forced to answer in a court of law. The bottom line here is that where there's smoke, there are usually liars and the overwhelming amount of evidence stacked up that contradicts the findings of The 9/11 Commission Report, causes pause for very serious concern.
While the Bush administration may or may not be directly linked to the attacks, there is no doubt they should be forced to prove (in court and under oath) what exactly their role was. Will any of these players ever be forced to reveal the truth? Probably not since they not only create the laws of this land, they also enforce them...legally and (debatably) illegally. Perhaps one day we'll live in a country where the government fears its people, but until that day Loose Change Final Cut proves we have should fear our government...if not for anything other than their ineptitude.
As a sidebar, I watched "Screw Loose Change" in an attempt to form as objective a stance on this topic as possible. Unfortunately the maker of SLC was never a student of The Art of Reasoning and thus, would not only make a pitiful lawyer, but also proves to be incredibly incompetent as a documentary filmmaker. Unfortunately, SLC wears its bias on its sleeve and loses all credibility as a result. In SLC's zeal to refute everything contained within LC 2nd Ed., it jumps logical barricades with shameless ease. One example: SLC attempts to refute LC 2nd Ed.'s first bit of evidence: the presentation of declassified files of operation Northwoods. SLC's contention is that LC "does not display any effort whatsoever to connect the two events, instead it merely describes Northwoods." Instead of making a very basic observation that LC is merely attempting to establish a trend/pattern in the actions of the US Government, SLC asks LC to do something it later attacks it for: reaching unfounded conclusions through leaps in reasoning. Perhaps SLC will follow the lead of LC and go back to the drawing board in an attempt to make a better, more truthful film. If not, SLC is destined for the garbage heap while LC Final Cut will likely end up being studied in Journalism courses.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/