Movie #397 ........................."Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup"

Movie #397 "Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup" is typical of what documentaries have become --- everyone has an agenda, and this one is the "Investigation of the Truth" of 9/11 --- what really happened. I thought I knew, and I still do, according to what the disputers of this movie say on the internet. The film tries to stack the deck for us to think that our government had something to do with what happened on 9/11. Okay, I'm one of the first to admit that I hated every minute of the Bush years (counted down the days he remained in office, heck the minutes!) , and that he is, of all the presidents, yes even Nixon, my least favorite. But what this movie's underbelly suggests is really unthinkable to me. The film starts with Hitler, suggesting that his group (under the guise of rebels) might have staged a coup so that the government would welcome his party in the months to follow; then, the film suggests other such situations in world history; then, it goes to Roosevelt and tells us again that he had to have known about Pearl Harbor before it happened, etc. etc., it shows Kennedy's assasination (to suggest the government might have done that, too?) to Bush --------and they suggest that he knew it was going to happen? Well, Dylan, I think suggests that that is why the secret service did not rush him out of the school building on the fateful day of 9/11. REally? That's too hard to believe, but it did bring up a good question. Why did the Secret Service not move him out of the school he was in at 9 a.m., the time of the attacks? Why didn't they think that Bush was in danger? heck, that the school he was in was in danger? why were they so sure? Dylan is saying because he might have known beforehand (or someone else might have known) I thought maybe it could have been a way not to freak out the public or maybe it was a mistake on the secret service's part? But of course neither one was suggested, as we watch Bush calmly reading to little kids. Then, the film moves to the war games that were being played at the various installations in Washington, d.c. at the time of the calls on the World Trade Center that day --- so that it was confusing when the first call came in if it was a game being played or the real thing. Why did they pick that day to play those war games? I had never heard that one before. The whole Pentagon thing was discussed, and that seem really farfetched. This documenter Dylan Avery (who has few credentials, according to the internet) suggests that maybe it wasn't a boeing that ran into the pentagon (no film footage of it, no debris, etc.) and whatever was flown (a fighter plane?) had to have been flown well (the guy the commission said flew it couldn't even pass flight school) and the maneuvering of the plane would have taken special skill, plus where it hit the pentagon would give the least damage --- because the area was the only place in the pentagon where it was double insulated. That was weird to me ---- Not that it wasn't a boeing, because that seemed farfetched, but the fact that if it hit the pentagon anywhere else, there would have been many more lives taken that day. Then, the film moved to the plane in Pennsylvania and that seemed farfetched (again) to me --- I'm not sure his point there, but I think he was trying to tell us that there was no evidence at all of the plane or any debris at all. He kept comparing it to all the other planes that have ever gone down before --------but maybe that plane was aiming for the ground, and all the other planes have always had pilots that were trying to SAVE the plane. He didn't bring that point up. Anyway, then he goes to the towers, which bottom line, he suggests had explosives from the inside (the controlled demolition theory) --- what he uses for support? Well, not engineers (they say that the buildings COULD have collapsed straight down from the force of impact and fire.) His point is once again, it has never happened like this --- a building collapsing straight down in that quick amount of time, due to fire. He had two witnesses, one interviewed in the film, who said they HEARD explosions over and over in building 7 before they left it and it collapsed (at 5:20 that night --- I don't even remember hearing about that building collapsing) He showed the news footage where these people said it to newspeople, and then, what is really creepy, a few days before the commission concluded that there were no witnesses for the explosions, the one guy dies unexpectedly ----------just like in the movies. Avery never brought up what happened to the other witness. But it was a bit creepy how that guy disappeared. One more dispute is that of Stephen Jones, a physicist (he seemed to have creditable education) who studied debris from a woman's desk who lived across the street from the World Trade Center. He found stuff that would be found in a demolition explosion. It got really technical in that part of the film. And knowing that Engineers have no credence in this finding does not support Avery's axe that he is grinding here. I had heard about this movie --- it got around on the internet, and there were several editions of it (this is evidently the last one), and it seemed far fetched from the opening to the closing, but.............and that's the lingering but.............there are questions that remain, that the commission didn't cover. And I mentioned them above. It makes you think, and I definitely wanted to search the one guy who just turned up dead all of a sudden. That still creeps me out. The whole idea behind this movie creeped me out. The one thing I keep thinking about that was said in this movie (and I don't know if it's true, I should probably check find that, too) is that even vice president Truman didn't know about the Manhattan Project until he was president. Very scary. So if you like this kind of thing, here it is. If you'd rather not open up "that kettle of fish" then don't bother. If you wanted to know what all the hubub was about (like me), go to it. Now I know what the controlled demotion theory for 9/11 is. But I don't think I saw anything that changed my total way of thinking about 9/11. This guy puts Michael Moore to shame!





I gave it 3 stars.
Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup
(2009) NR
Informed by footage from Sept. 11, interviews with experts and new evidence, filmmaker Dylan Avery argues that the world hasn't heard the full truth behind the terrorist attacks and urges citizens to demand accountability from the U.S. government. In this provocative documentary, Avery also takes a sobering walk through other infamous historical events, such as the Vietnam War, and what role politicians have had in their creation.
Genre: Political Documentaries, Historical Documentaries, Indie Documentaries
This movie is: Controversial
Format: DVD