Loose Change in this week's Guardian Film

[Skeptic]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1998430,00.html

'They're all forced to listen to us'


It began as a tiny internet film attacking the 'lies' surrounding 9/11. Now, millions of people have heard its message. Like it or loathe it, you can't ignore Loose Change, says Ed Pilkington

Friday January 26, 2007
The Guardian

At the end of the journey is a white clapboard cabin surrounded by muddy fields and a couple of dilapidated sheds. Inside, the house is sparsely furnished with plastic chairs and a worn brown carpet. Three young men in their early 20s are sitting around on a futon in the back bedroom watching Family Guy, the animated TV show, on a large plasma screen and playing with a puppy. On the desk in front of them are three computer screens showing, incongruously, the skyline of Manhattan in segments, like a 21st-century triptych.
At first glance, this seems an unlikely setting for what can reasonably be called a revolution in film distribution. There is nothing Beverly Hills about this room, or the twentysomethings sitting around in it. But when you stop to reflect, it is the perfect setting for the command-post of a phenomenon that has turned normal movie logistics on their head, challenged assumptions about documentary film-making and journalism, and created an army of hundreds of thousands of devoted "info warriors".

This is the bedroom of Dylan Avery, the director and creator of Loose Change, the most successful movie to emerge from what followers call the 9/11 Truth Movement. More commonly, they are referred to as conspiracy theorists. They believe - or rather, they insist they can prove - that the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 2001 were not the work of Osama bin Laden, but of elements within the US government itself. They reject the term "conspiracy theorists", arguing that if you accept the official line on 9/11 you have in any case signed up to a theory about a conspiracy - an al-Qaida conspiracy.

Many people find the world of such anti-establishment sceptics, to use polite terminology, deeply suspect and verging on the offensive. A few of the families of the victims of 9/11 have said as much to the Loose Change crew, although Avery says many more have offered support. But push aside any instinctive distrust there might be about what they are saying - we'll come back to that later - and consider for a moment its impact.

The movement of 9/11 sceptics has had an astonishing success in sowing doubt across the US. Recent polls suggest more than a third of Americans believe that either the official version of events never happened, or that US officials knew the attacks were imminent, but did nothing to stop them.

That's an impressive statistic in itself. Now look at the success Loose Change has had. Google Video acts as a portal for the movie, where you can also see the running tally of the number of times it has been viewed since last August. As I write, it stands at 4,048,990. By the time you read this, it will have risen considerably higher. On top of that, the movie was shown on television to up to 50 million people in 12 countries on September 11 last year; 100,000 DVDs have been sold and 50,000 more given away free. Then there are many more who have watched the film but are never counted, as a result of the active encouragement the film-makers give their supporters to burn the movie and distribute it to their friends. Avery says 100 million people - "easy" - have seen it. That may be an exaggeration, but it's fair to say that something extraordinary is going on.

The Loose Change story begins in May 2002 on the opening night of a Mediterranean restaurant in Oneonta where Avery, then aged 19, is working as a dishwasher. A friend of the owner, James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano), is a guest at the party and Avery gets chatting with him. "We started talking about movies and *," Avery recalls. "Gandolfini told me, if you want to do something that matters, you have to talk to the entire world. You have to have something to say."

Avery had just finished high school. He'd long been a film buff, a fan of Tarantino, Fight Club and The Matrix. He was inspired to begin writing a novel/film-script. He began toying with the idea of a fictional work that would explore the fantasy that 9/11 hadn't been carried out by 19 Arabs with box-cutters, but by the American government as an attack on the minds of its own people. At that point, he was writing pure fiction. But as he began researching September 11 for background to the story, he began to come across evidence that made him change direction. All the footage and the eyewitness accounts he gathered, he says, "just didn't add up".

The second of the three twentysomethings enters the scene. He is Korey Rowe, now aged 23 and Dylan's best friend from Oneonta. Five years ago, Rowe joined the army because he had nothing better to do and he'd heard the golf was good at training camp. Then 9/11 happened and "everything went crazy". He was posted to Afghanistan for six months and later for a year to Iraq. Rowe extracted himself from the military in 2005 and joined Avery full-time in making Loose Change. By now, it was taking shape as a part fiction, part reality movie, but eventually they decided they had enough material to go all-out as a documentary.

The first edition of Loose Change, running at 30 minutes and produced on a battered Compaq Presario laptop (price $1,500), was finished in April that year. The second, longer, edition - the one currently available on the internet - came out in September 2005 with the help of a third partner and fellow Oneonta resident, Jason Bermas, aged 27.

Entirely self-taught, and without a single journalistic qualification between them beyond a couple of media courses Jason sat at college, the three men have sought to take on the combined might of the Bush administration, the FBI, the CIA and the mainstream media. If viewer statistics are a measure of success, they have to no small degree prevailed.

One can speculate as to the reasons for their success. September 11 was such an overwhelming event that many people have been open to the wilder accounts of what lay behind it. The reaction of the Bush administration - Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo, terror clampdowns within America - have generated profound fears about the president's intentions. And this openness to - even need for - alternative explanations has come at just the moment when the internet has made it possible for such theories to be disseminated rapidly and widely.

The power of the film is that it lays down layer upon layer of seemingly rational analysis to end up with a conclusion many would find incredible. It is compiled from original footage from numerous news sources, narrated in Dylan's mild, almost monotone voice, and backed by an soundtrack from DJ Skooly and others that induces a sense of the ominous.

And so to the message. The Twin Towers in New York didn't fall as a direct result of the planes hitting them and the fire that ensued; they were brought them down in a series of controlled explosions. George Bush's brother, Marvin, sat on the board of a company that insured the towers.

"I think what happened to the World Trade Centre was simple enough," Avery says in the film. "It was brought down in a carefully planned controlled demolition. It was a psychological attack on the American people and it was pulled off with military precision."

Flight 77, which supposedly flew into the Pentagon, could not have flown at that speed without going into a tailspin. There is no sign of any parts of an aeroplane in footage of the crash site, and the building looked as though it had been hit by a missile. Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld was safe on the other side of the Pentagon.

Flight 93, said to have come down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, never did crash there. Instead it landed in Cleveland airport shortly after the airport had been evacuated. The emotive phone calls by the so-called passengers to their relatives before they "died" were staged.

There are several flaws in the argument. The list of those who would have to have been party to the plot is implausibly long for it to have remained secret, from Bush himself to Rumsfeld and Cheney and the FBI and Pentagon ... and on and on. Much of the supporting evidence in the film was taken in the first minutes and hours after the attacks, when confusion reigned. And George Bush may be a disastrous and dishonest president, but would he be capable of such a monstrous act?

The three men have instant answers to any objections you can throw at them. There may have been a lot of people involved - they think about 100 - but only a handful of those would have known the full plot. As for Bush acting heinously, haven't leaders the world over proven themselves capable of monstrous acts?

There's a futility to arguing with them that even they recognise. "You can't stop this, you can't hold us back," Jason says. "Many outlets have tried to ignore us, but in the end they are all forced to listen to us because their viewers are demanding it." He is right. The exponential growth of Loose Change is gradually forcing the film on the mainstream media. Though it began as an internet phenomenon, its biggest spikes have come, significantly, after the film gained airplay on old media platforms such as Air America and Pacifica radio stations, local Fox TV outlets and on stations around the world, including state outlets in Belgium, Ireland and Portugal. So far though, no British channel has been rash - or as the film-makers would see it, brave - enough to bite.

"This is unlike anything I have worked on," says Tim Sparke of MercuryMedia, which handles international distribution for the film. "It has forced millions of people to question whether they can trust big media, and by bypassing the broadcasters through internet distribution it has altered the media power balance profoundly. With a little money and passion, anyone can make an important film."

The final test for Avery and co is yet to come. They are putting together Loose Change: the Final Cut using an upgraded Power Mac G5 (price $5,000). They have filmed original interviews with Washington players, employed lawyers to iron out copyright issues with borrowed footage, commissioned 3D graphics from Germany, and recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant. The end result, they hope, will be seen at Cannes and have a cinema release in America and across the world on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

If that happens, they will have squared the circle. The underground film-makers will have come up for air, exposing millions more people to their argument - and themselves to intense scrutiny. Stand back and enjoy the fireworks.

[andyb]

No such thing as bad publicity. The article weasn't too harsh and shows the progess we are making. Well done Tim for getting that in there.

[Mark Gobell]

Agreed. Only a miniscule of repressed sniping and inferred madness in that one.

Very fair indeed - a great advertorial.

Just had confirmation from Tim Sparkes at Mercury Media that they are working towards a 6th anniversary release.

Slightly dissappointing in a way because it was supposed to be making Sundance originally, which is on right now.

On the upside, I think it's impact will be all the more powerful and receive a wider and more susceptible audience on or around Sept 11th.

Also, gives us all a massive event to work towards.

Morgan Stack in Ireland tells us that RTE are showing LC2 on TV there on Feb 11th 2006.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6661

[Banish]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1998430,00.html

Althlough I'm NOT a fan of the ONYA theory, I thought some of you would like to see it!

[John White]

Thats got to be about the best press Loose Change has gained so far: and the admissions are very encouraging

[spiv]

I thought it was a good article. I've just posted a link to it on David Cameron's site.

[Skeptic]

[commanderson]

On the cover:
" Nonsensical ravings or afundamental shift in the way the movie industry works? " Not a grass roots movement to challenge the official version of events having glaring omitions or inconsisancies in the narative.
Never dicussed.
I agree that this is good publicity, even though the writter does his best to belittle or avoid the key arguments, and its just another indication that there is no true free investagative broadsheet press in this country. If they had actually spent a little time on the arguments put in losse change this article might actually have informed many.
As it is the general guardian reader who isn't interested eneogh to actually check the movie out on google (or doesn't have the computer savy) will walk away with the idea of 'that internet - all sorts of crazy ideas exist there.
does go to show that the media is shifting into overdrive to try and absorb these radical tendancies in society in the wake of 9/11, don't let them succeed in watering the vibe down, or corral the movement into a status quo friendly sub-culture, the truth is getting widely disseminated now.

[mark_e]

If I had read that article this time last year, i would have watched loose change this time last year. i'm sure there's many people out there that want the information, but have not had the time / motivation, or simply didn't know it existed. I didn't. I watched it in October last year, then joined this place.

I feel a lot of good could well come out of this.

[Mark Gobell]

Well said mark_e.

That's quite often all it takes, a little shift here, a whisper there, a rekindling of a long lost thought.

Let's hope some of the Guardianistas get the message and can drag themselves away from their navels and cappucinos and take a peek.

[Bongo]

skeptic...

[Zabooka]

Most people, and I am saying 75% and above, of people who have seen Loose Change really liked it. Maybe thats partly due to the general ignorance of the populace, I am not sure. However most people even today are still appreciating this documentary a lot and calling it a documentary!!!

I aint just talking about young people either, its cross board praise for the documentary.

[Skeptic]

[Mark Gobell]

It has been said before that one of the issues about accepting Loose Change as gospel, as I did and many did, and many more will, is that when the errors are pointed out, the effect for a lot of folk is to further marginalise 9/11 Truth.

[Zabooka]

I fear the same Mark Gobell.

Even now, there is a Screw 911 Mysteries out on google video, made by someone else other than the same person behind Screw Loose Change.

[Light Infantree]

The thing to now is to email The Guardian and tell them that you wish to know more - this will show them its what the public wants.

Spin the unspin people, spin the unspin and in turn this will unspin the spin

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

Maybe Loose Change being aired over here with all the "out there" theories would be a bad idea.

We need a program aired thats sticks to the main points of the argument.

9/11 Eyewitness would offer this, in a no strings attached way if you know what i mean.

A lot of people may be unconvinced after hearing about the phone calls of flight 93 and that the passengers were offloaded somewhere else etc.

We need to stick to the most pertinent events of 9/11. Demolition explosives WTC7 stand down bush's document telling him it was going to happen.

If not people may see the more far fetched stuff and instantly dismiss it.

Ade.

[Thermate]

I think 911 Mysteries is a better documentary but Loose Change is more emotive and just seems to push the right buttons at the right times. As said: All publicity is good publicity. When LC3 hits the theatres people who read that article who maybe don't have a PC or internet access may remember it and go check it out, who knows...