Conspiracy Film Rewrites Sept. 11 (Lunatic Alert!)

Yahooooooo! ^ | April 28, 2006 | William Welch

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Gypsy Taub, a mother of three from Oakland, does not believe that 9/11 happened. At least not the way the government said it did.

A Russian émigré, Taub is one of a growing number of people in the USA who are using the Internet, college campuses and pamphleteering to get the word out.

"Oh yeah, absolutely. On the day it happened, I thought it was the government that did it," she said.

Taub is promoting one of the latest presentations of revisionist theories on the 2001 attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists, a film that says, among other things, that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile fired by the military as an excuse to go to war.

Called Loose Change, it is being downloaded from the Internet and shown in small screenings here and overseas. It is not alone in the genre, and it is not unusual in American history either to offer simplistic explanations or demonize opponents. Presidents from Andrew Jackson to Lyndon Johnson were accused by their contemporaries of massive government conspiracies.

The film appears especially popular among young people immersed in a Web culture brimming with sites that question the credibility of government. They see 9/11 as the defining moment of their lives.

"This is our generation's Vietnam, our generation's Kennedy assassination," says Korey Rowe, 23, the film's producer.

Professors and researchers of film and politics say the Internet is making it far easier to spread such theories because the traditional media are losing their hold on the news. The immense coverage of controversies and accusations surrounding the war on terror has created fertile ground for people who assign their own interpretations to photos, footage, eyewitnesses, investigations and newspaper accounts of what happened, they say.

"The information revolution now gives us access to too much information," says Jonathan Taplin, who teaches at the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Southern California. "Our problems are that we're just overwhelmed, so in some sense we just basically don't even know where to turn."

'It's all over the place'

Craig Smith, director of the Center for First Amendment Studies at California State University, Long Beach, cites the unusual nature of 9/11: four airliners simultaneously hijacked and no defenses stop them.

"You would say, come on, I can't even buy that as a movie script," Smith says. "All of this feeds this readiness for paranoia."

Made by Rowe and friend Dylan Avery, 22, from Oneonta, N.Y., on a laptop computer for less than $10,000, the film contrasts sharply with United 93, a film opening Friday that portrays the struggle for the jetliner that crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

Internet chat rooms are full of promos for screenings of Loose Change in such locales as the Santa Cruz Veterans Memorial Building in California; the Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec; Graz, Austria; and a theater in London's Soho district.

"It's been breaking like nobody's business the last two months," says Taub, 36, who is sponsoring a showing Tuesday night in Oakland. "It's all over the place."

'They aren't truth-tellers'

Most of what the film alleges is refuted by the evidence at hand. Anything not answered definitively by the government is interpreted by the film as proof of a coverup.

Among the assertions in Loose Change is that a missile hit the Pentagon even though eyewitnesses saw the jet, numerous pieces of wreckage were found including the flight recorder, and those on the flight and in its path at the Pentagon are dead.

There is also the claim that because jet fuel burns at up to 1,500 degrees and steel melts at 2,750 degrees, the World Trade Center's infrastructure could not have been brought down by the airliners. However, as reported by the Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200 degrees, enough for a failure.

"The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred," says Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of American Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.

"They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world," she says. "They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."

Some college students who saw Loose Change and are promoting it say it's good to raise questions.

The film offers "at the very least suggests that we don't know the whole truth, and that some things are quite fishy," says Matt Latham, a freshman at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

'Students love it'

Christian Pecaut, 25, a Stanford graduate who is promoting the film at the University of California, Berkeley campus, said the film is "catchy, hip," with an "upbeat soundtrack."

Aaron Williams, a senior at Texas A&M University and president of the philosophy club, believes the film. "Government is corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," he says.

Penelope Price, a documentary filmmaker and professor at Scottsdale Community College, said she brought the filmmakers to the campus to stimulate critical thinking.

"Students love it," she said. "These guys have done a great job of marketing on the Web, and that was another reason I wanted to bring them in."

Conservative writer David Horowitz, a former 1960s radical, says conspiratorial thinking can offer a world view that is somehow less scary than reality. "Conspiracy theories are a kind of secular religion," he says, adding that campus faculties sometimes encourage anti-government feelings. "People feel great anxiety ... by the thought that nobody's in control."

People believe in conspiracy theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote," says sociologist Clifton Bryant of Virginia Tech University, who has made a study of "deviant logic" and behavior.

"We're always ready to believe something about which we know nothing," he says.

[eskimo]

You just want questions answered. Ok, ask the question then.

You seem to be quite hysterical now but, when you calm down, perhaps take a look at #106 and comment on how you reconcile those things with what we have been told so far.

[GunRunner]

You're out of your mind.

There is absolutely no comparison between United 93 and Loose Change. United 93 a respectful and powerful recreation of a historic event.

One of my conspiracy friends had me watch Loose Change, and it is one of the most despicable, disgusting, offensive pieces of garbage I have ever seen.

[Dazedcat]

You know, I've been following this thread with some interest. I actually watched Loose Change. Right up until the Pentagon attack, I found the film interesting. I will never quite believe the WTC collapsed because of melting steel. The movie made some very compelling points about eye witness accounts, first hand live news reports, even those mini-explosions that occurred on the sides of the towers right as they were falling onto themselves. Yet the Pentagon attack lost me completely due to the conspiratorial nonsense that the tragedy turned into.

But my question is why are you blasting this other person so badly? You sound like the lunatic, in fact you sound like a governmental zelot. Do you believe EVERYTHING the government says? Were you around back in the mid 1960's? Did you believe the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" too? Do you work for the federal government? Would you be so steadfast if the terrorist attacks happened with a democrat in the White House and this was the official explanation?

You are the reason why these conspiracy theory movies exist. Anyone who remotely questions the official explanation of things gets tarred and feathered. Trust the government, especially if there's a republican in office?

Amazing. By the way, just for the record, I do believe muslim scum hijacked planes and flew them into buildings killing innocent souls. I also believe there is much more to the terror attacks than the government has "sanctioned" for public consumption. You don't. Fine then. Feel free to attack me as I know you will. Put your full faith in the federal government and be a "great American" just like Sean Hannity says.

Wonders never cease.

[DoctorMichael]

".....Taub is one of a growing number of people in the USA who are using the Internet, college campuses and pamphleteering to get the word out....."

Taking a page from the dangerous ID/Creationist crazies.

Then again, there will always be idiots that will believe something just because they 'read it on the internet'.

[Malsua]

I found the film interesting. I will never quite believe the WTC collapsed because of melting steel.

The Steel didn't melt. It didn't have to. Here's a bridge in Conneticut on 95 that melted from 8000 gallons of home heating oil(very close BTU content to jet fuel). It didn't have to support a couple hundred thousand tons either.

I don't work for the gov't nor do I accept everything at face value. But to answer the questions posed in 106 "why was it a small divit" and in fact, it wasn't a small divit. It was a pretty big hole and the plane hit it at almost verticle. Planes shred when they hit solid objects. Of course, that's not what the other guy is suggesting. He's suggesting that it's a small hole, so it wasn't a big plane. Now follow that little logic trail to its conclusion. You have to start making logic leaps over inconvenient facts. Like radar data, people on the ground, people on the radio, on telephones. You have to believe the plane was diverted and the people murdered.

Perhaps you just believe it was shot down, the evidence doesn't suggest it, the pilot that was en route denies it and if I recall correctly, I think those particular craft didn't even have armament.

Here's a scenario, flight 93 was hijacked, the people in back rammed the cockpit and the flight went down. Compared to the vast sinister scenarios that would have to involves thousands of folks, vast planning and perfect execution.

I've spent years on various boards debating these topics over and over, I know the tactics people use. One of the most popular is to hint, suggest, lead on about something then when cornered deny they ever said such a thing and feign indignation. Another popular topic is to simple change the point of discussion or to flat out deny facts.

The "No Airplanes" one is one of the most hilarious assinine things I've ever heard people spew. If you subscribe to that one, you should be paraded around, tarred and feathered with a Village idiot cap on your head.

The "bomb pod" under flight 11 is another hilarious fantasy. I mean, you've got a cargo bay that you could pack full of hi-explosives but instead, these evil genuises mount it right on the front so everyone can see it. ROFL.

[twhitak]

They were not all that clear where they stashed the airplane.

Area 51, obviously.

[Blzbba]

"You're out of your mind."


This, coming from a guy who admits to wasting how much of his life watching "Loose Change"? LMAO!! I know 'crap' when I smell it - and unlike you, I didn't bother to see 'LC' to know it was pure crap.


"There is absolutely no comparison between United 93 and Loose Change. United 93 a respectful and powerful recreation of a historic event."


Sure there is. One's a piece of conspiracy crap being given out free. The other one is Hollyweird making a profit off of 9/11 from people like you. You may find it "respectful and powerful" - I see it as a pathetic excuse to make a profit off tragedy.


"One of my conspiracy friends had me watch Loose Change, and it is one of the most despicable, disgusting, offensive pieces of garbage I have ever seen."


Duh. Really? What the hell did you expect?! And I'M out of my mind?!

[Blzbba]

" Compared to the vast sinister scenarios that would have to involves thousands of folks, vast planning and perfect execution. "


I don't buy into "Loose Change" but I disagree that it would take "thousands of folks". All it would take are a few higher-ups intentionally giving bogus, incompetent orders to 'stand down', etc.

9/11 was pure gov't incompetency. Example - I want to know why the Secret Service agents guarding Bush in the FLA classroom haven't been brought up on charges of treason for knowingly keeping our Commander in Chief in clear & present danger for 20+ minutes after the 2nd tower was hit and every other American knew we were under attack. Bush should've been immediately wheeled onto AF-1 and gotten airborne, rather than sit in the classroom, endangering himself and the children. Why wasn't protocol followed that day in regards to the President's immediate safety? Only 2 answers - 'conspiracy' (they knew in advance that he'd be safe) or most likely - INCOMPETENCE.

[eskimo]

But to answer the questions posed in 106 "why was it a small divit" and in fact, it wasn't a small divit. It was a pretty big hole and the plane hit it at almost verticle. Planes shred when they hit solid objects. Of course, that's not what the other guy is suggesting. He's suggesting that it's a small hole, so it wasn't a big plane.

LOL! A huge jet hit vertically and only left a 10 by 15 foot divot and yet the debris was strung out over 3 to 4 miles. No one I know is going to believe that.

[Paradox]

No one I know is going to believe that.

Do you know many airliner crash experts? This is quite possible. Doesn't matter how many people "you know" are going to believe it or not.

Sheesh, the obtuseness of otherwise smart people never ceases to amaze me.

[eskimo]

This is quite possible.

LOL! I doubt it.

[Paradox]

Are you a plane wreck expert? I doubt it.

[Beckwith]

Please don't confuse the issue with facts. /sarcasm

[KC_Conspirator]

I have disdain for people engaged in this crackpottery.

[eskimo]

Are you a plane wreck expert? I doubt it.

I've seen where 3000 to 5000 pound aircraft have hit the tundra. If you want to believe that a 250,000 pound plane makes a little 10 by 15 foot crater and spreads debris in an elongated pattern for 4 miles then go ahead. Don't let the laws of physics disrupt your fantasy.

[eskimo]

Awe, what's the matter; can't believe you fell for that stuff?

[eskimo]

Sorry, KC, that last one was not meant for you.

[GunRunner]

And I'M out of my mind?

Yeah, I'd say you are on this particular point. George Will wrote an article today that said it is every Americans civic duty to go see United 93. Is he on the Hollyweird take? I wouldn't go as far as to call it a civic duty, but it will definitely leave an impression on you.

Comparing the two films is idiotic and stupid.

[Paradox]

Don't let the laws of physics disrupt your fantasy.

No problem, they won't, and it isn't.

[Blzbba]

You're the one who's out of his mind for allowing Hollyweird to profit off of 9/11 and for watching "Loose Change".

I don't care what some liberal journalist tells me what to do, nor am I surprised that some liberal would tell me to throw more money at Hollyweird.

I'm sorry you've forgotten how you felt on 9/11 and needed a movie to remind you. I have not.