Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup - Review
By Shawn Packard
Loose Change is not just one film, but an entire series of films that were released from 2005 to 2009. This review will focus on the latest edition, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, released in September 2009. Each of the films, including the latest, are heavily influenced by elements, and ideas of the 9/11 Truth movement, a haven for loosely connected theories rejecting the historical record of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Created by the young documentarian, Dylan Avery, Loose Change promulgates a version of the blanket theory that the US government either had foreknowledge of the attacks, or at least had involvement in their orchestration. It bases these theories on perceived contradictions in the generally accepted account. The documentary also promotes countless minor sub-theories related to the 9/11 Truth movement, ranging from the collapse of the World Trade Center, to the character of the hijackers. With millions of viewers, the Loose Change series and Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup have become a major component to the 9/11 Truth movement phenomenon.In watching the Loose Change 9/11, you don’t have to look far to find it’s fallacies, inconsistencies, distortions and flat-out inaccuracy. In fact, if I had to pick just one word to describe the documentary (An frankly, the entire 9/11 Truth Movement), it would be “misleading”.
The biggest problem with most conspiracy theorists generally, lies in their core, basic methodology. Put simply, they begin with a conclusion, and then scour the historical record looking for evidence to support it; a textbook example of a logical fallacy we call “confirmation bias”. Here, Loose Change is no exception. The creator, Dylan Avery, begins with the conclusion that “9/11 was an inside job”, and then pours over all of the information we have, searching for even the minutest inconsistencies in accounts, hints at government foreknowledge or involvement, and generally any potential evidence to support their theories, or cast doubt on the widely accepted account. With this approach, they examine all evidence through a warped lens of bias, virtually eliminating any potential for neutrality and reason. Findings of formal investigations are regarded with unreasonable levels of distrust and skepticism. The preponderance of agreeing firsthand accounts are discarded in favor of a handful of inconsistent anomalies. The credibility of all evidence that does not support their claims is suspect. A far more logically sound methodology would be to examine the entire record with a measure of neutrality, and then draw a logically sound conclusion from the facts. Loose Change is far from a comprehensive examination of the events surrounding 9/11. That is to say, it examines only what it deems relevant. Though the documentary attempts to convince the audience that it is presenting the information in a reasonable and impartial manner, it is clear from the beginning that even a moderately impartial presentation of both sides of the debate is not the objective here.
So what is the objective? Spreading fear to compel action? Sowing doubt to promote investigation? Many movements throughout history have employed tactics that appeal more to pathos and emotion, than to logos and the mind. One modern example of this is the global climate change movement, where they often examine worst-case scenarios, or stories of tragedy they link to climate change, to illicit an emotional response, and thus compel action on the part of the audience. Much like the intended emotional response for Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was fear – clearly illustrated in its tagline: “By far the most terrifying film you will ever see” – the tone of Loose Change is ominous. The documentary opens with images of the Reichstag fire of 1933, leading the audience to believe that "historians argue that Gestapo police entered the Reichstag through an underground tunnel, then soaked the building with chemicals and gasoline, with Marinus Van der Lubbe arriving later to start the fire with his shirt" (Loose Change 9/11, 2009). However, British historian of German history, Ian Kershaw, describes a general consensus among historians that Van der Lubbe acted alone, and that the Nazis had no involvement, though the event remains highly controversial to this day (Kershaw. Hitler Hubris, p. 731-732). The focus then shifts to other controversial events, and false flag operations in world and US history, such as the Manhattan Project, and Watergate. It seems that the message the viewer is supposed to receive is that our governments are not beyond enslaving and/or killing their people to maintain power. Although these events, and particularly the Reichstag fire, have nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever, Dylan Avery begins with these incidents to set up a filter through which to view the rest of the film, making the theories presented seem more plausible. But in beginning with planting a conclusion in the minds of the audience, Avery primes every uninformed viewer to commit the same logical fallacy that he does.
Now, there are many claims made in the documentary, where the supporting evidence is scant or inaccurate. But to address all of them would require dozens of pages. So I’ll limit my accuracy assessment to a grab-bag of various points. First, Loose Change demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding about Islam, radicalization and Islamism. When examining the backgrounds of the hijackers it attempts to cast doubt on whether they were Islamist extremists at all, providing evidence in bank account expenses for excesses like trips to Las Vegas, alcohol, and strip clubs. The documentary argues that this is hardly the kind of behavior we would expect from “devout Muslims preparing for paradise”. Here, it sets up a kind of false dilemma by saying that in order to be a radical Islamist, you also must be a devout Muslim, and if the hijackers were devout Muslims, why were they hanging around Las Vegas strip clubs, drinking alcohol? However, the reasoning they use is quite plainly ignorant of the distinction between a Muslim who places emphasis on the spiritual and personal tenets of Islam, and an Islamist who places emphasis on the social and political ideology of Islamism. Furthermore, the hijackers all had a documented history of affiliation and cooperation with jihadist terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, and al-Qaeda; they were, in every sense of the designation, Islamist terrorists. Essentially, one does not have to be a personally and spiritually “devout Muslim” to be an Islamist terrorist driven by the sociopolitical ideology of Islamism (Berman, 2003).
The documentary also tends to cherry pick quotes and first-hand accounts that support its views, while ignoring and/or discounting remarks that do not, as in the case of Van Romero, Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. On the day of the attacks, Mr. Romero was quoted by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse... Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures" (Albuquerque Journal, 2005). However, Romero later publicly affirmed his support for the scientific consensus on the collapse of the World Trade Center, and clarified his earlier remarks. In an interview with Popular Mechanics, for their inquiry Debunking 9/11 Myths, he said, "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building... I only said that that's what it looked like" (p. 3, pars.14-15). Romero demanded that the Journal retract the article, which it did on Sept. 22 2001, saying, "I felt like my reputation was on the line". To restore credibility to his earlier statements, conspiracy theorists then argued that the Pentagon, who they claim funds the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, forced Romero to retract his original comments. To that Romero responded saying, "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years". In an earlier version of Loose Change, the remarks in the Journal article were misquoted, and when the mistake was later discovered, the reference to Romero's comments was not corrected, but removed entirely in subsequent versions of the film. Clearly, an unbiased look at the record of evidence is not the objective here; any evidence that does not support the predetermined conclusion is strictly not allowed.
Finally, there are issues with who the documentary interviews, the accounts they rely upon, and how they are presented. Take Kevin Ryan for instance, who the documentary says worked for Underwriters Laboratories, the company they present as having certified the steel used in the World Trade Center. First, Kevin Ryan worked in a water-testing subsidiary of the company, which hardly makes him an expert on steel testing. Second, Underwriters Laboratories doesn't certify any kind of structural steel, let alone steel used in the building of the World Trade Center; in fact, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) did not find that any firms had conducted testing on the materials used in the World Trade Center at all. The documentary also features an interview with Steven E. Jones, physicist and Professor Emeritus at Brigham Young University. His controversial support, beginning in 2005, of the "controlled demolition theory" (The theory that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition) through nanothermite, lends an illusion of credibility to the 9/11 Truth movement, which they often cite (Jones, 2008). But the bottom line is, Professor Jones is not a structural engineer, or a chemist. He's a physicist. Though he may be an expert in his field, when it comes to structural engineering, he is not. Throughout the documentary, you find this pattern in many of the sources and interviewees; they present these individuals as experts in the relevant field, when in reality, they are either "non-experts" or experts in another field. We call this fallacy an appeal to false authority.
In some cases, there is a positive aspect to playing upon the emotions of people to elicit a desired response. But with this documentary, it comes across as a poorly-researched, and irresponsible quagmire of false assumptions and bad logic. The manner in which this documentary presents information serves to create a form of hysteria surrounding the subject, with its adherents more closely resembling members of a cult, rather than a political organization. Other than potentially encouraging viewers to further investigate the events surrounding 9/11, it is difficult to imagine any other positive influence this documentary might have upon its audience. If the viewer's objective is to understand the mindset and rationale of "9/11 Truthers", this documentary does offer some interesting insights. But with all of its omission, distortion, and misrepresentation of facts, Loose Change fails both as a substantive investigation and even as a basic chronicle of the September 11 attacks. Couple that with its failure to present an opposing viewpoint in the debate, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup becomes exactly what it so vehemently rails against. It becomes the very definition of propaganda.
The biggest problem with most conspiracy theorists generally, lies in their core, basic methodology. Put simply, they begin with a conclusion, and then scour the historical record looking for evidence to support it; a textbook example of a logical fallacy we call “confirmation bias”. Here, Loose Change is no exception. The creator, Dylan Avery, begins with the conclusion that “9/11 was an inside job”, and then pours over all of the information we have, searching for even the minutest inconsistencies in accounts, hints at government foreknowledge or involvement, and generally any potential evidence to support their theories, or cast doubt on the widely accepted account. With this approach, they examine all evidence through a warped lens of bias, virtually eliminating any potential for neutrality and reason. Findings of formal investigations are regarded with unreasonable levels of distrust and skepticism. The preponderance of agreeing firsthand accounts are discarded in favor of a handful of inconsistent anomalies. The credibility of all evidence that does not support their claims is suspect. A far more logically sound methodology would be to examine the entire record with a measure of neutrality, and then draw a logically sound conclusion from the facts. Loose Change is far from a comprehensive examination of the events surrounding 9/11. That is to say, it examines only what it deems relevant. Though the documentary attempts to convince the audience that it is presenting the information in a reasonable and impartial manner, it is clear from the beginning that even a moderately impartial presentation of both sides of the debate is not the objective here.
So what is the objective? Spreading fear to compel action? Sowing doubt to promote investigation? Many movements throughout history have employed tactics that appeal more to pathos and emotion, than to logos and the mind. One modern example of this is the global climate change movement, where they often examine worst-case scenarios, or stories of tragedy they link to climate change, to illicit an emotional response, and thus compel action on the part of the audience. Much like the intended emotional response for Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was fear – clearly illustrated in its tagline: “By far the most terrifying film you will ever see” – the tone of Loose Change is ominous. The documentary opens with images of the Reichstag fire of 1933, leading the audience to believe that "historians argue that Gestapo police entered the Reichstag through an underground tunnel, then soaked the building with chemicals and gasoline, with Marinus Van der Lubbe arriving later to start the fire with his shirt" (Loose Change 9/11, 2009). However, British historian of German history, Ian Kershaw, describes a general consensus among historians that Van der Lubbe acted alone, and that the Nazis had no involvement, though the event remains highly controversial to this day (Kershaw. Hitler Hubris, p. 731-732). The focus then shifts to other controversial events, and false flag operations in world and US history, such as the Manhattan Project, and Watergate. It seems that the message the viewer is supposed to receive is that our governments are not beyond enslaving and/or killing their people to maintain power. Although these events, and particularly the Reichstag fire, have nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever, Dylan Avery begins with these incidents to set up a filter through which to view the rest of the film, making the theories presented seem more plausible. But in beginning with planting a conclusion in the minds of the audience, Avery primes every uninformed viewer to commit the same logical fallacy that he does.
Now, there are many claims made in the documentary, where the supporting evidence is scant or inaccurate. But to address all of them would require dozens of pages. So I’ll limit my accuracy assessment to a grab-bag of various points. First, Loose Change demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding about Islam, radicalization and Islamism. When examining the backgrounds of the hijackers it attempts to cast doubt on whether they were Islamist extremists at all, providing evidence in bank account expenses for excesses like trips to Las Vegas, alcohol, and strip clubs. The documentary argues that this is hardly the kind of behavior we would expect from “devout Muslims preparing for paradise”. Here, it sets up a kind of false dilemma by saying that in order to be a radical Islamist, you also must be a devout Muslim, and if the hijackers were devout Muslims, why were they hanging around Las Vegas strip clubs, drinking alcohol? However, the reasoning they use is quite plainly ignorant of the distinction between a Muslim who places emphasis on the spiritual and personal tenets of Islam, and an Islamist who places emphasis on the social and political ideology of Islamism. Furthermore, the hijackers all had a documented history of affiliation and cooperation with jihadist terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, and al-Qaeda; they were, in every sense of the designation, Islamist terrorists. Essentially, one does not have to be a personally and spiritually “devout Muslim” to be an Islamist terrorist driven by the sociopolitical ideology of Islamism (Berman, 2003).
The documentary also tends to cherry pick quotes and first-hand accounts that support its views, while ignoring and/or discounting remarks that do not, as in the case of Van Romero, Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. On the day of the attacks, Mr. Romero was quoted by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse... Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures" (Albuquerque Journal, 2005). However, Romero later publicly affirmed his support for the scientific consensus on the collapse of the World Trade Center, and clarified his earlier remarks. In an interview with Popular Mechanics, for their inquiry Debunking 9/11 Myths, he said, "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building... I only said that that's what it looked like" (p. 3, pars.14-15). Romero demanded that the Journal retract the article, which it did on Sept. 22 2001, saying, "I felt like my reputation was on the line". To restore credibility to his earlier statements, conspiracy theorists then argued that the Pentagon, who they claim funds the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, forced Romero to retract his original comments. To that Romero responded saying, "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years". In an earlier version of Loose Change, the remarks in the Journal article were misquoted, and when the mistake was later discovered, the reference to Romero's comments was not corrected, but removed entirely in subsequent versions of the film. Clearly, an unbiased look at the record of evidence is not the objective here; any evidence that does not support the predetermined conclusion is strictly not allowed.
Finally, there are issues with who the documentary interviews, the accounts they rely upon, and how they are presented. Take Kevin Ryan for instance, who the documentary says worked for Underwriters Laboratories, the company they present as having certified the steel used in the World Trade Center. First, Kevin Ryan worked in a water-testing subsidiary of the company, which hardly makes him an expert on steel testing. Second, Underwriters Laboratories doesn't certify any kind of structural steel, let alone steel used in the building of the World Trade Center; in fact, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) did not find that any firms had conducted testing on the materials used in the World Trade Center at all. The documentary also features an interview with Steven E. Jones, physicist and Professor Emeritus at Brigham Young University. His controversial support, beginning in 2005, of the "controlled demolition theory" (The theory that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition) through nanothermite, lends an illusion of credibility to the 9/11 Truth movement, which they often cite (Jones, 2008). But the bottom line is, Professor Jones is not a structural engineer, or a chemist. He's a physicist. Though he may be an expert in his field, when it comes to structural engineering, he is not. Throughout the documentary, you find this pattern in many of the sources and interviewees; they present these individuals as experts in the relevant field, when in reality, they are either "non-experts" or experts in another field. We call this fallacy an appeal to false authority.
In some cases, there is a positive aspect to playing upon the emotions of people to elicit a desired response. But with this documentary, it comes across as a poorly-researched, and irresponsible quagmire of false assumptions and bad logic. The manner in which this documentary presents information serves to create a form of hysteria surrounding the subject, with its adherents more closely resembling members of a cult, rather than a political organization. Other than potentially encouraging viewers to further investigate the events surrounding 9/11, it is difficult to imagine any other positive influence this documentary might have upon its audience. If the viewer's objective is to understand the mindset and rationale of "9/11 Truthers", this documentary does offer some interesting insights. But with all of its omission, distortion, and misrepresentation of facts, Loose Change fails both as a substantive investigation and even as a basic chronicle of the September 11 attacks. Couple that with its failure to present an opposing viewpoint in the debate, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup becomes exactly what it so vehemently rails against. It becomes the very definition of propaganda.