Loose Change
March 12, 2010Henry Baum 6 Comments »This is totally riveting video. The indignation and the devout frustration coming from the makers of Loose Change. They seem genuinely sad that 9-11 isn’t being investigated. That’s what’s missing from trutherism – Alex Jones with his stupid bullhorn calls attention to himself. He’s like a carnival barker. But at root – if 9-11 was intentional, or at least allowed to happen – it’s incredibly, tragically sad, and that’s what you get from these two guys. Not eagerness to absorb the spotlight because they’ve suddenly become famous, but they’re kind of shattered by their investigation and how they’re being investigated.
I have to hand it to the ABC reporter – keeping his calm, smug look throughout the entire interview while he was being attacked as if representing all of the MSM. Truthers are referred to as Trufers. But tell me if you doubt these guys’ intelligence and sincerity, and tell me if the MSM isn’t anti-truth itself.
More: is this guy a trufer? It’s possible explosives were used by terrorists on 9-11 – why wasn’t at least that investigated? Say what you will about the physics of how the buildings fell down, there’s no argument – even from people who classify 9-11 theory as nonsense – that the original report is flawed and full of holes. The same people doubt the rationale to go to war. They think Bush and Cheney are war criminals for the use of torture, but somehow scoff about a full investigation into 9-11.
Update: Really interesting to see how this piece was finally put together. A lot about the conspiracy movement without any investigation about the veracity of their claims – much as the Loose Changers predicted. Includes, holy shit, my former publisher of my first novel, Sander Hicks.
March 14th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
If and when “proper” investigations do take place and the findings conflict with the already established beliefs of conspiracy theorists they are immediately disregarded as being “in on it.” When people are too entrenched in a cause they become blind to the other side, which may very well be the truth.
It can be just another form of close-mindedness and it results in a never-ending loop that feeds on itself.
These guys need to take responsibility for their actions, not hide under the guise of “just asking questions.” In their film, they have done exactly what they are accusing this ABC reporter of doing – quote mining for dramatic flair and impact.
I understand the extreme emotion but I also think they need to step away from those emotions and look beyond they’re very limited belief system.
Dogma can be very dangerous.
March 14th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Thanks for chiming in, Eddie. I was thinking this morning about what attracts me to the 9-11 truth movement. It creeps me out a bit having this up here – vulnerable that I can be accused of mind loss. But I realize it’s the same thing that attracts me to UFOs or self-publishing: the implications overwhelm the doubt.
I’m not a true believer (in anything) but I do find conspiratorial thinking attractive and entertaining, in the same way that I find Philip K. Dick entertaining, but there’s an extra level in that it’s entered the realm of real life and parts of it could actually be true. That’s a hell of a lot more exciting than most fiction. My favorite PKD is when he “lost his mind” in the 70s and his life and conspiracy theorizing entered his fiction to a more obvious degree. Conspiracy theories are a fascinating mixture of fiction and reality.
You’re right about these guys. Their defensiveness matches the look of smug self-satisfaction of the interviewer. To me, his smugness and inability to take this important story seriously outweighs their flaws – because he’s in a position of greater authority and sculpts how people think to a much larger degree. But yes: Loose Change isn’t perfect and conspiracy theory is the act of seeing patterns where there may not be.
BUT, these are just a couple of punk kids. There are more very normal, straight-laced engineer types who question what happened, calling attention to how the fire beneath the towers burned for months like an oven, or Building 7. There are enough questions about what happened, and enough smart people asking them, that it can lead you to ask “What the hell?” without it devolving into dogma.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I don’t see a problem in posting this. It facilitates conversation and inspired me to post a comment, which I almost never do.
It got me thinking.
I agree with you about the appeal of conspiracy theories, I’m also very interested in the conspiracy theorists themselves. Obsession is what I consider the most interesting aspect in characters and to a large extent I view these people as characters. The problem for me lies in the fact that these characters are real and potentially influential–like our punk kid filmmakers here–and that scares the shit out of me. Truthers are just as scary as Birthers, the Tea Party folks, cynics, anti-vaxxers, religious fundamentalists and others. Questions aren’t the problem. The issue is when the answers debunk their claims–as is the case with Building 7–”facts” are changed, movies are re-edited and those who oppose the cause are accused of dissent and wrong-doing. The theorists then become the machine they so staunchly opposed and generate the information that then needs to be debunked by people who end up looking like conspiracy theory conspiracy theorists to the conspiracy theorists.
Also, the questions that should be asked get lost in the haze of ignorance and “It’s a facts!”.
It’s fascinating and entertaining as hell, but scary nonetheless.
I’m often reminded of this “Kids in the Hall” sketch when I think about these types.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgi7QCu1qAo
I think some of them are just sad, angry “nutty bunnies” that are looking for something special to believe in, and that’s interesting but scary when they can shape minds. Like Glenn Beck.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Speaking of Glenn Beck and “Kids in the Hall”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tnWFojtcY
March 14th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Ha. Fantastic.
March 16th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
[...] The publisher of my first novel gets the same treatment as the Loose Change guys. My first novel came out on Soft Skull Press when Sander Hicks ran it (after that, it was [...]