US History Since 1877: “9/11 – Loose Change”

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

What is the main argument of the video?

The main argument of the documentary 9/11 – Loose Change (directed by Dylan Avery) is that the US secret services stood behind the perpetration of the worst terrorist act in the history of America – the attacks of 9/11.

Summarize the video from start to finish

The concerned documentary contains little too many controversial claims, concerning the events of 9/11; for all of them to be summarized in an orderly manner even briefly – they are kept together (thematically) by the off-screen narrator’s line. However, it is still possible to outline the most important of these claims in the same sequence as viewers are being exposed to them in the film:

There is much extensive evidence, as to the fact that many American top-officials at the time were perfectly aware of what was going to happen in New York on September 11, 2001. In its turn, this implies that at least some of them were in cahoots with those who carried out the terrorist attacks. The documentary also questions the validity of the official version of who were the actual attackers.
The government’s insistence that the destruction of both Twin Towers was achieved with the mean of a few tons of burning jet-fuel does not stand any scientific inquiry. The film effectively proves that both skyscrapers have been brought down by the demolition type of explosions that took place within the buildings, just before they began to disintegrate into tiny particles of dust.
It was not a passenger plane that had hit the Pentagon, following the attack on the Twin Towers, but a cruise missile. To support the full soundness of this suggestion, the narrator refers to the available eyewitness accounts, as well as to the opinions of many well-established experts in the fields of physics, chemistry, engineering, and military science.

Avery’s film ends on a rather pessimistic note, with the narrator telling the audience that the events of 9/11 prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the US government can no longer be trusted by ordinary citizens in this country.

Does the video give time to opposing viewpoints? If so, are opposing viewpoints treated in an equal manner? Why or why not?

The makers of 9/11 – Loose Change do deserve to be given credit for having applied much effort into familiarizing viewers with the government’s take on the significance of 9/11, and on who should be considered responsible for perpetrating the most infamous act of terror on American soil. However, it is quite clear that the film does not hold the official version of why it proved possible to terror-strike America in any particularly high regard.

This, in turn, is best explained by the fact that once subjected to the analytical inquiry, the governmentally endorsed account of the 9/11 events ceases to make any sense, whatsoever – the idea that is being explored throughout the film’s entirety. At the same time, however, the narrator does admit that most Americans will continue refusing to take seriously the idea that the US government could have been complicity involved.

How does the documentarian use sounds, video, images, camera movements, etc. to convey their message?

When compared to the earlier mentioned documentaries, 9/11 – Loose Change will appear much richer in visuals, which can be partially explained by the film’s size-wise format (it is 2-hour long). There is, however, even more to it – the director wanted to empower viewers, in the sense of providing them with enough factual information so that they could come up with their conclusion, as to what were the actual forces behind the attacks of 9/11. Due to being highly rhythmic and yet dramatic, the chosen musical scores do make it easier for the audience to remain mentally focused on what is discussed throughout the film’s sub-sequential parts.

How does this video strengthen or undermine what we have discussed or read in class?

9/11 – Loose Change is there to help to legitimize the conspiratological outlook on the causes of 9/11. After having watched it, I began to doubt whether the official explanation of the associated events (discussed in class) makes any sense at all. In particular, I have grown even more suspicious of George W. Bush’s claim that he remained completely unaware of the terrorists’ plans to attack New York until he had heard on TV about both Twin Towers having been hit. It has also dawned on me that, just as it is argued in the film, there was simply no way for the burning jet-fuel to cause both steel-reinforced buildings to turn into the tiniest dust within a matter of a few seconds.

And yet, it is specifically a ‘fairy tale’ about the invisible (nobody saw it) Boeing 777 having flown into the Pentagon while defying the law’s gravity, which I find much more intellectually offensive and morally disturbing than the rest. The reason for this is that by continuing to peddle this tale to the public, the government does not only expose itself as being incapable of keeping its crimes well hidden from the media – the whole story implies that most Americans are utterly gullible, at best.

Consequently, this raises a certain doubt about whether it continues to make much sense providing them with a chance to cast votes during the political elections – nothing good may come out of it, anyway. It is understood, of course, that this consideration stands in striking opposition to yet another assumption that has been discussed in class – American citizens are in full control of their country.

Explain why the video was or was not engaging? Also, explain why the video was or was not educationally valuable?

The discussed documentary is best referred to as being rather engaging. The reason for this is that many things mentioned are much too emotionally intense to be ignored. Therefore, it will be only logical to suggest that after having watched 9/11 – Loose Change, people will be naturally prompted to do some additional research on the subject matter in question. Consequently, this implies that despite the strongly defined controversial sounding of most of the film’s claims, it does contribute towards encouraging Americans to become politically active – something that has always been considered beneficial to the nation’s well-being. Avery’s documentary appears to be highly educational, as well.

The reason for this is that it encourages viewers to assume that one’s awareness of some basic laws of physics directly relates to his or her varying ability to function as the society’s productive member. After all, as it emerges out of the film’s discursive context, such one’s awareness will naturally make the concerned individual much less likely to end up ‘buying’ any governmental lies.

Often when a film ends it leaves you with more questions than answers. Write down two questions you would have liked answered after watching the film

My two questions are: What is going to happen once the US government’s role in masterminding the horror of 9/11 is being confirmed? How come the formerly high-ranking members of the country’s political establishment as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice continue to roam free, even though there is plenty of evidence they have been involved (either knowingly or unknowingly) in ‘preparing the ground’ for the attacks of 9/11?

References

“9/11 – Loose Change.” YouTube video. 2015. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!