I've never seen the original Loose Change, but after hearing so much about it and having seen Zeitgeist, The Power Of Nightmares and Freedom To Fascism i figured it was about time i gave the big one a whirl.
This "Final Cut" seems like half a film. It's a well organised, neatly structured pseudo-documentary that effectively breaks down the events of September 11th 2001 into easily digestible nuggets of information. Many many fingers are pointed at the 9/11 Commission's official report and the questions that were, or were not in most cases, asked of key witnesses. Important stuff indeed for good investigative journalism is one of the keystones of a free democratic society, able to challenge its rulers on the balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt. In fact, coming away from this film one is puzzled at why the official explanation is still trumpeted around as a gospel account of the tragedy. Undeniably convincing, cannily constructed, this really puts the administration under an uncomfortable spotlight. So why did I only give it 2 out of 10? The reason is simple. All the mud is hurled across the fence, all the holes pointed out and many reasoned logical arguments are deployed in debunking the commission's account of events. But not one alternative is presented. This would be bad enough alone but further than this there are no attempts made to suggest why such a conspiracy could or would exist. There're the usual collection of experts and statistics, but in a film hoping to be taken seriously this seems little more than cheap gimmickry utilised in the hope of enforcing the shakiest of arguments. Aspersions are cast as to credibility, but the frightening prospect of the inside job, oft hinted at, is unsatisfactorily left hanging in the air without following it to its own damning conclusions.
Ultimately the hole in this argument is context. No context is given to the intelligence that was or was not ignored and no context is really given to the circumstances the administration and/or the FAA and FBI were operating under.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that the polarised, one-dimensional presentation so totally devoid of context severely undermines most if not all of what is trying to be said.
This "Final Cut" seems like half a film. It's a well organised, neatly structured pseudo-documentary that effectively breaks down the events of September 11th 2001 into easily digestible nuggets of information. Many many fingers are pointed at the 9/11 Commission's official report and the questions that were, or were not in most cases, asked of key witnesses. Important stuff indeed for good investigative journalism is one of the keystones of a free democratic society, able to challenge its rulers on the balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt. In fact, coming away from this film one is puzzled at why the official explanation is still trumpeted around as a gospel account of the tragedy. Undeniably convincing, cannily constructed, this really puts the administration under an uncomfortable spotlight. So why did I only give it 2 out of 10? The reason is simple. All the mud is hurled across the fence, all the holes pointed out and many reasoned logical arguments are deployed in debunking the commission's account of events. But not one alternative is presented. This would be bad enough alone but further than this there are no attempts made to suggest why such a conspiracy could or would exist. There're the usual collection of experts and statistics, but in a film hoping to be taken seriously this seems little more than cheap gimmickry utilised in the hope of enforcing the shakiest of arguments. Aspersions are cast as to credibility, but the frightening prospect of the inside job, oft hinted at, is unsatisfactorily left hanging in the air without following it to its own damning conclusions.
Ultimately the hole in this argument is context. No context is given to the intelligence that was or was not ignored and no context is really given to the circumstances the administration and/or the FAA and FBI were operating under.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that the polarised, one-dimensional presentation so totally devoid of context severely undermines most if not all of what is trying to be said.