Seven years after the attacks of September the Eleventh, a global awakening has taken place, the likes of which the world has never seen. As the corporate-controlled media dwindles into extinction, a new breed of journalists and activists has emerged.
Join Alex Jones, Luke Rudkowski and others as they set out on a mission determined to expose the ruthless global elite, and alert the masses to the truth about 9/11.
Strap in and get ready to ride along as criminal overlords David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and many others are confronted about their lies and manipulation.
Including interviews with Jesse Ventura, Rosie O’Donnell, George carlin, Willie Nelson and Martin Sheen, this film is unlike anything you have ever seen. the only question after viewing it is, will you become part of the Truth Rising.
The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. Its three one-hour parts consist mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis’s narration. The series was first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and has subsequently been broadcast in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.
The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.
The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States. Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives.
Contents
* 1 Synopsis
o 1.1 Part 1: “Baby It’s Cold Outside”
o 1.2 Part 2: “The Phantom Victory”
o 1.3 Part 3: “The Shadows in the Cave”
* 2 Content
* 3 Airings and distribution
* 4 Reaction
o 4.1 Critical reaction
o 4.2 Political reaction
o 4.3 Comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links
Synopsis
Part 1: “Baby It’s Cold Outside”
The first part of the series explains the origin of Islamism and Neo-Conservatism. It shows Egyptian civil servant Sayyid Qutb, depicted as the founder of modern Islamist thought, visiting the U.S. to learn about the education system, but becoming disgusted with what he saw as a corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism. When he returns to Egypt, he is disturbed by westernisation under Gamal Abdel Nasser and becomes convinced that in order to save society it must be completely restructured along the lines of Islamic law while still using western technology. He also becomes convinced that this can only be accomplished through the use of an elite “vanguard” to lead a revolution against the established order. Qutb becomes a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and, after being tortured in one of Nasser’s jails, comes to believe that western-influenced leaders can justly be killed for the sake of removing their corruption. Qutb is executed in 1966, but he inspires the future mentor of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to start his own secret Islamist group. Inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, Zawahiri and his allies assassinate Egyptian president Anwar Al Sadat, in 1981, in hopes of starting their own revolution. The revolution does not materialise, and Zawahiri comes to believe that the majority of Muslims have been corrupted by their western-inspired leaders and thus may be legitimate targets of violence if they do not join him.
At the same time in the United States, a group of disillusioned liberals, including Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, look to the political thinking of Leo Strauss after the perceived failure of President Johnson’s “Great Society”. They come to the conclusion that the emphasis on individual liberty was the undoing of the plan. They envisioned restructuring America by uniting the American people against a common evil, and set about creating a mythical enemy. These factions, the Neo-Conservatives, came to power under the Reagan administration, with their allies Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and work to unite the United States in fear of the Soviet Union. The Neo-Conservatives allege the Soviet Union is not following the terms of disarmament between the two countries, and, with the investigation of “Team B”, they accumulate a case to prove this with dubious evidence and methods. President Reagan is convinced nonetheless.[1]
Part 2: “The Phantom Victory”
In the second episode, Islamist factions, rapidly falling under the more radical influence of Zawahiri and his rich Saudi acolyte Osama bin Laden, join the Neo-Conservative-influenced Reagan Administration to combat the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. When the Soviets eventually pull out and when the Eastern Bloc begins to collapse in the late 1980s, both groups believe they are the primary architects of the “Evil Empire’s” defeat. Curtis argues that the Soviets were on their last legs anyway, and were doomed to collapse without intervention.
However, the Islamists see it quite differently, and in their triumph believe that they had the power to create ‘pure’ Islamic states in Egypt and Algeria. However, attempts to create perpetual Islamic states are blocked by force. The Islamists then try to create revolutions in Egypt and Algeria by the use of terrorism to scare the people into rising up. However, the people are terrified by the violence and the Algerian government uses their fear as a way to maintain power. In the end, the Islamists declare the entire populations of the countries as inherently contaminated by western values, and finally in Algeria turn on each other, each believing that other terrorist groups are not pure enough Muslims either.
In America, the Neo-Conservatives’ aspirations to use the United States military power for further destruction of evil are thrown off track by the ascent of George HW Bush to the presidency, followed by the 1992 election of Bill Clinton leaving them out of power. The Neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonise Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality. To their disappointment, however, the American people do not turn against Clinton. The Islamist attempts at revolution end in massive bloodshed, leaving the Islamists without popular support. Zawahiri and bin Laden flee to the sufficiently safe Afghanistan and declare a new strategy; to fight Western-inspired moral decay they must deal a blow to its source: the United States.[2]
Part 3: “The Shadows in the Cave”
The Neo-Conservatives use the September 11th attacks, with al-Fadl’s description of al-Qaeda,[citation needed] to launch the War on Terror.
The final episode addresses the actual rise of al-Qaeda. Curtis argues that, after their failed revolutions, bin Laden and Zawahiri had little or no popular support, let alone a serious complex organisation of terrorists, and were dependent upon independent operatives to carry out their new call for jihad. The film instead argues that in order to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, US prosecutors had to prove he was the head of a criminal organisation responsible for the bombings. They find a former associate of bin Laden, Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to testify that bin Laden was the head of a massive terrorist organisation called “al-Qaeda”. With the September 11th attacks, Neo-Conservatives in the new Republican government of George W. Bush use this created concept of an organisation to justify another crusade against a new evil enemy, leading to the launch of the War on Terrorism.
After the American invasion of Afghanistan fails to uproot the alleged terrorist network, the Neo-Conservatives focus inwards, searching unsuccessfully for terrorist sleeper cells in America. They then extend the war on “terror” to a war against general perceived evils with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The ideas and tactics also spread to the United Kingdom where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority. The repercussions of the Neo-Conservative strategy are also explored with an investigation of indefinitely-detained terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, many allegedly taken on the word of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance without actual investigation on the part of the United States military, and other forms of “preemption” against non-existent and unlikely threats made simply on the grounds that the parties involved could later become a threat. Curtis also makes a specific attempt to allay fears of a dirty bomb attack, and concludes by reassuring viewers that politicians will eventually have to concede that some threats are exaggerated and others altogether devoid of reality.[3]
Content
Adam Curtis originally intended to create a film about conflict within the conservative movement between the ideologies of Neo-Conservative “elitism” and more individualist libertarian factions. During his research into the conservative movement, however, Curtis first discovered what he saw as similarities in the origins of the Neo-Conservative and Islamist ideologies. The topic of the planned documentary shifted to these latter two ideologies while the libertarian element was eventually phased out.[4] Curtis first pitched the idea of a documentary on conservative ideology in 2003 and spent six months compiling the films.[5][6] The final recordings for the three parts were made on 10 October, 19 October and 1 November 2004.[7][8][9]
The film uses a montage of various stock footage from the BBC archives, often used for ironic or humorous effect, over which Curtis narrates.[4][5] Curtis has credited James Mossman as the inspiration for his montage technique, which he first employed for the 1992 series Pandora’s Box,[10] while his use of humour has been credited to his first work with television as a talent scout for That’s Life![5] He has also compared the entertainment format of his films to the American Fox News channel, claiming the network has been successful because of “[their viewers] really enjoying what they’re doing”.[4]
To help drive his points, Curtis includes interviews with various political and intellectual figures. In the first two films, former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency member Anne Cahn and former American Spectator writer David Brock accuse the Neo-Conservatives of knowingly using false evidence of wrongdoing in their campaigns against the Soviet Union and President Bill Clinton.[1][2] Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, comments in The Shadows in the Cave on the failure to expose a massive terrorist network in Afghanistan.[3] Additional interviews with major figures are added to drive the film’s narrative. Neo-Conservatives William and Irving Kristol, Richard Pipes and Richard Perle all appear to chronicle the Neo-Conservative perspective of the film’s subject.[1][3] The history of Islamism is discussed by the Institute of Islamic Political Thought’s Azzam Tamimi, political scientist Roxanne Euben and Islamist Abdulla Anas.[1][2]
The film’s soundtrack includes at least two pieces from the films of John Carpenter, whom Curtis credited as inspiration for his soundtrack arrangement techniques,[10] as well as tracks from Brian Eno’s Another Green World. There is also music by composers Charles Ives and Ennio Morricone, while Curtis has credited the industrial band Skinny Puppy for the “best” samples in the films.[11]
Airings and distribution
The Power of Nightmares was first aired in three consecutive weeks on BBC 2 in 2004 in the United Kingdom, beginning with Baby it’s Cold Outside on 20 October, The Phantom Victory on 27 October and The Shadows in the Cave on 3 November, although the murder of Kenneth Bigley led the BBC to curtail their advertising prior to its airing.[7][8][9][12] It was rebroadcast, in January 2005, over three days, with the third film updated to take note of the Law Lords ruling from the previous December that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial was illegal.[13]
In May 2005, the film was screened in a 2½ hour edit at the Cannes Film Festival out of competition.[14] Pathé has purchased distribution rights for this cut of the film.[6]
As of 1 January 2008, the film has yet to be aired in the United States. Curtis has commented on this failure:
Something extraordinary has happened to American TV since September 11. A head of the leading networks who had better remain nameless said to me that there was no way they could show it. He said, ‘Who are you to say this?’ and then he added, ‘We would get slaughtered if we put this out.’ When I was in New York I took a DVD to the head of documentaries at HBO. I still haven’t heard from him.[6]
Although the series has not been shown on U.S. television, its three episodes were shown in succession, on 26 February 2005, as part of the True/False Film Festival in Columbia, Missouri, with a personal appearance by Curtis.[15][16] It has also been featured at the 2006 Seattle International Film Festival and the San Francisco International Film Festival, with the latter awarding Curtis their Persistence of Vision Award.[17][18][19] The film was also screened at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York, and had a brief theatrical run in New York City during 2005.[20][21]
The films were first aired by CBC in Canada in April 2005, and again in July 2006.[22] The Australian channel SBS had originally scheduled to air the series in July 2005, but it was cancelled, reportedly in light of the London bombings of 7 July.[23][24] It was ultimately aired in December, followed by Peter Taylor’s The New Al-Qaeda under the billing of a counter-argument to Curtis.[25]
In April 2005, Curtis expressed interest in an official DVD release due to a significant demand by viewers, but noted that his usual montage technique created serious legal problems with getting such a release secured.[26] An unofficial DVD release was made in the quarterly DVD magazine Wholphin over a period of three issues.[27][28][29]
Reaction
Critical reaction
The Power of Nightmares received generally favourable reviews from critics.[30] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 86% of critics gave the film positive write-ups, with an average score of 8.1/10, based upon a sample of seven reviews.[31] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 78, based on six reviews.[30] Entertainment Weekly described the film as “a fluid cinematic essay, rooted in painstakingly assembled evidence, that heightens and cleanses your perceptions” while Variety called it “a superb, eye-opening and often absurdly funny deconstruction of the myths and realities of global terrorism”.[32][33] The San Francisco Chronicle had an equally enthusiastic view of the film and likened it to “a brilliant piece in the Atlantic Monthly that’s (thankfully) come to cinematic life”.[34] The New York Times had a more skeptical review, unimpressed by efforts to compare attacks on Bill Clinton by American conservatives with Islamist revolutionary activities and claiming “its understanding of politics, geo- and national, can seem curiously thin”.[21] In May 2005, Adam Curtis was quoted as saying that 94% of e-mails to the BBC in response to the film were supportive.[6]
The film was awarded a BAFTA in the category of “Best Factual Series” in 2005.[35] Additional awards were given by the Director’s Guild of Great Britain and the Royal Television Society.[36][37]
Political reaction
Progressive observers were particularly pleased with the film. Common Dreams had a highly positive response to the film and compared it to the “red pill” of the Matrix series, a comparison Curtis has apparently appreciated.[26][38] Commentary in the Village Voice was also mostly favorable, noting: “As partisan filmmaking it is often brilliant and sometimes hilarious – a superior version of Syriana.”[39] The Nation, while offering a detailed critique on the film’s content, said of the film itself “[it] is arguably the most important film about the ‘war on terrorism’ since the events of September 11″.[40]
Among conservative and neoconservative critics in the United States, The Power of Nightmares has been described as “conspiracy theory”, anti-American or both. David Asman of FoxNews.com said, “We wish we didn’t have to keep presenting examples of how the European media have become obsessively anti-American. But they keep pushing the barrier, now to the point of absurdity.”[41] His views were shared by commentator Clive Davis, concluding his commentary on the film for National Review with “British producers, hooked on Chomskyite visions of ‘Amerika’ as the fount of all evil, are clearly not interested in even beginning to dig for the truth”.[42] Other observers variously described the films as pushing a conspiracy theory. Davis and British commentator David Aaronovitch both explicitly labelled the film’s message as a conspiracy theory, with the latter saying of Curtis “his argument is as subtle as a house-brick”.[42][43] Attacks in this vein continued after the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with CBN referencing the film as a source for claims by the “British left” that “the U.S. War on Terror was a fraud” and the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council calling it “the loopiest, most extreme antiwar documentary series ever sponsored by the BBC”.[24][44] In The Shadows in the Cave, Curtis stressed that he did not discount the possibility of any terrorist activity taking place, but that the threat of terrorism had been greatly exaggerated.[3] He responded to accusations of creating a conspiracy theory that he believes that the alleged use of fear as a force in politics is not the result of a conspiracy but rather the subjects of the film “have stumbled on it”.[26]
Peter Bergen, writing for The Nation, offered a detailed critique of the film. Bergen wrote that even if al-Qaeda is not as organised as the Bush Administration stresses, it is still a very dangerous force due to the fanaticism of its followers and the resources available to bin Laden. On Curtis’s claim that al-Qaeda was a creation of neo-conservative politicians, Bergen said: “This is nonsense. There is substantial evidence that Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small group of like-minded militants, and that the group would mushroom into the secretive, disciplined organisation that implemented the 9/11 attacks.”[45] Bergen further claimed that Curtis’s arguments serve as a defence of Bush’s failure to capture bin Laden in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and his ignoring warnings of a terror attack prior to September 11.[46]
Additional issues have been raised over Curtis’s depiction of the Neo-Conservatives. Davis’s article in National Review showed his displeasure with Curtis’s depiction of Leo Strauss, claiming, “In Curtis’s world, it is Strauss, not Osama bin Laden, who is the real evil genius.”[42] Peter Bergen claimed the film exaggerated the influence of Strauss over Neo-Conservatism, crediting the political philosophy more to Albert Wohlstetter.[47] A 2005 review on Christopher Null’s Filmcritic.com took issue with The Phantom Victory ’s retelling of the attacks on Bill Clinton, crediting these more to the American Religious Right than the “bookish university types” of the Neo-Conservative movement.[48]
Daniel Pipes, a conservative American political commentator and son of Richard Pipes who was interviewed in the film, wrote that the film dismisses the threat posed by Communism to the United States as, in Pipes words, “only a scattering of countries that had harmless Communist parties, who could in no way threaten America.” Pipes noted that the film adopts this conclusion without mentioning the Comintern, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Klaus Fuchs or Igor Gouzenko.[49]
There are also allegations of omissions in the history described by the film. The absence of discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was noticed by observers.[21][39] Davis claimed that Leo Strauss’s ideas had been formed by his experiences in Germany during the Weimar Republic and alleged the film’s failure to mention this was motivated by a wish to display Strauss as concerned with American suburban culture, like Qutb.[42]
Media Lens criticised the film for failing to explore the role of big business in the situation it described.[50]
Comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11
After its release, The Power of Nightmares received multiple comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11, American film-maker Michael Moore’s 2004 critique on the first four years of George W. Bush’s presidency of the United States. The Village Voice directly named The Power of Nightmares as “the most widely discussed docu agitprop since Fahrenheit 9/11″.[39] The Nation and Variety both gave comments ranking Curtis’s film superior to Fahrenheit and other political documentaries in various fields; the former cited Curtis’s work being more “intellectually engaging” and “historically probing” while the latter cited “balance, broad-mindedness and sense of historical perspective”.[33][40] Moore’s work has also been used as a point of comparison by conservative critics of Curtis.[42]
Curtis has attempted to distinguish his work from Moore’s film, dismissing him as “a political agitprop film-maker”.[6]
See also
* The Trap
* The Century of the Self
* Culture of fear
* Part 1 official page
* Part 2 official page
* Part 3 official page
* Summary of argument
* Power of Nightmares re-awakened – Questions from BBC viewers answered by Curtis
* Power of Nightmares background – Further reading suggested by Curtis
* Interview with Adam Curtis at Cinema Scope
* Interview with Adam Curtis at GreenCine
* “Adam Curtis talks with Errol Morris”
* George Mason University; “Stop the Straussians Before They Lie Again”
* The Power of Nightmares at the Internet Movie Database
Loose Change (2005, 2006, 2007) is a series of documentary films written and directed by Dylan Avery, produced by Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas and distributed by MercuryMedia International. The films assert that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and conducted by elements within the United States government, and base the claims on perceived anomalies in the historical record of the attacks. The first film, Loose Change, was originally released through the creators’ own company, Louder Than Words, and received widespread attention after Loose Change 2nd Edition was featured on a Binghamton, New York local FOX affiliate, WICZ-TV (FOX 40).[1]
The original film was edited and re-released as Loose Change: 2nd Edition, and then subsequently re-edited again for the 2nd Edition Recut, each time to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to remove what the filmmakers have learned to be inaccuracies and copyrighted material. Loose Change: Final Cut, deemed “the third and final release of this documentary series”[2] was released on DVD and Web-streaming format on November 11, 2007.[3] This installment is a completely new film; using almost none of the same content appearing in the previous Loose Change versions.
The film’s main claims are considered false by many media outlets,[4] independent researchers,[5][6] and prominent members of the scientific and engineering community.[7]
Contents
1 History
2 Presentation
2.1 Revisions
2.2 Impact
3 Crew
3.1 Dylan Avery
3.2 Korey Rowe
3.3 Jason Bermas
4 Content of 2nd Edition Recut
5 Criticism
6 Airings
7 In other media
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
History
Loose Change originated as a plan for a fictional film, on the advice that to make a successful film a filmaker must offer the audience something they want to watch, and as the concept advanced through research into footage and resources for the film, the film became a documentary.
In May 2002, Dylan Avery began researching the 9/11 attacks and based on his research he concluded they were not a terrorist attack involving only members of Al Qaeda, but rather that they were an attack orchestrated by members of the United States government.[8]
In April 2005, the first edition of Loose Change was made available for free on the Internet and was given a limited DVD release to certain video stores. It cost around $2000 to make, and was made primarily on Avery’s laptop computer, featuring a distinctive soundtrack produced by DJ Skooly. Avery’s childhood friend, Korey Rowe, left the service of the United States Army in June 2005 to assist with the marketing of the movie.[8]
Soon after this, Avery decided that “there was new information that needed to be added and improvements made”, and so began creating Loose Change: 2nd Edition. Korey Rowe assumed the role of producer, and Jason Bermas, a graphic designer, worked as production assistant. This edition cost around $6,000. It was originally released in December 2005, but was re-released in June 2006 as Loose Change: 2nd Edition Recut. Before the release of this edition, Avery, Rowe and Bermas set up an independent movie production company called Louder than Words, an organization that identifies with the 9/11 Truth Movement.[9]
In March 2007, Mark Cuban reportedly told the New York Post that he was having discussions about distributing Loose Change, with Charlie Sheen narrating.[10][11]
The third and final edition of the movie, Loose Change Final Cut, was released in November 2007. According to the Loose Change website, this edition “is substantially different from Loose Change and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut in the way it presents the information surrounding 9/11/2001. However, it remains true to the spirit that has made Loose Change what it is today.”[2] Professor David Ray Griffin was brought on as script consultant, and radio host Alex Jones and Tim Sparke of Mercury Media served as executive producers. Due to an estimated cost of $200,000, this version is the first not to be available for free online, although it is in fact available for free on Google Video in a lower quality version, currently having amassed nearly 30,000 hits. This edition is also substantially longer than previous versions, at over 2 hours in length.
Presentation
Loose Change: 2nd Edition Recut is one hour and 22 minutes in length. The film consists of Dylan Avery narrating over photographs and news footage relating to 9/11, with an underscore of hip hop and other urban style music. Avery does not appear in the video itself, though is shown in the bonus features. Video and still footage used includes considerable video content from CNN, MSNBC NBC, and FOX News, as well as a number of other sources.[12] The end of the film shows a clip from The American Scholar’s Symposium that was aired on C-SPAN on June 25, 2006 at the Sheraton Hotel in Los Angeles. Jason Bermas, wearing the signature “Investigate 9/11″ t-shirt that he designed, is describing their plans to peacefully demonstrate at Ground Zero on September 11, 2006.
Revisions
Although each version of the film asserts that the events of 9/11 were essentially an “inside job”, there were significant revisions between the particular theories that different editions posited. For example:
The first edition, Loose Change, suggested that there was an unusual device (which the filmmakers refer to as a “pod”) under the fuselage of the plane that struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The “pod” was presented as evidence that the planes involved in the attack were replaced with remote-controlled drones. Official flight records were also presented as evidence that the aircraft involved are still in active service, though it is stated that the producers do not know what happened to the passengers of the flights. This information is omitted from all subsequent versions.
While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition states less information about Flight 93, but maintains that it is impossible that it crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The first and second editions asserted that a missile hit the Pentagon, but Loose Change Final Cut presents two scenarios, saying that “opinions differ” about whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
On May 26, 2006, a letter was sent to Dylan Avery regarding copyright and trademark infringement in Loose Change 2nd Edition resulting from the use of footage from French filmmakers the Naudet brothers. The letter states that Avery used copyrighted images from the film 9/11 and that those the images violate the Federal Lanham Trademark Act “by suggesting that the Naudet brothers or Mr. Hanlon have endorsed or sponsored the controversial views in your film.” The letter concludes: “Accordingly, we hereby demand that you confirm to us within three (3) business days of the receipt of this letter that you have removed all footage taken from our clients’ 9/11 film from your Loose Change film, including from the version of your film that can be downloaded on the Internet, the DVD version of your film and anywhere else you have used or are using our clients’ footage.”[13] Dylan Avery announced that the recut version of the 2nd edition would omit some of the infringing material.[14]
The statement that New York’s Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 was corrected; it was in fact a B-25 Mitchell, which is less than one-third the size of a B-52.
References to the rumors concerning the amount of gold stored beneath the World Trade Center (such as one claim of $167 billion in gold) were removed, leaving only confirmed statements, including that of the “$230 million in precious metals”.
The implication the film makes that Flight 77 had Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy, was corrected; in fact the engines of Flight 77 were Rolls-Royce engines.
Multiple instances of Wikipedia articles being shown as source material were removed and replaced with news articles containing the reported information.
Throughout the film minor changes in talking points, images and language were made.
Impact
An August 2006 Vanity Fair article suggested that Loose Change “just might be the first Internet blockbuster” as it became the most watched video on Google Video in May 2006, being viewed at least 40 million times on that site, and with the official Loose Change website receiving over 100,000 hits a day. Millions more have viewed the film via unaffiliated websites. More than one million copies of the DVD have been sold, and many more have been given away.[15]
According to Broadcast magazine, the video was to have a special screening at the UK Houses of Parliament on June 14, 2006.[16][17][18] Michael Meacher, the British MP who had considered sponsoring the screening, decided against it. During that same month of June 2006, a former engineer from Microsoft developed a site, www.loose-change-911.com, to stream the movie in seven different languages.[citation needed]
On September 11, 2006 Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas appeared on Democracy Now! the War and Peace Report, to debate with James Meigs and David Dunbar,[19] two of the editors of Popular Mechanics and the book Debunking 9/11 Myths.[20]
Crew
Dylan Avery
Dylan Avery is the writer, director, and editor of the Loose Change films, is from Oneonta, New York, and currently lives in San Diego, California. After being denied admission twice by Purchase College’s film school,[21] Avery planned to make a movie about a group of friends who discover the September 11, 2001 attacks were an “inside job”. Along the way Avery himself stated that he had become convinced of this theory.[22][23]
Avery appeared on BBC’s 9/11 Conspiracy Files in February 2007.
Korey Rowe
Korey Rowe is a producer of Loose Change. Rowe was born in Oneonta, New York. He is a former US soldier who served six months in Kandahar, Afghanistan and one year in Kuwait and Iraq. Rowe enlisted in the 101st Airborne Division in August 2001 and left in June 2005, then joining the production of Loose Change. On July 23, 2007, he was arrested at his home in Oneonta, New York, based on a military warrant charging him with felony desertion.[24] Two days later he was returned to his unit at Fort Campbell, Kentucky,[25] although he states that he received an honorable discharge and returned to uniform of his own accord, and that he is attempting to expunge his name completely from the system.[26]
Rowe was at the end of his active-duty enlistment in the summer of 2005 when he was told his unit would be re-deployed to Iraq. Because of stop-loss policy, soldiers may be kept beyond their normal tour of duty.[27] Rowe’s unit, the 187th Infantry Regiment, was due to return to Iraq in August 2007, but was eventually granted release.
Jason Bermas
Jason Bermas is a graphic designer and producer of Loose Change who went to college in Oneonta, New York and currently lives in Austin, Texas. Jason Bermas also guest hosts The Alex Jones Show on the GCN network. Aside from film making he is also an activist who has demanded a new independent investigation into 9/11.
In 2008, Bermas directed a new film about the 9/11 attacks, entitled Fabled Enemies. The official website for the film states that “Instead of the focus being on physical anomolies surrounding the attacks, it focuses on a vast intelligence network and how they were able to succeed almost 7 years ago.”[28] A low-quality version of film has been released on Google Video.[29]
Content of 2nd Edition Recut
Flyer for a screening of the film.Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut (2006) opens with a brief description of past suspicious and questionable motives in the history of American government. This discussion includes mention of Operation Northwoods, a plan put forward, but never implemented, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to create and utilize bogus terrorist attacks against the United States, which were to be blamed on Cuba, as a pretext for invasion of the country. Focus is particularly directed at the previously proposed plans to substitute real commercial airliners with pilotless drone aircraft in order to investigate the plausibility of covertly using them as weapons, whilst maintaining the cover of an accident.[30]
Attention is also given to the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank, which released a report in 2000 titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. In particular the film points out a line from that report which states “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” -Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It also highlights the fact that during the same year the report was released, the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. There is also mention that, from September 6 to September 10 an unusual amount of put options were placed on the stock of American Airlines, Boeing and United Airlines.[31]
This is followed by an examination of the attacks on the Pentagon. The film opposes the official story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, alleging that the path of destruction does not match that which a 757 would leave. In particular, it points out the size of the hole in the Pentagon caused by the crash, examining a lack of debris and landscape damage seemingly inconsistent with prior airliner crashes. It is also alleged that too few parts were recovered from the crash site to reliably ascertain that they were of a Boeing 757, and a certain flywheel observed at the site seemed too small to have been part of the aircraft’s engine turbine. The wheel was officially declared to have been part of the APU but disputed by some experts as not to have come from the APU of a 757 but likely from an E-3 Sentry aircraft. It is also claimed that Hani Hanjour, the hijacker pilot, had difficulty performing basic controls on a small Cessna at a flight school where he rented, and that perhaps not even an experienced pilot could have maneuvered the reflex angle of turn at the airspeed and altitude at which the aircraft approached without going into a high speed stall. Mention is also given to three cameras on nearby buildings that allegedly caught the entire incident at the Pentagon on film, which the government confiscated and has refused to release in full.[32]
The next section focuses on the destruction of the World Trade Center itself. The film comes out in favor of the controlled demolition theory of the destruction of World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7. Cited as evidence are eyewitness reports from a janitor, firemen, and other people near the buildings who heard bangs, many of them describing them as explosions, as well as videotapes showing windows far below the burning floors blow out during the collapse and seismograph results recorded during the collapse compared to the collapse of other similar buildings. The film claims that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were the first steel frame buildings in history to collapse due to fire. Another allegation centers on an audio recording in which it is claimed two distinct explosions can be heard at the time of the impact. Also, the film posits that the official story of the collapse violates the laws of physics.[33]
In particular, the video alleges that the fires inside the twin towers were not hot enough to bring the buildings down. An audio tape is presented in which the Captain of Ladder 7 claims that the fires can be brought under control by two lines, and it is mentioned that building 7 had taken only minor damage before its own collapse. These allegations follow a listing of buildings that burned longer than the Twin Towers and did not fall.[34]
For Flight 93, the video ignores the more mainstream theory of the plane being crashed by passengers to instead allege it was landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport where it was evacuated by government personnel into an unused NASA research center. Evidence cited included photographs and eyewitness reports of the crash site as evidence, a corresponding evacuation at Cleveland Hopkins Airport and the corresponding reports, oddities in the transcripts of cell-phone calls supposedly placed from the plane during the hijacking, and the sighting of the tail number of Flight 93 on an aircraft in use at a later date.[35]
This is then followed by a more miscellaneous listing of allegations. It is claimed that cellular phone calls could not be made from American Airlines flights at the time of the crash, asking why American Airlines had to install a system in their own airplanes to allow the reception of cellular signals within the planes if they could do this regardless on September 11. It is suggested that the calls from passengers and crew were faked using sophisticated voice-morphing technology developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and that the December 13, 2001 video of Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks was also faked, featuring what appeared to be an overweight lookalike version of Bin Laden. Finally, it is alleged that, of the list of hijackers initially released by the government, many were not in the planes and were alive after September 11, 2001 and may even still be alive.[36]
In the end, the film gives out motives for people who would have benefited from launching the attacks themselves. Mention is first given to financial motives, including those of Larry Silverstein, who stood to receive a substantial insurance payout after the attacks due to a specific anti-terrorism clause as well as other allegations of insider trading and Halliburton’s benefiting from the subsequent launch of America’s “War on Terror”.[37][38]
Criticism
Loose Change has been subject to criticism from a variety of different sources. In March 2007, the United States Department of State published an article called “Loose Change Debunked” in which it says that the movie makes “sloppy mistakes”. The article is highly critical of the evidence cited to support the claim that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and it criticizes the controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center claiming that “Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the Towers that day would have been impossible.” The article goes on to say:
“It treats statements made at this time as if they represent reasoned judgments, not impromptu, often poorly thought-through misimpressions and uninformed speculation… In sum, Loose Change is researched very shoddily, making numerous mistakes of fact and judgment. Nevertheless, this has not prevented it from becoming extraordinarily popular.”[39]
It goes on to note that Loose Change has also been criticized by other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, referencing the critique entitled Sifting Through Loose Change.[40] Michael Green, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, has analyzed the film and is critical of many of its claims and methods.[41] Several independent researchers have also written critiques of the film. The Loose Change Guide,[42] created by Mark Roberts, features the whole transcript of the show, along with his comments and criticisms. Roberts also compiled a lengthy selection of interview quotes in which the Loose Change creators elaborate on the claims made in the film.[43]
In May 2006, the blog Screw Loose Change was created to criticize the claims in the film.[44] In collaboration with the creators of the blog and drawing upon the work of Mark Roberts, Mark Iradian prepared an edited version of Loose Change which he subtitled with criticisms.[45] Another analysis of the film has been created by the Internet Detectives.[46] Many of the critiques argue that Loose Change quote mines, uses unreliable or out-of-date sources, and cherry-picks evidence to claim that there are serious problems with official accounts of the events of September 11.[46][44][45][20][41] America.gov points out what it deems to be “very sloppy errors” Loose Change makes on the Pentagon attack.[47]
One of the many aspects focused on by these critiques is Loose Change’s analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center. The comparison to other notable high-rise fires which did not lead to collapse ignores differences in building design, significant WTC structural damage and compromised fireproofing;[48][20] as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F).[49][50] The Madrid’s Windsor Tower comparison fails to note its steel-supported perimeter floors collapsed during the fire.[51] Kevin Ryan, described by Loose Change as working for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), was actually employed in a water-testing subsidiary.[20] Furthermore, UL does not certify structural steel,[20] and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires.[52] The NIST found no evidence of any firm having conducted tests on WTC materials in the past.[53] Another expert quoted, Van Romero, has clarified that he was misquoted by the Albuquerque Journal; he had actually said that it “looked like” explosives took down the WTC. When the misquote was printed, he felt his “scientific reputation was on the line.”[50]
On September 11, 2006, Democracy Now! broadcast a discussion between the Loose Change creators and editors from Popular Mechanics, where they debated various aspects of the documentary.[20] Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has written that the “9/11 truth movement”: “gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes.”[38]
Chris Farrell, the Director of Investigations & Research at Judicial Watch, warned in an interview that his organization “could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the “9/11 truth movement”, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77.”[54] He stated, “Let’s just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they’re compromised.”
According to George Monbiot, “The film’s greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.”[55]
Airings
September 10, 2006: BNN (Bart News Network) Nederland 3[56] and Portuguese public TV Station RTP aired Loose Change in prime time hours. RTP aired it again on 2: for September 17, 2006.[57]
September 11, 2006: Australian Pay TV Channel showed it during prime time hours.
September 10, 2006: Israeli Science Channel (Channel 8).
September 10, 2006: The Pakistani channel Geo TV, dubbed into Urdu; and Al-Arabiya TV, an affiliate of MBC, dubbed into Arabic.
January 1, 2008: It was aired on Swedish channel “TV4 Fakta” at 22:00 CET as part of a 9/11 themed programme schedule.
July 10, 2008 and August 31, 2008: Norwegian TV2 aired it at 23:50 CET under the Norwegian title “Fiksjon eller fakta?”, which translates into “Fiction or fact?”
September 11, 2008 and September 12, 2008: Finnish channel JIM aired the final cut in two parts.
In other media
George Monbiot, political activist and columnist for the Guardian, wrote an article on the improbability of the conspiracies cited in Loose Change, and then wrote a follow-up article in response to negative comments from some of his readers.[58]
Vanity Fair wrote an article about Loose Change and its creators.[59]
Democracy Now! hosted a debate between the authors of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics.[20]
Dutch Vara television channel’s program Zembla, investigated claims made in the documentary.[60]
FreeLooseChange.com is an initiative in Berlin, Germany. 100 shops, galleries, theatres and a daily newspaper office so far distributed 20,000 free DVDs featuring the documentaries Loose Change and Terrorstorm by Alex Jones in German language versions. A homeless newspaper promoted the DVD with free full page ads.
The History Channel aired a two-hour episode on August 20, 2007, entitled “The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?” featuring interviews with the creators of Loose Change.[61]
On SModcast Kevin Smith discussed Loose Change and other conspiracy videos about aliens and various things. However, he maintains that he enjoys the film purely as entertainment, and does not believe or agree with the theories presented in the film.
See also
9/11: Press for Truth
Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
Loose Change 2nd Edition Online Version (Google Video)
Loose Change 2nd Edition Polska wersja
Loose Change Online with Viewer Comments
Beyond The Ordinary – Interviews with Loose Change director and producer
View Loose Change online in many different languages
Loose Change: Final Cut (2007) (V) at the Internet Movie Database
Criticism
Loose Change: Loose with truth
Screw Loose Change – Not Freakin’ Again edition Subtitled critical version of Loose Change
9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide – Point-by-point criticism
The 9-11Research Companion to “Loose Change 2nd Edition – An interactive and detailed point-by-point critique of the film using an illustrated transcript
“Loose Change” An analysis – By Michael B. Green, Ph. D
Debunking Loose Change – By Internet Detectives
Media Coverage
Democracy Now! Exclusive 9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of “Debunking 9/11 Myths” Broadcast on September 11 2006
9/11 conspiracy movie taken off the web – June 5 2006 – Naudet brothers allege infringement
This pioneering, groundbreaking expose of 9-11, now two years old, painted a stark and accurate picture of our world today and TOMMORROW. Mike’s new introduction “connects the dots.” Other search word: Conpiracy
1. Main titles – Opening montage – 0:00:00
2. Special 2004 Introduction by Mike Ruppert – 00:01:12
3. Rep. Barbara Lee, Floor Speech – Sept. 2001 00:08:11
4. Portland State – Overview, JFK, DCI Confrontation (‘96) – 00:10:23
5. Mike Ruppert Personal History – 00:23:28
6. CIA and Drugs (Economics and Oil) – 00:25:54
7. CIA & Wall Street, Drug Money and The “Pop” – 00:31:10
8. The Bush Family – 00:36:43
9. Money Laundering – Enron – 00:39:02
10. Catherine Austin Fitts – 00:43:32
11. Loopholes, the “Pop”, Citigroup – 00:47:15
12. Looting the Treasury – Professor John Metzger, Michigan State – 00:57:07
13. Peak Oil – 01:01:39
14. Advance Warnings, Bin Laden & Bush, The Carlyle Group – 01:02:18
15. Insider Trading – 01:07:48
16. PROMIS – 01:11:51
17. Taliban and Opium – Professor Peter Dale Scott – 01:13:00
18. Oil, Pipelines, Central Asia and China – 01:17:12
19. Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Looting Russia, Halliburton – 01:21:26
20. 9/11 Timeline – 01:36:28
21. Prisons & Social Security – 01:55:46
22. Civil Liberties – Congressman Ron Paul – 01:59:00
23. Cele Castillo (DEA), Dave Sabow (USMC) – 02:07:51
24. Biowar and Vaccinations – 02:09:56
25. Operation Northwoods – 02:11:07
26. What Can We Do? – Congressman Ron Paul – 02:12:20
27. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney – Empire – Conclusion – 02:18:37
28. End Credits – 02:21:30
A US Citizen’s journey of discovery into the lies, oppression, and corruption that has invaded her country since 9/11. Through original footage, archived footage, and interviews with people such as Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, and Michael Ruppert, Liberty Bound explores the state of the union and its ostensible move toward fascism. We talk with people who have been interrogated by the Secret Service and threatened with arrest for doing such benign things as sending an email, turning around during a Bush speech, and having a philosophical discussion on a train.
911: The Greatest Lie Evers Sold – By Anthony Hilder Only by”Exposing the Creators” of the first World Trade Center bombing in (1993), could we have prevented the creation of the second bombing of the World Trade Center on 9-11! We failed to make it … “PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE” that the 1993 bombing was – Encouraged by “AGENT PROVOCATUERS” of the FB-LIE The fact is U.S. taxpayers “bought the bomb.” Worse still, since September 11, 2001 most of America’s sheeple “BOUGHT THE LIE” that 19 angered Arabs & Osama bin Laden carried out the greatest act of terror in U.S. history The stark, raw reality is that the 9-11 “story” is THE GREATEST LIE EVER SOLD. American’s are being prepped for the next “staged event” Agents of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the propaganda press will then white-wash “USAMA BIN BUSH!” Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Kissinger & crew will blame the innocent to protect the guilty What’s it all about? Bush & zee Boys from der “Brotherhood of Death,” “Skull & Bones” are preparing us for a POLICE STATE. Bush will try to surrender the Constitution & Bill of Rights. His goal? – establish a “New World Order” WARNING: This video contains no lies, or “White House” spin!
We have entered the Age of the Conjurer and it is a tricky time. The 911 stunt was a huge magic trick and we all bought it at first. Magicians can be very convincing. You have to look very hard to see the trick and not be fooled. On this occasion slow motion exposes the sleight of hand, but remember how the magician works: he can make almost anything seem real if he can make his audience look in the wrong place at crucial moments.
=====
The Big Picture FINAL 1/9 (Copywrite Remix)
Part One – A Global Conspiracy. A Global Conspiracy does indeed exist. This opening chapter is intended to alert people to that fact.
The Big Picture FINAL 2/9
Part two – The Return of Planet X.
Focuses on Planet X and where it fits into the world stage.
The Big Picture FINAL 3/9
Part Three – The Money Game.
Focuses mainly on the Global central banking system, ww2, and the creation of the CIA and UN.
A look at the Big Conspiracy Picture.
The Big Picture FINAL 4/9
Part Four – The Long Arm of the Lawless.
Focuses mainly on Government sponsored terror, 911 and the creation and true nature of Al Qaeda.
A look at the Big Conspiracy Picture.
The Big Picture FINAL 5/9
Part Five – Planet X & World War 3 (part a)
Focuses on planet x, its effect on the human psyche and its possible relevance on the global stage.
A look at the Big Conspiracy Picture.
The Big Picture FINAL 6/9
Part Five – Planet X & World War 3 (part b)
Focuses on planet x, its effect on the human psyche and its possible relevance on the global stage.
A look at the Big Conspiracy Picture.
The Big Picture FINAL 7/9
Part Six – Mind Wars
Focuses on the systems in place that are being used to create and project the false reality we currently live in.
A look at the Big Conspiracy Picture.
The Big Picture FINAL 8/9
Part Seven – Divided We Fall
Focuses on the reality we are creating for our future.
A look at the Big Conspiracy Picture.
The Big Picture FINAL 9/9
Part Eight – Reflections
Focuses on non compliance & the ways to create an alternate reality for our future.
September 11, 1990: President Bush reveals a plan to destroy America and establish a one-world government. He calls it “a big idea, a New World Order”. The Octopus is too weak to carry out his vision in 1990 because the news media are not under total control. The Octopus spend the next ten years planning a “New Pearl Harbor” event that will terrorize the American Public into abandoning their Bill of Rights and join a Global Fascist Police State where cruel and unusual torture is common and resistance is met with secret detention, mind-altering drugs, and execution. The Octopus plans to enforce their scheme through the use of little-understood high-tech weaponry and intensive propaganda spread through the news media. With their tentacles carefully placed in strategic positions within the FBI, the Justice Dept, and the Military, the Octopus decides to attack at the Dawn of a New Millenium, exactly 11 years after their plan was announced by the elder President Bush. Using an imaginary threat of global “Islamic Terrorism” the Octopus enlists the Neo-cons, Zionists, and Right-Wing Christians to spread their propaganda, making empty promises to each group. Little do they realize that as soon as the Octopus takes total control, Israel and the Religious will be betrayed, and all of mankind will serve only one master: The Octopus. Loose Change and Terrorstorm helped open your eyes, now see through the lies of the mainstream media and understand clearly what is happening. This movie has nothing to do with Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears Drunk. But it’s still entertaining, new, interesting, and fun. Disturbing not sexy. No webcam girls in this one. Please wake up your friends.
Pe 3 octombrie 2008 Peter Joseph a lansat Zeitgeist Addendum. De data aceasta religia e “revăzută” pe la capătul filmului de 2 ore, hârtiile de hârtie (banii) sunt laitmotiv, dezbătut puternic la început. Se vorbeşte şi despre un nou model de societate (Project Venus), înlocuitor al democraţiei – considerată învechită şi grav coruptă. Se vorbeşte despre faptul că 1% deţin toată bogăţia (financiară) a Pământului, iar aceştia ţin în loc dezvoltarea de noi tehnologii care ar permite întregii lumi să trăiască arhidecent fără să muncească. Câteva corporaţii au profituri anuale mai mari decât PIB-ul a o grămadă de ţări. Etcetera. Merită văzut, analizat.
Zeitgeist: Addendum, a 2008 documentary film produced by Peter Joseph, is a continuation of the film Zeitgeist, the Movie.[1] The film discusses the Federal Reserve System in the United States, the CIA, corporate America, other government and financial institutions, and even religion, concluding that they are all corrupt institutions detrimental to humanity and are in need of replacement. The film advocates “The Venus Project” as a possible solution. According to director Peter Joseph, the film “attempts to locate the root causes of this pervasive social corruption, while offering a solution”.[2] In its conclusion, Addendum stresses the need for belief systems to embrace the ideas of emergence and interdependence. He outlines concrete steps that can be taken to weaken the monetary system.[3] The film suggests actions for “social transformation”, which include boycotts of the large banks that make up the Federal Reserve System, the mainstream media, the military, and energy companies. It is also suggested that people reject the political structure. Zeitgeist: Addendum premiered at the 5th Annual Artivist Film Festival in Los Angeles, California on October 2, 2008, and was released free online on October 4, 2008.[4] Synopsis Zeitgeist: Addendum is separated into four parts: Part I criticizes the practice of Fractional-reserve banking and criticizes the creation of money through loans. The film’s argument goes as following: Dollar bills get printed, or the money supply is increased, when the Fed buys Treasury Bonds. This money ends up in commercial banks. Then, once that money becomes a reserve in banks, it becomes “multiplied” through the Fractional-reserve system, and then loaned to customers. The film claims that such a system is “absurd” because the Interest that must be paid for the money that was loaned does not exist; it was never created. The film compares this system to a game of musical chairs, in which a person will always be left-out. The film does not attempt to go in detail to explain all that is involved with money and banking, but tries to explain the most basic aspect of the monetary system. This subject is also touched in the first Zeitgeist film. Part II is a documentary style interview with John Perkins, in which he describes his role as a self-described Economic Hitman (EHM). He claims he helped CIA and the ruling political/corporate elites who have worked to undermine legitimate foreign regimes that put the interests of their populations before those of transnational corporations. Part III describes The Venus Project, a proposal created by Jacque Fresco. The film promotes the Venus Project as a sustainable solution for mankind on Earth. Its main goal is to produce a “resource-based economy” using modern technology. Part IV states that everything wrong with the world is “fundamentally the result of a collective ignorance of two of the most basic insights humans can have about reality — the ‘emergent’ and ’symbiotic’ aspects of natural law.” The film then suggests actions for “social transformation,” such as boycotts of large banks, the mainstream media, the military and energy companies; rejecting the political structure; and “creating critical mass.” On October 2, 2008 the film won the “Artivist Spirit Award – Best Feature” at the 2008 Artivist Film Festival. The film had its global premiere during the festival’s opening night, which was attended by a sold-out audience of 600 people.[2] Festival co-founder Dr. Bettina Wolff stated: The failure of our world to resolve the issue of war, poverty, and corruption, rests within a gross ignorance about what guides human behaviour to begin with. Zeitgeist-Addendum’ addresses the true source of the instability in our society, while offering the only fundamental, long term solution. Director Peter Joseph has the ability to take risky subject matter and turn it into a visually, emotionally, and intellectually compelling case for a “greater point of view.” On October 9, 2008 the film became rated as top 19th at the Guardian’s Weekly Viral Video Chart, which is based on a count of the embedded videos and links on approximately 2 million blogs[5]. more info at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Loading ...
(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Recent Comments