It seems to me people are too quick to dismiss a movie like Loose Change as crazy conspiracy rubbish. Opinions contrary to widely held perceptions are always met with resistance. In this case, to accept what Loose Change suggests is to acknowledge that your government doesn't serve the people after all, but only its own secret agenda, and that voters are just a necessary inconvenience in some sort of twisted Orwellian world we never knew we were part of, that need to manipulated to bring them around to accept the rhetoric of the day. Crazy? In all honesty this is similar to most religions that also require blind obedience. For whatever reason there are many who think their leaders deserve their unquestioning, unwavering faith and trust, to accept everything and anything that is thrust upon them as necessary and true. The path of least resistance is always the easiest and most secure, but, alas, not always right.<br /><br />That said, the fact is that much of what Loose Change describes probably is crazy conspiracy rubbish. What it offers is merely an alternative explanation that fits the facts - something that the "official account" doesn't seem to do all that well. Even if 99% of the material in Loose Change is utter garbage, what about that remaining 1%? Doesn't that deserve your attention? Alternatively, if you feel 99% of the official account is true, what about that last 1% that just doesn't fit the data? Like all theories (including scientific ones), Loose Change will undoubtedly need to be tweaked or even completely overhauled to fit any new or contradictory information as it comes to light. Why is that such a problem? Does the official account offer that sort of flexibility? <br /><br />Who knows what really happened on 9/11, but it seems fairly clear that certain parties besides the hijackers knew what was going down.