"So why do you see a problem with them making changes in the film "Loose Change" as new information comes forward?"

The problem I see is that it shows either a lack of investigative skill on the part of the filmakers - or an attempt to create propaganda to sway audiences who don't bother to think. "Evidence" should be clearly investigated and alternate sources back up theories. If one scientist says that he can prove that toothpaste cures lip cancer, would it be prudent for any news organization to go forward and issue bold headlines "Toothpaste Proven to Cure Lip Cancer"?   No journalist with any conscious would do such a thing because the realize that the information can be faulty and it is nothing more than tabloid journalism without further proof.

If you wish to see a true example of how journalism works, watch "All the Presidents Men". Decades after the event, the film portrays the intent of all serious journalists and the system of checks and balances they SHOULD be using to verify theories, or at least show plausibility.

The version of Loose Change that I watched was shoddy. I can excuse bad filmmaking in a search for the truth, but I can't excuse sloppy journalism. The producers set up Rube Goldberg theories without any evidence. The version I saw said that Flight 93 was shot down by military aircraft. I understand the new version has the flight landing in Cleveland. What? The people onboard are being held captive?   Why?????

The individuals that created this film are not uncovering the truth. They are making fanciful tales that prey upon individuals who can't think for themselves. The same individuals that clip items from celebrity blogs and websites that have little academic, scientific or social value.   I'm convinced that these individuals would believe the moon is made of cheese if Rosie O'Donnel, Charlie Sheen and an unknown blogger told them so.

These filmmakers did not create a film that "nailed the essential facts of 9/11 in an astonishingly accurate way." They created a story that is full of fluff and whimsy and could have been generated from the mind of Jules Verne or Gene Roddenberry. It is science fiction, and while science fiction could become fact - these jokers have done little to search for the truth. They created a cottage industry and I am sure they are doing nicely for themselves. Isn't this how "Blair Witch" was created after all?

I worry that chasing after rainbows like this deludes the public from the real truth and horrors of 9/11. Our government was inept, unprepared, and yes - I do think they seized the opportunity. Did they "let" it happen? I don't know, and I would like to find out. Did they "make" it happen? I have yet to see anything that would point to such a plot.   If you weigh the costs, consequences and potential downfalls - you can easily see that there were "safer" ways to get their agenda done if they chose too. Too many risks with no guaranteed payoff for this plot.

If 9/11 never really occured, this movie would have been relegated to the drive-ins as a second feature.