They made a 9/11 conspiracy blockbuster. It followed them for decades: Let’s go Off Script

Every day brings a new set of headlines.

Here on Off Script, we’re more interested in the questions they leave behind.

In This Episode

• Twenty years ago, the film “Loose Change” helped bring 9/11 conspiracy theories into the online mainstream. Now, the men who made it say they want nothing to do with the movement it helped create. But they still don’t regret the film. So what do they make of what came after? Our media reporter spoke with them.
• Plus, data centers are going up across the country, and they need a staggering amount of electricity. The White House says you won’t be stuck paying for it. But in some places, customers are already picking up part of the cost. So can your power bill really be protected? We ask our energy reporter.
• And did you know that even without a plane ticket, you can still get through airport security? Why TSA is opening the gates to some nontravelers.

What Matters

First, What Matters: a story that caught our attention this week — and why we think it deserves yours.

Their documentary launched lingering conspiracy theories about 9/11. It’s a monster they can’t escape

The creators of “Loose Change,” the widely debunked 9/11 conspiracy documentary credited with helping establish viral disinformation as a cultural force, sat down with Straight Arrow to reflect on the film’s legacy as the attacks’ 25th anniversary approaches.

Filmmakers Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe are just as skeptical as ever — about the press, about the government, about everything. But they also are on the run from the past. More specifically, they’re trying to escape the legacy of a documentary they created two decades ago that has overshadowed everything they’ve produced since.

While neither filmmaker explicitly said they regretted making the film, they told Straight Arrow Media, Bias and Algorithms Reporter, Mark Keierleber, that if they could do it over, they would keep their names out of it.

Conversation highlights:

SIMONE DEL ROSARIO: I really liked this quote in your story: “We make movies and we sell pot. That pretty much sums it up.” Let’s talk about “Loose Change” for a second. It came out in 2005. What was it really about?

MARK KEIERLEBER: The creators told me something that’s become a bit of a cliché in these kinds of discussions: “We were just asking questions.”

That’s still their argument today. They say they weren’t claiming certainty about any particular theory. Their position is that they were simply raising questions about what happened on 9/11.

DEL ROSARIO: As a journalist, that’s always what gets me. People say they’re just asking questions, but then they don’t always engage with legitimate answers that challenge their assumptions. That seems to be at the heart of a lot of conspiracy theories.

KEIERLEBER: Right. Conspiracy theories often emerge after major events that carry enormous consequences. In the immediate aftermath, there’s a shortage of information, and people are looking for explanations. Even once official explanations become available, some people find those conclusions unsatisfying or too ordinary, and that creates an opening for alternative narratives.

One of the things “Loose Change” proved was that you could create a film with little more than a laptop, some cameras and archival footage, then distribute it online and reach a massive audience. It showed that independent creators could influence public conversations about major events on a very large scale.

DEL ROSARIO: Do they still believe what they put out 20 years ago?

KEIERLEBER: That’s one of the questions I asked directly, and it’s the one that generated the most pushback. They still argue there are unanswered questions surrounding aspects of 9/11. One example they pointed to was World Trade Center Building 7, which became a major focus of conspiracy theories after the attacks. They made it clear that they still believe some of those questions remain unresolved.

DEL ROSARIO: They told you they don’t regret making the film. But the legacy of it is something they seem to have a much more complicated relationship with. Is that fair?

KEIERLEBER: Absolutely. At one point, Dylan Avery told me that if they could do it all over again, one thing they might change is that they wouldn’t put their names on it. I found that revealing because they don’t regret making the film itself, and they still stand by much of its content. What they seem to regret is the backlash, the controversy and the impact it has had on their lives over the past two decades.

Read Mark’s full story here >

Now to You

There’s no shortage of opinions online, but what’s hard to find is answers.

This is Now To You, where we take your questions, comments and hot takes — and dig for the facts.

We received feedback on our coverage of Tuesday’s story about Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD), which secured nearly 44% of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt over the weekend. We referred to AfD as “far right.”

STRAIGHT ARROW: The 44% doesn’t really have anything to do with the label. That’s how many people voted for AfD. It doesn’t determine where the party falls politically.

AfD is described as “far right” by major news organizations, including The Associated Press and Reuters.

In Saxony-Anhalt, there’s more to it. The local office of Germany’s domestic intelligence service has classified AfD as right-wing extremist.

AfD rejects accusations of extremism, though. It says the accusations are politically motivated and an insult to its millions of supporters.

So when we called AfD “far right,” that wasn’t based on the 44% it won on Sunday, and it wasn’t a label we created.

But we think the second viewer makes a fair point about context. If we’re using a label like “far right,” we should make sure you know what it’s based on.

In this case, that’s where the description comes from.

Inside the Story

Ok, let’s go Inside the Story.

You can read the stories on Straight Arrow, but this is where we go a step further, getting at the details that didn’t fit, the questions that came up and the reporting that shaped the story.

Inside the effort to make data centers pay their share of electricity costs

Electricity bills are rising faster than inflation, and documented costs tied to data center growth are already flowing through to residential customers in multiple states.

Data centers have become one of the biggest hot-button issues in America, in part because of how they affect what you pay for electricity, as these trillion-dollar companies bring more power online. Electricity bills already rose twice as fast as inflation last year. At the same time, we still hear about new data center projects and community backlash.

The Trump administration has a White House ratepayer protection pledge in which big tech companies agree to pay their share and not pass costs on to regular ratepayers. But our energy reporter, Keaton Peters, investigated the issue state by state, and the reality is far more complicated. His latest story looks inside the effort to make data centers pay their share of electricity costs.

Conversation highlights:

SIMONE DEL ROSARIO: One of the first things that really stood out to me in your reporting is that you found actual line items on utility bills tied to new infrastructure projects. So, pledge or not, people are paying, right?

KEATON PETERS:  Yes. There are clear examples of consumers paying costs tied to infrastructure that serves data centers. In some cases, that infrastructure also serves other customers, which is where things get complicated.

DEL ROSARIO:  What did you find as you looked at this state by state?

PETERS: When I first saw the ratepayer protection pledge signed by major tech companies and roughly 56 utility companies, it sounded like a great concept: data centers would pay for the power and infrastructure they require rather than shifting costs onto everyday customers.

But I wanted to know how that actually works in practice.

So I built a spreadsheet of the utilities that signed the pledge, looked at where they operate, where data centers are being built and then dug into regulatory filings and utility cases across the country. I also spoke with consumer advocates who scrutinize utility rate requests and infrastructure projects. They spend their days reading thousands of pages of utility filings and tracking exactly how costs are allocated.

After speaking with advocates in more than a dozen states, I gained a much clearer picture of how these policies work in practice.

DEL ROSARIO: Did you find any examples of systems that actually protect ratepayers from taking on these costs?

PETERS: One of the most common tools is what’s known as a large load tariff. It’s not a tariff in the trade-war sense. Think of it more as a contract between a utility and a large power user, such as a data center.

The basic idea is to protect customers if a utility builds expensive infrastructure for a new data center and that project later scales back or disappears. These agreements often require a substantial upfront payment, long-term commitments and minimum monthly payments. In many cases, data centers are obligated to cover a large share of the costs assigned to them, whether they use all the electricity or not.

About 24 states already have some version of these protections in place, and several others are considering them. Supporters argue these agreements can shift more costs to large data centers and reduce the burden on residential customers.

But one big question that remains is the broader cost of generating electricity and building major transmission infrastructure. Many consumer advocates say they’ve already seen data-center growth contribute to higher costs in these areas, and concerns remain about future increases.

Read Keaton’s full story here >

Also Worth Your Time

Want more to read?

Here’s what didn’t make the cut on Unbiased Updates this week —  but we think it’s Also Worth Your Time.

TSA rolls out gate access for nonflying travelers at 13 airports

Did you know? You no longer need a plane ticket to get through security at some U.S. airports.

TSA is rolling out a new Gateside PreCheck perk that lets approved visitors enter secure terminals at 13 airports. You still need to be a PreCheck member or another eligible trusted traveler with a known traveler number.

But you don’t have to be flying.

You can go to the gate to see someone off, meet a friend during a layover, or even grab a meal or do some shopping. And there’s no extra charge.

Visitors apply online one to three days in advance. If TSA approves your request, you can use a PreCheck lane with your ID and proof of your approved Gateside status. Access lasts all day, and you can leave and return.

The first 13 airports include Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, Las Vegas, San Diego, Salt Lake City and Eppley Airfield in Omaha. TSA said it will add more airports in the coming months.

For some of you, this may sound familiar. Before 9/11, friends and family could often accompany passengers all the way to the gate.

Now, a bit of that airport experience is coming back.

Here’s the Kicker

Feeling overwhelmed by this week’s headlines? We’ve got a good way for you to head into the end of the week.

Scientists mapped a fly brain. The internet immediately made it play Doom.

Scientists have spent more than a decade mapping every neural connection in the brain and central nervous system of a male fruit fly. The map includes more than 166,000 neurons and 125 million connections, all to better understand how brains actually work.

So naturally, the internet made it play video games.

Within days, one software engineer was using the data to train a simulated fly brain to play Doom. Another has it playing Super Mario 64, although “playing” may be generous. Mario mostly jumps around and runs into walls. So perhaps not ready for e-sports just yet.

But Google and its research partners are already moving on to bigger brains, including fish and mice, which should keep the internet busy.