Here is the wikipedia article on it, don't forget to check the Talk section cause there is some controversy.

In this case it isn't small NGO's, it's Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth etc. These are big propaganda machines that do a lot of lobbying and against these projects. It's their spokespeople who you see character assassinate themselves in this documentary. You can find the documentary in the torrent scene.

It's really hard to judge who is right and wrong in this case, but my past research into Greenpeace and some environmental movements makes me weary.

I worked in the NGO sphere and yes it's true that there is alot of hypocrisy and double standards followed within these kinds of organizations.

But you must remember also that these are usually various splintered citizen groups fighting against a corporation that has a singular aim. We never possessed the financial, logistical or even at times organizational power to really mount anything large against a company/corporation that has millions of dollars riding on a certain project. Who as shown above can just make a video to make us all look like hippy fools.

What happened here probably is what always happens when you character assassinate a good cause, you pick the fringe elements and make it seem like they represent the whole movement. There are lots of environmental groups that volunteer, but usually a few corporations working for their own self interest.

When dealing with cases in the Third World it's even worse, because the company can argue that it's providing employment and such, when in reality had the environmental presence not been there they really wouldn't give a damn about health and safety standards because that would let them reap more profits. A countries laws become laughable when a goverment tries to appease for foreign direct investment such as this.

Companies can rationalize any activity using economics, but their standards aren't cross border. I mean look at what shoe and clothing companies did in Asia before it was discovered they all used child labor, long hours, and minimal pay. And if they complained to a journalist or anyone they could face being fired.

A corporation or a company doesn't have humanistic qualities written into it, they possess a profit motive, which at times over rides even the most basic of human impulses.

What I mean is this:

"If the BBC was serious about addressing the actual questions that arise post 9/11, they would NOT have questioned Loose Change people. They should have addressed the questions, not the people who raised them, covering the people before the issue which is expected in a objective discussion is called character assassination. And they have succeeded, they picked the 3 most lost people who got played and didn't even realize it.

Currently the program is sold to the viewer as being an honest reevaluation of the events of 9/11, then it proceeds to place in front of you the Loose Change guy, and then attack just 3 of the points raised by the 9/11 movement. Not only that they pick 3 of the most dubious people to represent this issue. So to me this program currently amounts to nothing more then yellow journalism. To me it's especially troubling because 9/11 is such an important event, so much has changed due to it. And it drives me mad how the American public has a 15 second memory when it comes to how they got to Iraq in the first place, what has happened and what is going on. Then the same guy gets re-elected."

But maybe it's true, am crackpot and studied too much of Propaganda for the People 101 from Joseph Goebbels.