What do non LIHOP/MIHOP folks think of 9/11 Press for Truth?

[John Q. Citizen]

I haven't seen any comments on this new movie from those who don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm wondering if they refuse to watch it or if they just don't have an opinion on it.

What about 9/11 Press for Truth? Thumbs up, sideways or down?

[FoxOnTheRun]

1. Good, but I hope Bush isn't going to use it to attack Pakistan

As far as I know he didn't include that Senator Bob Graham had breakfast with Ahmad.
He could have done a much longer movie with the data he has.
Especially a movie about the war games would be incriminating and hitting DOD

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Get the movie 9/11 Press for Truth here for free:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. I'll bite

cant watch it at work (filter) but will try to watch it this weekend and get back to you.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Thanks, I'll be interested in your movie review. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Kick for a reponse from OCTs n/t

[IChing]

4. Crickets right?

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Except for OCTs who haven't seen the movie, that is. If I didn't know

better, I'd think that they are afraid to watch it and discuss it.

i can only guess that video from Citco that doesn't show anything and Loose Change hold much more facination for most OCTs than an intelligent well researched political documentary. After all the whining and carry-on about Loose Change, I'd have thunk OCTs would welcome the chance to discuss something other than if flight 93 landed in Cleveland.

Guess you can't underestimate the star power of Loose Change, though. It's certainly much more watched and discussed by OCTs than 9/11 Press for Truth is.

[FoxOnTheRun]

26. Loose Change 2 recut had only 1,556,268 views on google. eom

[AZCat]

27. A guy at work has been nagging me to watch LCv2...

I told him the same thing I told you - I haven't the time. I would rather watch PfT.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. PFT is a much more ambitious movie, contains a much broader

political perspective, has much higher production values, and is better written.

That said, I liked LCv2. They are just very different animals. People who truly enjoy polities will appreciate PFT more, I think.

It's a much more complicated movie on many levels, and documents a true American political story.

[greyl]

28. fwiw, I haven't seen

the Citgo video either. Just the first second or so. It's not like there was info in the video that wasn't already available.

[vincent_vega_lives]

12. On second thought

I don't need to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x116293

[greyl]

5. It sucks because

it leads CTists on. There should be more time spent on clearly stating the CTs that should be abandoned. (it would have helped publicity, too)

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Because it shows that the Commission wouldn't examine US intel links to

terrorists?

That seems like a cover-up and cover up is what the guilty usually attempt to do, right?

So you are saying it sucks because it documents that the US intelligence community is closely linked to the terrorists who struck on 9/11?

[mhatrw]

32. What?

[mirandapriestly]

77. yes, it does put the official CT to rest.eom

[AZCat]

6. Haven't seen it. n/t

[greyl]

7. I haven't either.

But, I hear things.

[AZCat]

9. Them intenets...

sure can be resourceful, yah.

Just make sure what you're hearing isn't a 4,000-year-old-demon-infested dog. That can be problematic, IMO.

[IChing]

13. Figures you hear things and don't see

LOL:rofl: :rofl:

So you pass judgement on something you haven't seen or read
and hear things though.

enough said

[greyl]

16. Hey, the guy was desperate for responses.

I gave him a brief response based on what I know about the movie. I didn't make shit up.
Sue me.

[IChing]

21. "impossible to embarass a critical thinker with facts".

You might want to look at the facts of the movie and the book with your superior knowledge of ignorance of those facts.

[greyl]

22. If you have time, could you

show how anything I've ever written on this forum is contradicted by anything in that movie?

Also, could you cite anything in the movie that wasn't already available on the internet? (at a site called cooperativeresearch.org)

[FoxOnTheRun]

20. He has a modem

don't blame him....


But he could buy the dvd

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Oh, well why didn;'t you say so? In the dark are you?

[greyl]

18. Not totally, no. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

31. Wouldnt be talking points from "above" would it ?

[John Q. Citizen]

52. Maybe god told him? naw....n/t

[hpot]

73. I hear things too

Greyl, someone told me you like to dance in a tutu.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Don't be afraid of information. It's free. You might be surprised.

[AZCat]

14. No it isn't.

It might not cost money to view it, but that doesn't mean it is free. It takes time to view it and I haven't had the budget for that lately.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Time is money, and ignorance is bliss, I guess. Well I hope you make the

investment in an education when you get the money, er time.

It an amazing American political documentary.

[AZCat]

19. We seem to have differing personal philosophies.

I do not consider money to be the equivalent of time in my value system, but that doesn't mean that time isn't a finite resource. Ignorance is not a state of blissfulness either as far as I am concerned.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Sorry, I misunderstood your post. i hope you invest the time to see 9/11

Press for Truth. It seems many of the people who believe the attacks of 9/11 were strictly the work of Arab Islamic fundamentalists haven't had the time or bandwidth to view 9/11 Press for Truth. I am interested in their views on this meticulously well documented and researched examination of the events leading up to, during, and after the attacks of 9/11.

It get boring only talking about 3 buildings, the Pentagon, and what happened to flight 93. 9/11 Press for Truth examines a much broader historical and political canvass.

[AZCat]

24. I'll try to take the time, but I just haven't had a big block in a while.

I confess that I do end up focusing on the trio of issues you mentioned, but it's probably because I get a little batty when I see people making claims backed up by a flawed understanding of engineering/physics. We all have our eccentricities, I guess. I've tried to follow Paul's work through the years but I haven't checked his site in a while.

[Feron]

33. Here's one review (not mine):

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=88afb46d32b7cadb25de2ed516dc319e&p=1909928&postcount=99

I plan on watching the movie this weekend.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. He's got 2049 posts and he joined that message board in June of 2006?

Boy, that's prolific. Some where on the order of 20 posts a day, every day. And that's if he joined on June 1st. i wonder how many of his posts are on the OCT?

I guess he didn't like the movie. There's no accounting for taste though.

He writes like a freeper. Ignores the facts and just makes stuff up. Hmm.

[salvorhardin]

36. It was not a very good review

But I thought he had one excellent point:

"The men named as the culprits allowed to escape"

The key word here is "allowed". The US-arrogance syndrome dictates that, if they escaped, the US must have allowed it. There's an obvious flaw in this logic. Al Qaeda were on their home turf. US forces were not that hot on alpine counter-insurrgent warfare. I'm not surprised so many escaped for so long (I'm guessing this doco is now dated since the coalition has since taken big chunks out of Al Qaeda including KSM - the mastermind of 9/11).

There is a large degree of American exceptionalism in the 9-11 Truth movement that sometimes leads to faulty logic. In this specific instance it can not be determined based solely on the facts alone whether or not the U.S. "allowed" anyone to escape.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Have you seen the film yet? It points out and documents that

not just top Al Quida members but also top Taliban left en masse without any interdiction.

Leaving the capture of Bin Laden up to our Northern Alliance mercenaries has been criticized from Republicans to Democrats from military strategists to the press, so the fact that the 9/11 truth movement also finds fault with this isn't exactly a sign of exclusivity. However, the documentation of the extent to which this mass exodus of Taliban and al Quida leadership was allowed to occur, is new to me, via the film.

[salvorhardin]

43. Yes, and I also criticize that

But use of the word "allowed" implies that the military was ordered to let them go. There's no evidence of that AFAIK although I would be willing to entertain such if you have it.

And as I noted below, I have not seen the film.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. If Rummy didn't send enough troops to do the job, that would mean

the Pentagon allowed the top Al Quida/Taliban leadership to escape. No one would have to order the military to ignore them. You look for large scale conspiracies perhaps where small scale ones might work even better.

It's interesting that you accept the second hand account of the poster to the Rhandi Rhodes board as a basis for critizing the movie/9/11 truth movement.

Don't listen to me or him; Watch the movie and see what they say. Then if you find fault, you can base it on what you know for sure.

[salvorhardin]

48. That's not the Randi Rhodes message board

That's James Randi's message board, or rather his foundation's message board.

Look, I don't accept anything. I just highlighted what I thought was a good point. You keep trying to force motive on me where none exists. And as I've said quite a few times already I will watch the film. I don't expect you'll like my review either, but I will watch it. And who knows, maybe we'll both be surprised.

[IChing]

49. You need the book also for the time-line or the website.

So don't make comments on a film or book you haven't seen or read.

[salvorhardin]

51. I have seen the website

And as I have stated multiple times in this thread I will review the film (perhaps even this weekend). And as I stated in my previous comment I was not commenting on the film, but on the review.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Thanks for the correction Good enough.! n/t

[mhatrw]

62. There is a much larger degree of American exceptionalism in the US

military.

[FoxOnTheRun]

37. Is he Special Forces? or why is his face covered with camouflage?

[John Q. Citizen]

41. I think it's an avitar or something. I doubt it's the poster, but I don't

know that for sure.

[salvorhardin]

34. I'll try to review it

But I suspect you won't like the review.

Can anyone tell me anything about the filmmakers, Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, though? Do they have biographies online anywhere, prior films they've done? They don't seem to have pages on IMDB. Actually it doesn't look the Press For Truth has an IMDB page. They really should create one since that's a primary reference for people who are into films.

[Make7]

38. There's a little info on the movie's website.

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/filmmakers

- Make7

[salvorhardin]

40. I just get a blank page when I load that URL

:shrug:

[FoxOnTheRun]

42. no javascript?

[salvorhardin]

45. Nope, that's not the problem.

Every other page with javascript, including my own site, works fine.

[AZCat]

44. Weird...

Just in case, here's the text you would find at the link.

Like Paul Thompson, twenty-something filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy had been touched by September 11th but never thought much further about it. In the spring of 2003, during their last semester of film school at Columbia College in Chicago, a friend mentioned The Complete 9/11 Timeline in passing. That evening, Duffy and Nowosielski decided to take a look. They found themselves unable to stop reading, scrolling through the web site until being interrupted by sunrise.

Though the filmmakers had never had any interest in the genre of documentary, as the months passed, they grew to believe that this was a story the American public needed to hear. By the 2nd anniversary of September 11th, they were seeking the funding for what would eventually become ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH’. The first investor provided funds in May 2004, allowing for the start of pre-production. The long production phase kicked off with a trip to New York in September 2004.

During that visit, the filmmakers made two important contacts. Paul Thompson’s book, ‘The Terror Timeline’, had just been published by HarperCollins, and he was in New York that week to promote it. After hearing their vision for the movie, Thompson agreed to allow co-producer Duffy and co-producer/director Nowosielski to adapt his work—a major turning point in the direction of the movie. The second important contact was Kyle Hence.

In mid-2003, Hence had co-founded 9/11 CitizensWatch, an advocacy organization which monitored the activities of the 9/11 Commission on behalf of the public and was in close contact with the Family Steering Committee. He agreed to join the production as executive producer (eventually also becoming a co-producer and co-writer), and in the spring of 2005, helped them get interviews with three of the famous “Jersey widows”—another major turning point for the film.

Production wrapped in December 2005, and Hence approached Manhattan-based Globalvision (‘Beyond JFK’, 1992; ‘WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception’, 2004) for help in completing the movie. Hence had worked with Globalvision co-founder Danny Schechter in 2004 to develop a never-completed 9/11 documentary.

Co-founder and documentary veteran Rory O’Connor (PBS ‘Frontline ‘The Hole in the Wall’, 1999) joined Hence as executive producer, providing the production with Globalvision’s many resources, including production coordinator Glenn Beatty and editor Kozo Okumura. Indianapolis’ Erik Potter, of Banded Artists, provided his expertise as computer animator for the “wall of TV” sections while Adam Johnson and Ben Johnson wrote and produced
the original score. The Bay area’s Emmy-winning Ken Ellis soon rounded out the production as co-executive producer. Hence and Nowosielski approached writer and journalist Larisa Alexandrovna, to help with scripting and story structure. Alexandrovna, is also managing news editor at Raw Story, a columnist at Alternet, and has a blog at the Huffington Post. Post-production completed in July 2006.

[salvorhardin]

46. Thanks!

I was hoping to find out what other films they've done though. Oh well.

I'm downloading the film now (sorry, can't afford to buy it). I'll try to review it this weekend.

[BootinUp]

53. do I have to pay anything?

and how long is it?

[John Q. Citizen]

54. Here, my gift to you. It's longer than some people's attention span and

shorter than other people's attention span. See where you fall on the attention span continuem. (It tells you what the running time is on the goggle video page)


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

[BootinUp]

55. I saw the link earlier, watched about 30-40 minutes

As I have said before I understand the families of victims wanting justice and accountability. Seems thats the theme of the movie and I have no problem with it.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Seems that the bush administration didn't want to answer the questions

so just ignored them about 70% of the time.

If you didn't see the whole movie then you wouldn't know what you don't know about it. Makes sense.

[BootinUp]

57. Looks like news coverage I am already very familiar with

thanks.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Tony Snow would be proud of that answer. It certainly sidesteps

any discussion.

Thanks.

[BootinUp]

59. Looks like a good film

Maybe you misunderstood me. After skimming it some more I don't see much I would change.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. Did the widespread and continual cover up of obviously relevant yet

ignored avenues of inquirery by the 9/11 Keane Commission cause you to wonder what the fuck they were hiding?

It did me. It made me wonder why?


So I wonder where those promised reviews are. We had a few pending still, but the reviewers seem to have lax deadlines.

[Feron]

60. My review

Personally I was underwhelmed.

For all the hype this flick gets around this board I certainly expected something better. It was long on time and short on content. Or in essence, Loose Change: Political Edition Vol. 1. The only real brightspot was that they didn't bore me the same recycled conspiracy theories although you can tell that endeavour was terribly difficult.

I suppose the conclusion the viewer is supposed to make is that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen in order to begin Gulf War Redux. Which makes no sense. It would be a lot easier to launch a propaganda offensive in order to achieve that aim (which Bush did after the Afghan campaign and it's how Desert Storm started). Bureaucrats covering their asses isn't proof of a conspiracy. It's quite simply business as usual. Just look at all of the politicians shuffling after Katrina.

As for the intelligence, not all of it may be accurate or even true. Just saying that "blah blah warned the U.S." says nothing about how specific, truthful, or actionable the intelligence may have been. Also better cooperation between the agencies didn't happen until after 9/11. And furthermore, if Bush had such tunnel vision that he wanted to attack Iraq right after 9/11 (until Blair persuaded him otherwise), then vital intelligence most likely had been missed. Of course if you want to go after him on that point, then you will have to prove it..

Remember that this is the same goverment that can't even allot trailers to hurricane survivors. The only thing that they can do reasonably well is propaganda. However I do think that letting terrorists do whatever they want willy nilly in order to achieve a political end is a huge risk and loose end that these control freaks don't want. For a fictionalized analogy, look at President Logan in season 5 of 24.

Back to the movie, then there is the ISI angle and the paymaster with vitiligo. It's not farfetched that Al-Queda had operatives in ISI positions. Perhaps PFT group had it the other way around. Even if some officials in Pakistan are corrupt, Afghanistan was harboring Al-Queda and their camps. And the network has been disrupted.

As for the undercover agent, I don't even know why that was included. There is no proof other than the man's word that he was ISI. It's possible that the guy was an Asian version of the Americans who falsely claim that they are Navy Seals or part of some other elite group. And the towers have been a known target since 1993 so it's possible that the guy was either a terrorist or just some wannabe blustering.

I guess the undercover agent wasn't charged with obstruction of justice after all...

Anyhow, Secret Asian Man aside, the Pakistan segment was the only "meat" in the entire movie.

Finally, the media was inane and biased prior to 9/11. True, dissent was stifled right afterwards for fear of being labeled unpatriotic and that was bad, however I simply don't expect hard-hitting stories to be on a network designed for infotainment and soundbytes. And there are journalists out there like Seymour Hersch who do expose govermental goings-on that the infotainment networks won't touch intially ,but may cover after the exposure.

Another thing to keep in mind is that first reports can often be wrong. The mass rapes and killings in the Superdome story is an example of rumor reported as fact. I guess if I had a tinfoil hat I would suspect a coverup.

I feel bad for those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but their presence on PFT added nothing new or of substance to the movie. Yes bureaucracies are frustrating and full of patronage. Yes, politicians never want to investigate something that could potentially embarass them. And if you want to get something done it's like pulling teeth. However the goverment isn't going to investigate 9/11 again no matter how hard you try.

Personally, I hate it when people use emotional bullshit in order to sway me to their side. Give me something of substance in your flick supporting LIHOP and then we'll talk. This movie was mainly emotion and innuendo. And least the Loose Change folks gave me something, no matter how stupid, to hang my hat on.

[mhatrw]

63. What is your review of the 9/11 Commission Report?

What is your review of the NIST's reports on the WTC-1 and WTC-2 collapses? What is your review of Fahrenheit 9/11? Anything approach to present any material can be savaged if you just complain that it isn't the approach you were looking for.

For all the hype this flick gets around this board I certainly expected something better.

Yes, and Bush won the debates with Kerry considering how dumb he is.

It was long on time and short on content. Or in essence, Loose Change: Political Edition Vol. 1. The only real brightspot was that they didn't bore me the same recycled conspiracy theories although you can tell that endeavour was terribly difficult.

So how was it like Loose Change if it didn't bore you with "recycled conspiracy theories"?

I suppose the conclusion the viewer is supposed to make is that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen in order to begin Gulf War Redux. Which makes no sense. It would be a lot easier to launch a propaganda offensive in order to achieve that aim (which Bush did after the Afghan campaign and it's how Desert Storm started).

So why did The Project for a New American Century say launching their vision of US hegemony over the Midle East would most likely be impossible without a catalyzing event like a "new Pearl Harbor"?

Bureaucrats covering their asses isn't proof of a conspiracy. It's quite simply business as usual. Just look at all of the politicians shuffling after Katrina.

No, but hundreds of people going everywhere on the internet and making it their business to protect incompetent bureaucrats against any and all charges other than their incompetence is rather suspicious.

As for the intelligence, not all of it may be accurate or even true. Just saying that "blah blah warned the U.S." says nothing about how specific, truthful, or actionable the intelligence may have been. Also better cooperation between the agencies didn't happen until after 9/11. And furthermore, if Bush had such tunnel vision that he wanted to attack Iraq right after 9/11 (until Blair persuaded him otherwise), then vital intelligence most likely had been missed. Of course if you want to go after him on that point, then you will have to prove it.

You're right. You can't "go after" Bush about anything without 100% proof. How silly of anyone to feel otherwise!

Remember that this is the same goverment that can't even allot trailers to hurricane survivors.

Could this possibly be because doing so is not high on anybody's priority list?

Anyhow, Secret Asian Man aside, the Pakistan segment was the only "meat" in the entire movie.

The movie is meant to introduce you to the topic. The "meat" is here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

Finally, the media was inane and biased prior to 9/11. True, dissent was stifled right afterwards for fear of being labeled unpatriotic and that was bad, however I simply don't expect hard-hitting stories to be on a network designed for infotainment and soundbytes. And there are journalists out there like Seymour Hersch who do expose govermental goings-on that the infotainment networks won't touch intially ,but may cover after the exposure.

Nobody has touched the topic of possible insider complicity in gthe events of 9/11 or even the topic of state sponsored terrorism in general.

Another thing to keep in mind is that first reports can often be wrong.

As they later prove to be inconvenient, they become wrong. The "reports" of rapes in New Orleans were obviously nothing more than breathless rumors at the time they were reported. Comparing these irresponsible rumors to information officially released days and even weeks after the event of 9/11 (that later were rescinded for "new and improved" explanations) is disingenuous.

I feel bad for those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but their presence on PFT added nothing new or of substance to the movie. Yes bureaucracies are frustrating and full of patronage. Yes, politicians never want to investigate something that could potentially embarass them. And if you want to get something done it's like pulling teeth. However the goverment isn't going to investigate 9/11 again no matter how hard you try.

So let's all just give up then! Right?

Personally, I hate it when people use emotional bullshit in order to sway me to their side. Give me something of substance in your flick supporting LIHOP and then we'll talk. This movie was mainly emotion and innuendo.

The movie is meant to introduce you to the topic. The "meat" is here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

[Bolo Boffin]

61. I give 9/11: Press for Truth an A+

It would have been an A++, but a brief and slight validation of WTC 7 ideas put me off in the early moments of the film.

And the point's been made, that if somebody saw this and then Loose Change, they'd probably buy into every lie in LC.

Can't help that. The film's gold. It's the only thing that got me through the viewing of ABC's crock of sh*t on September 10. The Jersey Girls rule, along with the Amazing Paul Thompson.

Satisfied?

[John Q. Citizen]

64. The Jersey Girls do in fact rule! Thanks for the feedback! n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Kicking for the Jersey Girls. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

66. Kicking for those reviews.....

[AZCat]

67. I watched LCv2 last night.

I promised the guy at work I would make time for that first. I don't know when I'll get a chance to watch PFT but I'll let you know what I think.

[salvorhardin]

68. I have 35 minutes left to watch of Press For Truth

I hope to get to it by the weekend but I'm not sure I will. My time has been rather fractured of late.

I do have one nitpicky stylistic complaint though. That CGI videowall effect is really cheezy. It's amateurish and actually detracts from the film. At least I'm assuming it's CGI because if they paid money to rent a studio and a real videowall they got ripped off.

I'll post the full review at Neural Gourmet and link to it here when I'm done though.

[Norrin Radd]

69. I think that wall is meant to symbolize important stories getting lost or

hidden in the glut of non-essential info on the news.

[salvorhardin]

70. Yeah, that's the impression I got

Unfortunately it came off rather badly. But as I said, that's a minor stylistic quibble.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. I think it shows the wall of media, the power and ubiquitous nature of

media on our common reality.

[Norrin Radd]

74. Good point. I didn't think of that. n/t

[William Seger]

71. It's very good

One thing it clearly demonstrates is that there is a lot of territory between the "CTers" (if that's defined the people who believe the WTC was a demolition job and/or a commercial jet didn't hit the Pentagon) and the so-called "OCTers" (if that's defined as people who believe everything Bush*Co and the 9/11 commission have said), and that there are a lot of unanswered questions in that gap. It also shows that we already have ample evidence of Bush*Co and 9/11 commission malfeaseance, at least, with no further investigation needed to answer that question.

The one time I winced while watching it was when someone (not sure who) said (approximately): "Bid Laden couldn't possibly have planned this attack; it was too sophisticated." That line should have been left out, since it sounds too much like CTer "logic" and doesn't add anything at all to our understanding of what happened. Surely, Bin Laden (or any number of other people) could have planned this attack; we simply don't have enough evidence to say who it was.

I see someone in this thread suggested that "OCTers" might be afraid to watch this documentary. While I don't really consider myself an OCTer, I confess to being afraid to watch it -- afraid that I would waste yet another hour and 20 minutes of rehashed CT bullshit. It wasn't that, but on the other hand I was already aware of most of the information. Still, it does a very powerful job of connecting some of the dots, and showing that there are a lot of dots left over.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Glad you liked it. I did too

"Still, it does a very powerful job of connecting some of the dots, and showing that there are a lot of dots left over."

That's a great quote. They should put that on the DVD blurb.

[Brainster]

78. Interesting That They Have the Family Members Lie

Of course, this makes it harder to criticize the lies without seeming like a heartless SOB.

For instance, early on one of the Jersey Girls claims the planes were flying around for "almost two hours". But that's not true; NEADS only knew about the individual hijackings for less than 10 minutes in each case before the planes crashed. And even if you buy their timeline (dubious because they stick to the 10:06 crash time for Flight 93), it's almost an hour and a half, not almost two hours.

They also avoid MIHOP, but the film is not without it's occasional winks and nudges, as when one of the JGs says: "We felt that the country was at risk from terrorists and incompetence... and um, maybe worse."

We get the mother of a firefighter giving us the next lie:

"The largest structural collapse in world history, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War and not one governmental or elected official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

In fact the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings are probably the most studied disasters of all time. Major building code changes have come out of these studies. Are these women, who tell us how much they have studied 9-11, simply unaware of all this?

The announcer also tells us that Tom Kean (whose name is hilariously mispronounced the way it looks--it's really pronounced Kane) and Lee Hamilton headed the commission which was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, but the commission members were all former "DC insiders and lawyers". (Menacing music). Boo, hiss.