reply to post by twitchy
I have seen it (twice).
I though it was a great
film irrespective of the specific content. In my opinion it's a sort of film school "tour de force" rather than
anything entertaining and will be difficult for anybody raised on MTV, x-box or you-tube to watch but well worth the time.
His use of "the cynic", "laptop", "paranoid" and "the history guy" were particularly effective. I found myself often thinking along the lines
of the cynic as the information was presented and appreciated having that character voice my thoughts and have my questions answered as the film moved
along.
I thought it was a great "artsy way" (<-- not using this in an American type of anti-intellectual derogatory manner at all

) of presenting a
mountain of relevant information.
Information that cannot be discounted if you are remotely serious about what happened on that date, what led up to it, the motivations behind
it, the outcomes etc.
Basically, it contains everything a detective type of investigation into "means, motive and opportunity" should have contained if somebody was in
any way interested in justice and catching the perpetrators. You know, what the FBI was designed to do (rather than a military response).
I have to point out that he leaves a lot of information out that was covered by Michael Ruppert in "Crossing the Rubicon" (another excellent police
type investigation into means, motive and opportunity).
Most of the 911 theory stuff concentrates on the minutiae of "how" things went down on that day as if it will somehow prove the rest and doesn't
look at "who", "what" and "why". That in my book is the biggest most glaring mistake of the so called "truth movement" (and I absolutely HATE
that term).
This is a good recent stab at breaking the mold that has set in the last few years:
The Real
9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism
.
edit: speeeeling
[edit on 11/14/2007 by Gools]