I'm Making a Documentary

I feel that there's a need for a video that chronologically lays out the events leading up to, during, and after 9/11, including those that are questionable/controversial. I want it to be as unbiased as it can be. Instead of saying what OS-followers believe happened vs. what OS-deniers believe happened, it will lay out the facts, the inconsistencies, and the controversies, allowing the viewer to make their own decision based on actual facts, not theories.

Think of it as a "9/11 for beginners" type video.

To give you a better idea of what I'm going for, I'd like for the movie to start with information regarding the controversy of Bush getting into office in 2000, the Bush family's relationship with the Bin Laden's, the drafts being written for the Patriot Act and the Iraq invasion, the "New American Century" memos, etc. All of this will be presented as it is, without making any allusion that it has anything to do with 9/11. This will allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

From there, we would go to the insurance policies taken out on the WTC complex, the NORAD exercises, etc. Basically, the first 30-45 minutes of the film will be stuff that would be insignificant had 9/11 never happened.

I hope I'm at least somewhat conveying what I'm trying to do with this. I'm making kind of a general outline right now, so I'll be able to better explain it once I have that finished.

To give you a bit of a background on me, I'm a film student and have been making movies since I was 13. I am an OS-denier (I hate the term "truther"). When talking about 9/11, I tend to focus more on the fact that we don't know what happened. The only thing we know for sure is that there are questions about the OS that need to be answered. I'm not going to sit there and tell you that the MOSSAD put bombs in the WTC to further a radical Zionist agenda. All I'm going to do is tell you the questions that have been raised, the reason these questions have been raised, and the arguments against these questions.

I came up with the idea of making a chronological, as-neutral-as-it-can-be 9/11 documentary after discussing the events of that day with my parents. They had no idea of the inconsistencies in the OS, and I found that the best way to convey these to them was to start slow, to present them with the facts, and to let them make their own connections. You're never going to get through to OS-believers or the uninformed by jumping straight into the 9/11 conspiracy.

I'm making this thread with the hope of community involvement and input from fellow ATS members. I'd like to use it as a resource to compile websites, videos, and other info to utilize in my movie, as well as a means to discuss the best way to go about putting it all together.

PLEASE do not use this thread for discussion/argument of what you believe about 9/11. This isn't a "truther vs. truster" thread. Both sides of the spectrum are free to submit evidence/info. If you're a OS-supporter and you have something that refutes a certain theory, then by all means, post it. But please DO NOT resort to petty arguments, name calling, etc. Simply post what you have, why you have posted it, and any suggestions/input you have on how I can make this a better film.

Once I start to get more into this, I will post an outline of the structure of my film. Until then, please feel free to give me any sites you may have that provide info or any tips on putting the movie together. Also, if anyone would like to help me directly with this film, it would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

Here are some great resources for you to base your documentary off of:

The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
The Looming Tower

Lawrence Wright is the author receiving a Pulitzer Prize for this book!


Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11
Firefight

This is an amazing read and it quite bone chilling.


One more:

The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11

The Ground Truth

Written by senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission - John Farmer.

reply to post by Six Sigma


This is exactly the type of stuff that I'm looking for; essentially non-partisan information backed up by respected sources. Thanks a lot for adding this!

I can definitely recommend Firefight. I have to dig out my copy at some point, it is utterly terrifying.

I would also recommend reading through the 911 commission report and the NIST reports (just the main summarising ones will probably do). Even if you disagree with their conclusion, they contain a huge amount of references which can provide you with a lot of information, or even just where to go to get the information you seek.

Hi there,

If you haven't had the chance to already, I would recommend browsing through the list of documentaries on the following site. There must be at least two dozen of them specifically about 9/11.

It may be of some help to you -

kokomotion.com...

reply to post by nick112

Could you maybe interview Osama Bin Laden, or find out where he is these days?
I'll never forget the globe's "Get Bin Laden" frenzy, and Bush promised to smoke him out of his hole.
Now I haven't heard anything about Bin Laden for years.
How wierd.

reply to post by nick112


How on Earth do you expect us to honor your wishes to refrain from turning this thread into a pro/con conspiracy slugfest when it's patently obvious you're intending to pass off a lot of Internet rubbish as being factual? The whole bit about Silverstein's insurance policy is nothing but conspiracy mongor innuendo dropping- he was *obligated* by the NYPA to insure the buildings. Every building has an insurance policy on it, including the house or building you're living in, so mentioning that the towers were insured is simply cherry picking. Even then, the money Silverstein got was just put back into development of the Freedon tower, which means you're now taking facts out of context.

Likewise with the NORAD exercises. NORAD has these exercises every year, not just in 2001, which makes the bit innuendo dropping- the moment they said the hijackings were real world, everyone knew it wasn't part of the exercises.

Tell me, in your "documentary" are you also going to likewise include facts like how firefighters reported there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 from fires burning out of control, or how Mohammen Atta's girlfriend reported he was an accomplished pilot and that he was such a sociopath that he dismembered her kittens after an argument? How about the Pakistani journalist's interview with Bin Laden where he admitted sending fighters to Somalia to attack the wests's famine relief efforts there? If not, then why not?

A few thing that I can remember leading up to 911 , the US balanced there budget and China gained favored nation status for trade .

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by nick112

 

Could you maybe interview Osama Bin Laden, or find out where he is these days?
I'll never forget the globe's "Get Bin Laden" frenzy, and Bush promised to smoke him out of his hole.
Now I haven't heard anything about Bin Laden for years.
How wierd.

Haha I'll have my press guys work on it (press guys, yeah right!). I hear he's pretty tough to get interviews with these days though.

I know that Firefight is about the Pentagon, but I don't know much about it other than that. Is it basically about the rescue efforts taking place after the attack? What makes it so intriguing/terrifying? I'm definitely gonna have to check it out, hopefully our bookstore carries it (we don't have a big chain bookstore where I'm from, just a locally owned one).

Also, please ignore any attempts to bait arguments. As I said in my OP, I don't want this thread to have any of that; it's simply a place for people to share information and resources. I don't have an agenda. I'm simply trying to provide the most up to date information regarding the 9/11 controversy. If there are two sides to something, then I will be sure to show both sides, provided there is legitimate information supporting either side.

So again, this isn't a debate thread. There are plenty of threads for that. Please keep it out of this one.

Originally posted by nick112
Also, please ignore any attempts to bait arguments. As I said in my OP, I don't want this thread to have any of that; it's simply a place for people to share information and resources. I don't have an agenda. I'm simply trying to provide the most up to date information regarding the 9/11 controversy. If there are two sides to something, then I will be sure to show both sides, provided there is legitimate information supporting either side.

How is it baiting arguments to point out that you're planning to post flawed material which is only going to discredit your documentary. Likewise, how is it baiting arguments to inquire whether you're intending to include information on both sides of the debate, rather than favoring one side or the other? I'm a 9/11 researcher too, so I have a vested interest in how you're going to produce this.

It is an established fact that NY firefighters reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control, and that they reported there was a three story tall bulge in the side of the building, and I can supply you with the source if you so desire. It seems to me that if you're going to include information like that, it's necessarily going to disprove a lot of other claims the conspiracy proponents are putting forth so your documentary is just going to wind up becoming a jumble of self contradiction. If OTOH you make a conscious decision to omit information like that, then your documentary isn't going to be any different that any of the other easily debunked hack job documentaries floating around out there (I.E. Dylan Avery's Loose Change). Ignore this at your own cost.

reply to post by nick112


Start with "CITY IN THE SKY: RISE AND FALL OF WORLD TRADE CENTER" by NY Times reporters Eric Lipton /Jamie Glanz - first half goes into detail about political wrangling to get WTC built

Second half covers how WTC was built (in layman terms) and how it was destroyed

Also "102 MINUTES" by NY Times reporters James Dwyer/Kevin Flynn covering stories of those in building on
Sept 11 and harrowing experiences

Originally posted by nick112
I know that Firefight is about the Pentagon, but I don't know much about it other than that. Is it basically about the rescue efforts taking place after the attack? What makes it so intriguing/terrifying? I'm definitely gonna have to check it out, hopefully our bookstore carries it (we don't have a big chain bookstore where I'm from, just a locally owned one).

It's hard to explain, it uses a mix of horrifying imagery and tragedy coupled with human elements. It's the fact that you can put yourself in the position of these people, desperately trying to handle the horrific situation they've been put in.

I really couldn't do it any justice by summarising it.

Also, please ignore any attempts to bait arguments. As I said in my OP, I don't want this thread to have any of that; it's simply a place for people to share information and resources. I don't have an agenda. I'm simply trying to provide the most up to date information regarding the 9/11 controversy. If there are two sides to something, then I will be sure to show both sides, provided there is legitimate information supporting either side.

Yeah I do think GoodOldDave is being a little unfair. I would prefer to wait until you begin your documentary to start criticising.

If you want to get a good summary of the evidence from the 'official story' side, feel free to PM me. I have a pretty extensive reference collection of 911 events and I've been debating this stuff for a few years so I should be able to answer most questions. I also have some video editing / 3d modelling experience, so I can possibly help out to a minor extent there (I am a very busy person at the moment unfortunately)

Ooh, just remembered another important reference source, the NYT oral histories: graphics8.nytimes.com...

Here's a idea and this is coming from someone who doesn't support the OS like you. My main thing is try to be original. Many of the documentaries overlap and rehash the same stuff that disagree with the OS.

One thing i haven't seen is a good documentary that breaks down the entire OS. What i get from most debunkers is that the believe the major points in the OS, but maybe lies or omissions were made to protect people's jobs or reputations in charge of defending the country or what not. This is my problem with debunkers. They want to support most of the OS but not all of it.(Not trying to argue, just saying)

I think it's really important that someone takes the time to critically analyze the 911 Commision Report, FEMA Reports and NIST Reports and how they came about and show, if any, inconsistencies, omissions, neglence etc... and let people decide if this is something they should believe or not. Maybe you could do a seperate documentary on each, the 911 Commision report, FEMA Reports and NIST Reports. Then let them decide what posssible alternate theories they may want to pursue.(This is pretty much what your suggesting already) My question about all of these reports is could they possiblely be unbiased considering the actions taken by our Military prior to these reports?(again, not trying to argue, just saying)

The problem is the OS is a mass amount of information and it would be a great idea if this information could be condensed in video so people who want to take this seriously have a good background in what the OS is or isn't without necessairly reading all the documents for themselfs.

Also, there are a lot of videos(in the thousands) that have just recently been released due to a FOIA. Some are starting to pop up already and i got a feeling this topic is going to really heat up around here. Anyway, there could be something in these videos that give you some ideas, and it might be wise to hold off for a little bit.

reply to post by nick112


Hi everyone,

Great OP, I would work on making each topic self contained and also expandable. So like dealing with the SEC stocks and shares issue, make that a story of and within itself but leave yourself room to add more details down the road.

And also think what style of documentary you want, I would shy away from the older style of documentary ie 1960's and shy away from Micheal Moore on the camera talking style. Loose change has it right except the music puts a lot of people off, most people I talk to find progressive drum and bass ala LTJ bukem to be a good middle ground as its chilled with a beat but whatever music you add will annoy someone, no music annoys no one.

ATS on the forum topic page has links to footage of the day, juxta-position is your friend, and maybe try the Chomsky technique of seeing the best in people and accepting their story as truthful - luckily there are enough contraditions in the OS to make this work nicely, try David Ray Griffins debunking 9/11 debunking book.

Also Stanley Kubrick was the master of message within a message film-making, if you can make it multi-layered and not obvious you might have something of beauty

Peace

PS even if 9/11 was not an inside job, the same forces of money/ advertising/ military /vested interests/ secret powers ect still need stopping, even if they are not to blame, the lies pre and after 9/11 are enough to see many locked up for decades on war crimes, just ask the islanders on the 'deserted' Diego Garcia,

Originally posted by exponent
Yeah I do think GoodOldDave is being a little unfair. I would prefer to wait until you begin your documentary to start criticising.

Hmmm. I didn't think I was being unfair from wanting to know how the OP intended to produce this documentary, but if that's the impression I give then I apologize. The problem I have with most of these conspiracy documentaries is that they're unrepentently biased toward one particular theory, and when that happens, it stops being a documentary and instead becomes propaganda. It's one thing to promote a specific idea, but it's another thing entirely when it's at the expense of the facts. Case in point -not too long ago, someone mentioned a program to "educate" New Yorkers about WTC 7 collapsing by using posters being put up throughout NYC. Who here honestly thinks that part of their "education" will include the deputy fire chief's report that there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 from the fires, raise your hands.

Let me rephrase the question in another way- most documentaries of a political nature have a thesis that they're trying to prove I.E. Al Gore's documentary trying to prove Global Warming is becoming a big problem. What's your thesis of your documentary?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I agree with the general sentiments of your post but its all a bit pots and kettles, You want to include the quote from the fire chief about the bulge, but you don't mention NIST not testing for explosives as per regulations, you don't mention the BBC saying 7 has collapsed when it at that point had not fallen, you don't mention the 2.5 seconds of free-fall, you don't mention what looks like squibs, you don't mention Farmer saying the commission was not told the truth and you give no mention to some of the occupants and their role in shaping what is defined as American foreign interests.

And from memory you're not a big fan of Bush and all the post 9/11 lies but you believe Bush when he gives evidence in secret with his buddy by his side backing him up.

Power and Equality

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by exponent
Yeah I do think GoodOldDave is being a little unfair. I would prefer to wait until you begin your documentary to start criticising.

Hmmm. I didn't think I was being unfair from wanting to know how the OP intended to produce this documentary, but if that's the impression I give then I apologize. The problem I have with most of these conspiracy documentaries is that they're unrepentently biased toward one particular theory, and when that happens, it stops being a documentary and instead becomes propaganda. It's one thing to promote a specific idea, but it's another thing entirely when it's at the expense of the facts. Case in point -not too long ago, someone mentioned a program to "educate" New Yorkers about WTC 7 collapsing by using posters being put up throughout NYC. Who here honestly thinks that part of their "education" will include the deputy fire chief's report that there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 from the fires, raise your hands.

Let me rephrase the question in another way- most documentaries of a political nature have a thesis that they're trying to prove I.E. Al Gore's documentary trying to prove Global Warming is becoming a big problem. What's your thesis of your documentary?

Well in that case, I apologize for misinterpreting your first post.

To be clear, I am NOT trying to make another Loose Change/Zeitgeist movie. You're right: they're propaganda.

I will admit, I am a doubter of the OS. I think that, at the very least, we need a new investigation--even if it's just to further address what we KNOW was government incompetence in the months leading up to 9/11. That being said, I'm not one to tell you that explosives brought down the World Trade Center, or that a missile hit the Pentagon, because the truth is, none of us know. But when you have information that suggests what we've been told may not be entirely accurate, I think it's our duty to further investigate this.

I'm a Journalism major (film minor), and I truly, honestly believe that the most important thing a journalist can do is report the truth, and in doing so, report all aspects of what may or may not be the truth. That's the point of this documentary.

If you ask me what my agenda/thesis is, I won't lie to you: I am making this film to point out flaws/inconsistencies in the OS. However, the flaws that can be explained will be. I won't omit any information that I come across. I haven't started yet because I'm finishing up a film over the next week or so. After that, I'll begin my outline/research and present it on here.

The idea of excluding information that goes against a reporter/filmmaker's agenda disgusts me. It won't happen here. I'm trying to make a fair movie. Please give me the chance to do it.

Originally posted by nick112
If you ask me what my agenda/thesis is, I won't lie to you: I am making this film to point out flaws/inconsistencies in the OS. However, the flaws that can be explained will be. I won't omit any information that I come across. I haven't started yet because I'm finishing up a film over the next week or so. After that, I'll begin my outline/research and present it on here.

The idea of excluding information that goes against a reporter/filmmaker's agenda disgusts me. It won't happen here. I'm trying to make a fair movie. Please give me the chance to do it.

Ah, in that case I do look forward to seeing your work.

As for your agenda/thesis, I think you need to refine this goal- yes, there are flaws and inconsistancies, but WHY would there be flaws and inconsistancies? Personally I believe that everyone was shocked as hell and were slipping on banana peels trying to deal with something noone had ever seen before (the flaws), so there will naturally be a lot of people who don't want to admit how badly they screwed up (the inconsistancies).

Case in point- Personally, to me it makes zero practical sense for the interceptors scrambled from Mass to be sent out in a holding pattern over the ocean and waste precious time. I'd have thought they would be sent to the last known position of the hijacked aircraft and then vectored at mach 2 to any confirmed position they found later. Which makes more sense in this context- that ground controllers were part of some secret sinister gov't plot to take over the world, or that ground controllers were all panicking and running around in circles, and they simply didn't think to send Mach 2 interceptors out to hunt? You do see the point, I hope.

Once you have your own thesis, the instances of the flaws and inconsistancies you're presenting will all come together. OTOH without a thesis showing all the flaws and inconsistancies are related, it would seem to me that simply listing the flaws and inconsistancies will make it not much more than a grocery list.

the most bizarre moments for me that you should research are

The 2.3 trillion dollars that was announced missing on September 10th 2001, that we never heard about again.

The fact that the 911 workers were told the air was safe to breath, yet it wasn't. they can figure out air quality very easily. So why was this lie told? and who told it? do they still have a job?

What is the reason for not releasing any of the footage of the 3rd attack? They could easily clear up allot of questions.

who exactly failed to act on the prior knowledge that those maniacs where in our country and a possible threat? and does this person still have their job (because they are awful at it).

if the official 911 story is true, allot of people should have been fired at the very least. did anyone even lose their jobs. are these people still in leadership roles?

also someone mentioned that NORAD has test/drills every year? so does this mean we have no defenses at least one day every year? that doesn't seem like something the most advanced military in the world would do. I'm pretty sure our soldiers have the competence to protect us all year round provided they have competent leadership. so who f'ed up? who is in charge if god forbid something like this were to happen again?