[MEK Note: Once you know that WTC buildings were all brought down by demolition (proven beyond any doubt), then logically the planes crashing into towers could hardly be the airlines AA11 and UA175 of 9/11. First there is no way terrorists had anything to do with demolitions! A Government Team (GT) whoever they were had access to plant the sophisticated demolition explosives. GT would not be praying that 19 hijackers would be able to seize the airlines and fly them avoiding U.S. air force security defense and actually hit towers. That is not how a “CIA” GT would operate. Everything was set for planes to hit Towers on that morning. The Towers could not be brought down without plane crashes! Planes hitting Towers had to be guaranteed to happen! Many known facts prove this logical thinking is true! Thus, there were no hijackings and no actual hijackers. Drones would be the secure method to have planes actually strike the towers and reach the Pentagon! Witnesses and all the evidence demonstrate no plane hit the Pentagon!]
[MEK Note: I believe Comments below in RED disprove the theory that the planes had to be made from computer graphics. Planes hit the Towers but they weren’t the airlines. Traveling too fast for sea level flying and with inexperienced first time pilots of large planes. These were large drones made to simulate airlines probably with hardened nose]
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago““a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
A romantic drama centered on two new lovers: Tyler, whose parents have split in the wake of his brother’s suicide, and Ally, who lives each day to the fullest since witnessing her mother’s murder.
R | 111 min | Action, Drama, History 7.6 Rate 90 Metascore
A real-time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on September 11th, 2001 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.
R | 122 min | Documentary, Drama, War 7.5 Rate 67 Metascore
Michael Moore’s view on what happened to the United States after September 11 and how the Bush Administration allegedly used the tragic event to push forward its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Into the Fire follows the story of Walter Hartwig, a lieutenant in the New York City Harbor Unit, who finally comes to terms with what is really important about this life.
Not Rated | 89 min | Documentary 6.5 Rate 65 Metascore
In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, Paul McCartney travels through the streets of New York and organizes a benefit concert.
A man who lost his family in the September 11 attack on New York City runs into his old college roommate. Rekindling the friendship is the one thing that appears able to help the man recover from his grief.
R | 157 min | Drama, History, Thriller 7.4 Rate 95 Metascore
A chronicle of the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden after the September 2001 attacks, and his death at the hands of the Navy S.E.A.L.s Team 6 in May 2011.
Pre takes place four days after 9/11 in New York City. A theatre ensemble struggles to decide whether or not to be the first play to go back up after the attack.
On September 11th, 2001, 38 planes headed to New York City were diverted to Gander, Newfoundland, Canada. A town of 9,000 took in 7,000 passengers for 4 days until American airspace reopened.
After placing an ad on September 10th, a young man living in SoHo struggles to find a new roommate and keep his emotional balance in the weeks following 9/11.
Gabriel and five friends are stranded on his family farm on a day of national tragedy that forces them to confront their fears and ideals. Meanwhile the ghosts of Gabriel’s great … See full summary »
Robert and Alison Logan were married less than a year when Alison boarded American Airlines Flight 77 on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Later that morning, Robert watched in horror as… See full summary »
An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist and a father of a 9/11 victim implicates the US government in the attacks. Alex Prokop, a successful journalist, … See full summary »
A New York mayor tries to cut back the city’s crime and social problems, all in the face of his own battle with cancer, the tragedy of the September 11th Attacks and his troubled marriage.
The story of a fire captain who lost eight men in the collapse of the World Trade Center and the editor who helps him prepare the eulogies he must deliver.
The morning of September 11, 2001 is shown through multiple video cameras in New York City, from the moment the first WTC tower is hit until after both towers collapse.
A real life documentary following the events of September 11 from an insider’s view, through the lens of James Hanlon and two French filmmakers who were in Manhattan that one day.
The Falling Man is a documentary that examines one of the many images that were circulated by the press immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. The … See full summary »
TV-14 | 120 min | Family, Fantasy, History 7.6 Rate
On 9/11 2001 two planes American 11 united 175 hit the World Trade Center and many people died and jumped to their deaths some survived until the tower fell.
Inside 9/11 provides insight into the events that led up to 9/11 by tracing the timeline from al Qaeda’s earliest origins through the aftermath of 9/11 and the ongoing investigation.
A nine-year-old amateur inventor, Francophile, and pacifist searches New York City for the lock that matches a mysterious key left behind by his father, who died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
A cynical, alcoholic flight attendant and a Pakistani-American child prodigy find themselves both thrown together in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks.
*63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You to Read (Chapter 4 January 1, 2012) New York Times Bestseller! Let Governor Jesse Ventura take you through the paperwork that the US government tried to keep secret from the world—JFK and Vietnam, chemical and biological warfare, Gulf War illness, warnings about 9/11, and more! The official spin on numerous government programs is flat-out bullsh*t, according to Jesse Ventura.
*2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy (August 25, 2014) The 2001 anthrax letter attacks in the United States killed five people andwounded dozens. They were widely blamed on extremist Muslims andtheir backers and used to support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.They were also used to justify and hasten the passage of the USAPATRIOT Act, which was being presented to Congress just as the firstanthrax victim grew ill.In October 2001
*9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1 (August 23, 2006) Were the military and the FAA really that incompetent? Were our intelligence-gathering agencies really in the dark about 9/11? How could so much go wrong at once, in the world’s strongest and most technologically sophisticated country? Both the government and the mainstream media have tried to portray the 9/11 truth movement as led by people who can be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.” This volume shows this caricature to be untrue. Coming from different academic disciplines as well as from different parts of the world, the authors are united In the conviction that the official story about 9/11 is a huge deception manufactured to extend Imperial control at home and abroad.
@9/11 & American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out Vol. 2 (October 15, 2006) This anthology presents a variety of perspectives on 9/11 and empire from authors who identify with one of the major Abrahamic traditions. It features essays by 9/11 revisionists and activists alongside those of noted writers and scholars.
*9/11 and US Global Hegemony – Ed Rippy unpublished 2002
9/11 The Awful Truth: An account of the conspiracy behind 9/11 Attack on America (Sept 1, 2020 ) After 31 years trying death penalty cases and the like in Contra Costa County, California, for 13 years supervising the first Alternate Defender Office in the country to handle felony cases, William Veale retired as Chief Assistant Public Defender. Then he filed a lawsuit accusing three of the most powerful men on the planet of mass murder and treason for complicity in the Attacks of 9/11. This is Veale’s account of what happens when such power is confronted with undeniable facts and must resort to the most egregious abuse of judicial power imaginable.
*9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (November 30, 2004) With US political leaders Democrat and Republican alike rushing to embrace the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and an eager media receiving the Commission’s 567-page report as the whole story, the history we can stand upon forevermore, everyone who cares about the fate of American democracy will want to know something about what those pages actually say.
The Commission’s account, by popular reckoning, has made an impression with its heft, its footnotes, its portrayal of the confusion of that sobering day, its detail, its narrative finesse. Yet under the magnifying glass of David Ray Griffin, eminent theologian and author of The New Pearl Harbor (a book that explores questions that reporters, eyewitnesses, and political observers have raised about the 9/11 attacks), the report appears much shabbier. In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be thickest
2017-08-03 The ugly truth: One mother’s fight to expose the hazards at Ground Zero Jenna Orkin was living in Brooklyn on 9/11, when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed into a smoldering pile of rubble and a cloud of toxic dust that enveloped Lower Manhattan. But her son was just a few blocks away from Ground Zero, as a student at Stuyvesant High School. Not long afterwards, with the Environmental Protection Agency and city officials denying that there was any health risk from the ubiquitous dust that permeated Downtown, the Department of Education decided to resume classes at the elite high school just a month later — while the rubble of Ground Zero still smoldered. Orkin didn’t believe the reassurances, but she struggled in the face of government denials and misinformation to convince her son that it was dangerous to be so close to Ground Zero.
2007-08-27 Echoes of 9/11 The tragic fire at the former Deutsche Bank building in Lower Manhattan highlights problems about which the community of Lower Manhattan has been warning for years. The company hired to perform the demolition of the building whose chief claim to fame, post-9/11, was that it had been contaminated with 150,000 times the normal levels of asbestos among other toxic substances, (which have since been reduced to a supposedly safe level) has “apparently never done any work like it” — nor much of anything else since it was incorporated in 1983.
2005-02-03 The Toxic State of Lower Manhattan History is about to repeat itself, though on a smaller scale. 9/11 is scheduled to happen all over again. And again, it will happen all over Lower Manhattan. While the whole world knows about the collapse of the Twin Towers and while the catastrophic health consequences from the dispersal of toxic debris and from the fires which burned for over three months becomes obvious as more people fall ill, the world outside of Lower Manhattan is not aware that at least three more highly contaminated buildings are scheduled for demolition in the near future. The United States Environmental Protection Agency which was found by its Inspector General to have lied about the air quality after 9/11, continues to refuse to perform its legally mandated duty by taking the lead in the ‘deconstruction’ of at least one of those buildings, the former Deutschebank at 130 Liberty Street.
A person who was present in the New York City Disaster area in the dust or the dust cloud on September 11, 2001.
A person who worked, lived, or attended school, childcare or adult/senior care in the NYC disaster area for at least 4 days during the 4 month period from September 11, 2001 to January 10, 2002 or 30 days during the 11 month period from September 11, 2001 to July 31, 2002.
A person who worked as a cleanup worker or performed maintenance work at the NYC disaster area during the 4 months starting September 11, 2001 and ending on January 10, 2002.
A person who was eligible to receive a grant from the LMDC (Lower Manhattan Development Corporation) Residential Grant Program, who had a lease for a residence or bought a residence in the New York City disaster area and who lived in that residence during the period beginning September 11, 2001 and ending on May 31, 2003.
A person whose place of employment any time during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on May 31, 2003, was in the New York City disaster area; and was eligible to receive a grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation WTC Small Firms Attraction and Retention Act program or other government incentive program designed to revitalize the lower Manhattan economy after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal Live ITV News interview with Peter Power, the Managing Director of Crisis Management firm Visor Consultants who was ‘actually running an exercise… based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations that happened’. Recorded at 8:20pm on the evening of the London Bombings. For more information on the events of 7th July 2005, please see: The July 7th Truth Campaign
“It’s Too Quiet” The Early Morning Television of 9/11/2001 Fashion Week was just getting underway in New York. George W. Bush went for an early morning jog in Florida. Iraq shot down a Predator drone. The weather was still summer and perfect. Until 8.46 AM, September 11, 2001 was another morning in America.
progressiveissuesblog 