np - it is a very good docu, and worth reading with U.S.C. Title 26 open in a separate browser window, or even printed out. Good stuff.

U.S.C. Title 26 - Follow the video!

The CIA has something to do with the attacks because many of the terrorists that the government cited as having piloted the planes actually were on CIA payrolls since the mid to late 90's. The CIA actually has had it's hand in quite a lot of things in history, and it's really quite extraordinary.

I especially like the CIA's involvement in the Banana Republic and Cuba/The Bay of Pigs. Quite interesting stuff.

Besides just that, it's well known within MI circles, of the quiet battle between the FBI and the CIA in the 60s, due in large part to Kennedy.

As far as these kids - yeah, they're being jerks, but they're also quite angry. If you've been trying to find out how good of a country your country is and instead had many of your requests go unanswered, wouldn't you be angry as well? Try it - that's my best advice. File a FOIA request to try to get the information yourself. Originally, these kids were trying to do a docu to debunk the kids that were challenging 9/11(as one of the creators, Corey Rowe, actually went to Afghanistan and Iraq on a tour of duty). They failed to back the story that various agencies in the U.S. gov produced, and their docu became one of the most well known of those that challenge the stories told about 9/11.

I suggest trying to make a docu about 9/11 yourself - try to get all of the information, and enough evidence to support whichever view you hold(evidence - not just a baseless story that you looked up, or a report you found). When you get frustrated from having your FOIA requests go unanswered, or answered with "information is classified," well, you'll eventually end up on a democracy now interview being a jerk to people, yourself.

Rick - I think it's slightly humorous that you reference the NIST volumes in relation to global warming(did you mean to?). I say that because I don't really see an active debate in much media with global warming, either - people assume that scientific and physical evidence exists, that no scientists are doubting it or contradicting it, when there are actually quite a number of scientists trying to debate against it.

Unfortunately, I didn't know this until recently, and because of posts similar to these here, I have since read a couple whitepapers, watched a couple documentaries and, in my mind, there is a case against global warming as well - we just don't hear about it much because it doesn't have any mainstream press....except, oddly, in the UK...sometimes...when the BBC feels like putting out a docu on it.

In that respect, yes, I do find the NIST volumes on the North and South Towers to be as compelling as the scientific and physical evidence in support of global warming, too - granted, they don't actually apply basic principles of physics within their reports, but they are compelling to say the least.

I think the big problem is format - if the scientists that set out to "debunk" every part of what various government agencies stated in their reports INSTEAD got together and formed their own investigation based on a set of beliefs/facts that the majority of scientists and investigators on both sides of the debate agree upon(axioms) and used that information to come to a hypothesis, well, I feel that would follow scientific principle more accurately, at least, than this essentially political debate that we see everywhere now.

Granted, it wouldn't be perfect - all of the notes and meetings would need to be public, and there would have to be a set of rules laid down before the fact - but it would be quite more accurate than simply stating the extremities that both "sides" have stated. Some simple rules:

1. Form a list of known axioms from all parties interested in what happened on 9/11. These axioms can be supported in any medium - physical evidence, documents, video, audio, etc.
2. Classify this information based on context - financial, structural(WTC 1,2,7,etc), etc.
3. Determine the known proofs for these sets of information - i.e. - financial analysis, existing physical law, etc.
4. Determine various theories for what happened on/what caused the events of 9/11.
5. Use the proofs to test the contextualized information against the different theories - basic physics for the buildings, financial analysis for the stock trades, etc.
6. Make charts of the probability of which theories are the most likely to have occured, and denote WHY they are the most probable. Give all of the charts the same scale, just to show how probable each is against the others.

I think that's about the most accurate I can come with the "simple rules" for this. The next step, before faulting anything or anybody, should be to try to plot out motives, as well. While simply stating "they hate our freedoms" does quite a lot to rile the public, it is more often that not a dramatic statement, as the people we talk about may also consider themselves "freedom fighters" - everything is in context. If it is probable that various people within our government played a part in this - why?

I tend to notice a lot of the truths in the things Daniel Quinn talks about in his book "Beyond Civilization." In it, one of the things he mentions, that I think many of us forget, is that our participation in this invention called civilization is voluntary, and that many of us know that civilization is not a good method of organizing humans, as it more often than not benefits those that organize us, when many of us are happier with seemingly less than civilization could give us, and others want more, civilization offers us an "equal way of life."

It is for this reason that I suggest that we not place fault on those that govern us, even if they are traced as being the ringleaders of what happened on 9/11 - President Bush himself has stated that 9/11 started a "war for the very thing we call civilization" or some such(I do not, unfortunately, remember the exact quote, but I thought it was striking after having read so much of Mr. Quinn).

If the governing body was trying to think in the public's interest, it would then make sense that they would try to preserve civilization, in my mind at least. All we have known - most all of us in the United States right now - all our life is the life that civilization provides - fruits, vegetables, culture, technology, from all parts of the globe, imported(mostly) for our own enjoyment. In return, we provide labor to possibly create and trade what we are interested in for what another country, another culture, even, might be interested in, but if what we think they might be interested in is not what they are actually interested in, well then that may create this dilemma, by normal societal operation - a dilemma of FAIR trade on a planet where the value is essentially ARBITRARY.

It would take probably close to a century to change our expectations so drastically - at least that's what I think. But, if all of us agreed upon simply walking away from civilization, we would have other advantages and disadvantages to contend with, and the lives that we have built up to this point would not have the value, on a global market, like they do today.

man thanks for linking those, this was a great docu-bio of sorts......Go rent "Breakfast of Champions" Bruce Willis is Dwayne Hoover....cast of greats, Nick Nolte, Barbara Hershey....and Wayne Hoobler is portrayed by...Omar Epps

Vonnegut Novels Adapted For Screen
2005 The American Ruling Class
1999 Breakfast of Champions
1996 Mother Night
1995 Harrison Bergeron
1991 Kurt Vonnegut's Monkey House
1986 Back to School
1985 D.P.
1982 Slapstick of Another Kind
1982 Who Am I This Time?
1972 Slaughterhouse Five
1971 Happy Birthday, Wanda June
Trials of Franz Kafka-(YEAR?)

they need to do "Cat's Cradle.....CGI would do it justice..oh and yessss, "Sirens of Titan"

Where are the Coen brothers when ya need em???

thanks for those links Farhad, am watching that docu now.

(am new here, this community's pretty cool!
are there any sites similar to this (as in less of the viral stuff) or any sister sites?
neatorama and boingboing are others i visit most.)

Well Theo am glad you posted because your comment clearly shows that this docu-drama had had it's intended effect.

Simple video comparison between how the conspirators are portrayed and the debunkers are it's easy to throw out their arguments. It's Film-making 101.

It's called subject framing, notice that when the conspirators are shown it's angled right at their faces, something at first I found disturbing but in reality it's basically what you mentioned. It makes them seem in the "You're with us or against us camp". I loved it when it shook with the guy as he leaned that was just laughably transparent. Notice how each person is presented. Vigilantes. Just how American Southerns are often framed on BBC, see Top Gear sift.

They are only allowed to speak in fragments heavily edited, their entire case was not made. That Loose Change guy is sold to us as a someone who profited from the get-go, but you must remember he made Loose Change before he profited from it. Alex Jones is framed in the position of lunatic, which arguably he is. All shown in places that create emotional distrust in the viewer. I mean the guys bedroom with the plasma TV...

But these are 3 people out of hundreds that raise what at times I believe are reasonable questions under the Freedom of Information Act.

When the debunkers are shown they are framed in places of emotional authority, WTC site, stated they were there, and such. They way they are presented you'd have to be dead not to emote with them.

9/11 was terrible. This is true and no one denies this. However when objectivity is lost in a BBC documentary to such an extent it is troubling.

Personally the negativity just towards the discussion of this is troubling, it sounds exactly what was said after JFK and the questions about that started to arise. It took Oliver Stone's JFK to give the idea some credibility in the mainstream, at least towards finding out what happened. What about Watergate, if there was no Deep throat, Nixon could have stayed on and that would be a conspiracy theory now for us too.

Am sorry it's just not blatant like Fox News for you. But we all know the BBC is better at TV.

Seen this docu-, its a classy-act! The movies' in the personal top 5 of all time greatest 10 westerns:

Once Upon A Time In the West
Tombstone..(Wyatt Earp was too....Cotsnery)
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Hombre
The Wild Bunch(director's cut)

I agree with adding like 4 categories. As previously stated, I think that is the right amount. Now, I disagree with your choices.

Art --> I'm not sure what is art, and how many videos would even get tagged art. It would arbitrarily get applied. Go through the top100 and see which ones get art category.

Nature -> Cats? Animals? Physics experiments? Land slides? ??? (can this at least be science & nature)

Viral -> (ok, but I think internets is better name for category)
-> Viral / Internet stuff / YTMND / flash / SWK-stuff / lip-syncing teens / blog crap

Long -> huh? that describes stuff, like nsfw or international. It would be a checkbox to search videos are exclude videos, not a category.


Missing but would-be-nice categories.

Sports / Action

Docu-science -> Food / How-to / Learny stuff / Documentaries
Geek -> Sci-fi / Computery / Gadgety stuff
(split geek into science & nature category)

Foreign

Toons / Animation

My final categories
Science & Nature, Viral, Sports & Action, Toons, checkbox on submission page for "Long"

Docu-science -> Food / How-to / Learny stuff / Documentaries
Geek -> Sci-fi / Computery / Gadgety stuff

Net -> Viral / Internet stuff / YTMND / flash / SWK-stuff / lip-syncing teens / blog crap
Foreign

Toons

(That's only adding like three new categories. I'd rather just work at doubling in size, not blowing it up to like 20 categories.. cause at some point tags work better)

this looks like a culmination of the documentaries they've had filmed about themselves all mashed together ... my daughter and i found it sooooooo interesting that when brittany was embarrassed ... they both pulled their hands up to cover her face (we even rewound that bit when we watched their recent docu on tv). they were also filmed when the same thing occured to abby! this just goes to show their teamwork and how they (obviously) function as one unit beautifully!

OMG i missed this post! moonbat nirvana, and i was buzy touchin myself.

BTW, Disney/ABC is setting the record straight with their documentary^H^H^H docu-drama about the Path to 9/11... So get the record straight, Bush did everything possible. It was Clinton's fault.