The Movie last night was another in a series of conspiracy films dealing with what supposedly did, or did not, happen on Sept 11th. For a very comprehensive look at the bigger picture please see my previous comments on the other film. You will find it on page 1 of this section.
The movie last night did focus largely on a facet of 9/11 that was undoubtedly true. That is, that the EPA and other governmental agencies, lied repeatedly about the dangers to the workers and others about the extreme dangers of the clouds of dust that were contaminated with all kinds of nasty substances bound to cause severe problems to most exposed and even death. This is without question. The movie also quite rightly explained the reason for these lies.
That reason lay in the supposed critical need to get Wall Street and the financial district operating ASAP and to put on a brave front so as to “stand up” to the terrorists.
However, the movie alluded again to where this series is going. The groups making the film believe that explosives were used to bring down the buildings among other things. Indeed, the discussion of this film included some who thought the government actually was the instigator. Some could not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the plot. Some thought the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane. Pearl Harbor was also allowed by Roosevelt in order to get us into war. And more…
But back to this exact movie…
Considering that the makers purport to be heading towards a use of science to show their theories correct and that they also claimed to have spent lots of time preparing for this meeting on these points, the results were less than impressive. If their future performance matches this then they are shooting themselves in the foot in my opinion.
The presentation was dogged by sound problems causing noises that were annoying. Microphones were not provided for the questioners and it was necessary to ask the questioners to speak up repeatedly. The questions were not repeated for the listeners so that it was relatively hard to follow carefully. The presenters passed a microphone to each other producing further annoying noises. I have been at many presentations here in Omaha where these problems were not present because they were properly planned. For instance, an easy way around the microphone problem for the questioners is to simply have a line or two with each questioner asking a question and passing the microphone to the next.
Of the three main speakers only one really presented a somewhat coherent total speech. But in that case she simply read the material at a rate that was slightly too fast for effectiveness. One of the three was an artist who gave some first hand impressions of her experiences on 9/11 as she watched from her building across the street and left for safer areas later. I am not an expert in art but I did not think her art pieces were good enough to be used. The other speaker was a lawyer on many asbestos lawsuits. I found his presentation to be wanting too in that he seemed to be using notes not well organized and his presentation was not smooth. (He apologized for leaving out one of his major points.) I would guess he has never seen note cards or power point presentations. Some would say this is picking nits. But as a teacher in both the army and in various school systems, I was taught that you practice classes and check out the required equipment to make sure it works PRIOR to the presentation.
In my opinion that they picked these three people for the major portion of their whole show makes me wonder why they had no better choices???
It also makes me wonder about the quality of those coming in the next film.