Yes I actually watched it, here's some quick notes. Overall there is no smoking gun, and many many factual errors. Almost everything on that day is explained by mistakes in reporting that were quickly fixed. If there was a conspiracy by the US government, they must be working with EVERYONE.

Graham - going to testify against pakistani terrorists, so why would the USA kill him? Wouldn't it be more likely the terrorists did to save themselves?

SD hijackers - so CIA missed it, how is that inside job? CIA/NSA/FBI/INS/FAA didn't share information, but supposedly planned the attacks together?

Shaikh - fake identity - DUH hes an FBI informant, of course he has an identity given to him by the government. Fake info connected to top Calif officials, again DUH he's living in Calif.

Able Danger - once again shows the gov didn't share. How does that mean those same people planned it? They were trying to get a worldwide picture of the Al Qaeda network, of course they won't end the project over 2-4 people.

Shaffer - talked about secret stuff, got security clearance revoked. Where is the surprise?

Saudis flying - Royal family from a key friendly nation getting military escort during an attack. Again not a surprise. These aren't random people, they are royalty who have publicly disowned Osama in their own country. The video editing is also clever to cover up the timing of the flights. Check out the screen at 32:19 where they highlight the chartered plane section. The voice says "while all planes were grounded" but the text says 9/19/01, days AFTER all airspace was open to all traffic.

Khan - told FBI about a plane hijacking, but there wasnt one for 19 months. FBI interviews him for weeks and sets him up with a wire tap, but get no useful info. He had no evidence of anything. He is turned over to the British who do even less investigating. I see at best incompentence, not conspiracy.

Glass - he says the conversation was all recorded, but none of the recordings say anything about WTC. Graham and Klein say they didn't get the WTC info until after the attacks. The letter in the back of the book (which has no evidence it was ever mailed) at 45:33 talks about nuclear components. What? This guy looks like he is just rambling and gets a couple words possibly right.

Money - if its an inside job, why does it matter where the money came from? Maybe if the money was traced to CIA/FBI/NSA then it would be important. Otherwise its insignificant.

Pakistan - all Mumbai attackers were trained in Pakistan. Does that mean Saudi Arabia is now fine? Graham says Pakistan must be the center piece of the next administrations foreign policy. And Obama has done... nothing. Guess he is part of the conspiracy with Bush and Clinton!

O'Neil - Notice he was trying to stop a bombing of the WTC, not a plane attack. For all his inside FBI knowledge he had no clue about planes.

Israel - Here is where I actually started laughing. Israeli government is now working with the Muslims? Saudi Arabia is funding now Israeli spies? Pakistan didn't recognize Israel as a nation but will help out their secret military operations? Maybe they just figured out the intelligence when we didn't.

Truck bombs - more news reporting without confirmation, retracted within hours. Yes (non Arab) people were arrested in a truck near (not on) the bridge. No there were no explosives. You are in a van going to blow yourself up. You see police coming towards you. Why would you not try to escape, or blow yourself up then? There's no verified reports of explosives found, and no videos of explosives happening.

Bombs in lobby/basement - that would be another sign its not an inside job. Controlled demolition does not use bombs in vans. The building did not fall from the bottom. No bomb squads were ever sent in to investigate these "suspicious devices". If basement bombs did go off (which wouldn't be unheard of, they did it before) it would not have weakened the buildings in a way to contribute to their collapse.

WTC7 - housed CIA offices, so why would they take it down? It also did not fall into its own footprint: http://i56.photobucket.com/albums... It fell across the street in all directions and damaged other buildings. The rubble piled up against the surrounding buildings many stores tall really isn't a neat job.

Well we'll agree to disagree. There were other failure modes, but to me they do not align with the explanation provided.

As far as some kind of inside job. I told arch in pm that I don't know who or why it happened. Just that the structural failure of the buildings seems to be a cover up Sad really.

I think the alternative claim was that it should have toppled over like felling a tree, so relative to knocking over a rigid structure, that picture basically shows a building that collapsed straight down.

But there is plenty of discussion upthread about momentum and why even if it fell slightly askew, it's basically all going straight down.

WTC7 is probably the biggest case of careful video editing too. All the conspiracy people will show the north side of the building, which is opposite all the damage and most of the fires. They claim only a few small fires. What won't be shown is the south side which is billowing smoke and has huge gashes 10 stories tall. All the videos will also be cropped to not show the initial collapse. They cut out the collapse of the roof and penthouse section falling inside, which matches the NIST simulations. They will also post videos of other planned demolitions, either good or failed. However all those videos that didn't go straight down will be 5-10 story concrete structures. They will also fail to mention that a demolition "pull" means pulling a building down with wires.

^ Interesting. I recently asked arch if he knew much about building 7 cause it does seem to be one of the ones that isn't talked about enough. As in, it gets used to create theories, however I know very little about the engineering of it and it's known cause of collapse. All I know is it was damaged by debris. Arch pointed out also that the energy from the fall of the other towers would have led to significant stress in that building. So obvious but I hadn't thought of it.

Whether destroyed by fuel, planes, debris, ground shaking, etc., I think it's safe to say that building 7 was probably a side effect whether an inside job or not. Probably not planned.

And the other towers dropped from top down, certainly not at free fall, so they weren't planned either. If there wasn't a plan to have them fall then all the "advance notice" isn't part of any conspiracy. It is just people saying OMG look at the fires and holes, that thing might come down.

glad you watched it bunnyboy, and your notes are very interesting. It's so hard to tell why certain events did or did not happen to prevent the attack both prior and on the day of. certain protocol was not followed on the government's part which asks the question no one can really answer, which is "why?"

also, what did you think of the van with the mural? I find that the creepiest part of the whole ordeal.

The answer is "because we are dumb". Too dumb to think they could do it, too dumb to communicate between departments, too dumb to see what was already happening. Think we are really any smarter now?

Haven't seen the entire Japanese fleet in a few weeks, their diplomats are burning their documents, and there's an unidentified squad of planes heading towards me. I'm sure everything is just fine!

Wouldn't it just be easier for the theorists, if they just said Bush and Bin Laden were in bed together, and agreed to let the attack happen?

Probably. But then all the Israeli connections, the planned demolition, the rocket into Pentagon, empty/dummy airplanes, etc etc etc conspiracies would STILL be wrong. If Clinton/Bush just turned a blind eye and agreed not to investigate then none of that would be needed.

Looks like an interesting documentary that I will take a look at. I have seen other ducumentaries about 9/11 so the subject is of interest to me.

Don't get me started on these conspiracy theory clowns, haha.

I love the so-called "proof" they have about WTC7. Like using the fact Larry Silverstein said "PULL" in a documentary (pull as in pull the operation trying to save it, not pull as in blow it up).

They take things out of context to fit the reality that only takes place in their head.

To them it's an ego driven game. They enjoy the mental masturbation of "debunking", but when you do "debunk" them, they ignore you, insult you or just run away. Like that Alex Jones. I'd shove that loud speaker up his fat ass.