channel image




This film cannot be missed in the 9/11 video archive. Very controversial, especially within the 9/11 Truth Movement. The controversy goes deep, while the film, alike raw police research, is full of interesting and strong observations. Part of the controversy seems to stem from culture. The investigative method seems to annoy the more genteel academics among the researchers, but also seems to stir tactical considerations, as if the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a Boeing 757 can harm the credibility of the movement.

On my website Waarheid911.nl a reflection on this important documentary in Dutch
Published on Youtube on 4 Nov 2012, by LiteTrip
[The text below is included]
Original release: 15 Jun 2009
Runtime: 81 min

Home site: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com

To whom it concerns, i.e., everyone:

In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.

Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.

If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.

Please understand that this information is not being brought to your attention simply for educational purposes. It is presented within the context of a "call to action" accompanied by a detailed step-by-step strategy intended to inspire and empower you to do something about it. But first, please familiarize yourself with the evidence by viewing and paying close attention to the 81-minute video presentation, National Security Alert.

Thank you for your concern and thank you for your action.


Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis

Citizen Investigation Team

"The most comprehensive documentary on the moon landing hoax"
by Massimo Mazzucco

Source: YouTube, John Nada
Published on August 10, 2019

My comment and impression
I always remained careful about the Apollo moon landings, although I had my doubts. That makes sense when you've seen so many other geopolitical issues (cold war, arms race, prestige). Truth always came last.
In this documentary many layers and aspects have been explored. An enormous amount of research must have preceded this masterpiece. The result is solid like a rock. I feel sadness and deep respect for the astronauts and what they must have been through.

A massive amount of really strong evidence shows that everything we saw has been made in studios. In the last minutes of the 3,5 hours film we see Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin en Michael Collins at the press conference and some other places. Heavily timid faces. I mean, this is not evidence, but at the end of this documentary there is no need for that. Those who are a bit sensitive for the facial expression of people will see a few good man who shun as many questions as possible and are ashamed of the spectacle in which they are the heroes. They didn't even attend at the most important commemorations in the years following their first steps on the moon.

The Holberg Debate 2017: "Propaganda, Facts and Fake News" with J. Assange, J. Pilger & J. Heawood
[9/11 question to Assange begins at 1:01:00]


If Assange considers the 9/11 research outcome not important, what better gatekeeper can you have? See how an extremely nervous Assange tries to avoid the issue [9/11 question to Assange starts at 1:01:00]

Assange - "On the 9/11 issue generally, I don't think it is particularly important."

This video shows shows us Julian Assange in 2017 at the Holberg Debate, answering a question whether or not a new investigation into 9/11 would be justified

Assange's response doesn't really differ from his earlier statement in the Belfast Telegraph from 2010. This time however, he is much more on his qui vive and he clearly struggles in the direction of damage control.

In fact, it is mind-boggling as he formulates (exactly like Noam Chomsky with similar questions about 9/11 or the JFK-assassination) that the outcome of questions about 9/11 does not really matter, because there are more important issues nowadays.

Quote Julian Assange, Holberg Debate; Saturday, December 2, 2017 [Mark 1:02:30]
"On the 9/11 issue generally, I don't think it is particularly important. In a sense that every day or every few weeks, Wikileaks and some other publishers publish proof of very serious existing conspiracies that are happening right now or just a couple of years ago. In order to start wars or steal billions of dollars. These things I think can have more over a change.

There's a certain view in relation to 9/11 that it's somekind of holy grail that would shake the existing order of things, but I don't think it would, even if it came out that there were some rogues, ehh.. rogue agents involved."


Julian Assange about 9/11 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

Chomsky with similar questions:
Chomsky on JFK and 9/11: Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? [mark 05:50]

Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7
— Bob Tuskin questions Chomsky about 9/11. His response and position over the years on 9/11 has baffled many. We will let you be the judge of his response

This superb documentary about The Pentagon Papers (1971) is the best alternative against the politicized 2018 Spielberg production The Post, meant to give Democrats a pretty face. U.S. political system is a systemic mess that brings up the worst people. It spits out honest people. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter. Society is weakening and the corporate elite is becoming richer and gaining power.
People should not let distract them by wrong accents and paradigms. Truth finding is always key. See the much more genuine version of the Pentagon Papers story that shook America.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/pov/mostdangerousman/
PBS Premiere: Oct. 5, 2010

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a leading Vietnam War strategist, concludes that America's role in the war is based on decades of lies. He leaks 7,000 pages of top-secret documents to The New York Times, a daring act of conscience that leads directly to Watergate, President Nixon's resignation and the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg and a who's-who of Vietnam-era movers and shakers give a riveting account of those world-changing events in POV's The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers by award-winning filmmakers Judith Ehrlich (The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It) and Rick Goldsmith (Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press). A co-production of ITVS in association with American Documentary | POV.

Published September 3, 2012 on YouTube by 251omega

This is the video that RICHARD GAGE, of ARCHITECTS and ENGINEERS for 9/11 TRUTH, has been presenting, world-wide.


Review from Wayne C, on the movie/documentary website RottenTomatoes.com
I am a registered professional engineer and I have not only watched "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" several times, I have also previewed it with groups of people of various backgrounds. The overwhelming consensus is that it is a very compelling documentary with many experts talking frankly about the laws of physics and how they don't support the official story (of planes and fires completely destroying three skyscrapers all the way down to their basements).I especially like the inclusion of psychologists and therapists talking about why it is such a hard story to hear and accept. In my experience, showing this documentary helps explain to people why the world seems to have "gone off the rails." To many, it seems that way because the "blather" we have been told doesn't make any sense. It is refreshing to see expert opinion bringing us back to reality.I recommend that everybody watch this and then share it with your friends.


Waarom opnieuw 9/11?

Onze wereld veranderde die dag. 2744 mensen verloren hun leven en de teller gaat door. Eén miljoen mensen verloren hun leven in Irak en Afghanistan en de teller gaat door. Zesduizend Amerikaanse soldaten verloren hun leven in de War on Terror, en de teller tikt door. 4,5 triljoen dollar kostte de War on Terror de belastingbetaler. En de teller tikt door.

Kostbare vrijheden werden weggenomen door de Patriot Act, Departement of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) en de National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012).

Vandaag de dag kunnen Amerikanen onderwerp zijn van onderzoek en in beslagname zonder rechterlijk bevel, voor onbepaalde tijd worden vastgehouden of gevangengezet, zonder aanklacht, zonder bewijs, zonder een advocaat, zonder een rechtzaak, of zelfs worden gemarteld... of vermoord. Slechts door te worden beschuldigd van betrokkenheid bij terrorisme.
Het negeren van bewijsmateriaal over het World Trade Center is niet langer een optie...

... Met deze indringende tekst, witte letters op een zwarte achtergrond, begint de documentaire: 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out.

Zelfs los van de gebeurtenissen van 9/11, blijft het huiveringwekkend hoe gemakkelijk zwaar bevochten vrijheden zijn ingeleverd. Niet eens onder protest van een kritische 'vrije pers', maar met een journaille dat lippendienst bewees aan de nationale regeringen die deze inperkingen verkochten als een noodzakelijk offer dat onze vrijheden juist zou moeten beschermen.


Naar de gebeurtenissen op 11 september 2001 vond nooit een officieel gedragen onafhankelijk wetenschappelijk onderzoek plaats. Een omstandigheid die met vele voorbeelden kan worden aangetoond, maar in het kader van deze filmbespreking beperkt blijft tot een verwijzing naar functionarissen van het officiële onderzoek [ 9/11 Commissie] . Hiervan stelde zelfs de voorzitter dat het onderzoek te kort was, de commissie over te weinig geld beschikte, aangesteld was door de meest partijdige mensen uit Washington en gedoemd om te mislukken.
Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), onder leiding van Richard Gage, zijn er met deze film in geslaagd om de kernpunten van hun onafhankelijke en wetenschappelijke studie krachtig en begrijpelijk naar voren te brengen, hierbij geholpen door veertig experts op hun vakgebied, van architecten en bouwkundig ingenieurs tot explosieven deskundigen, scheikundigen, fysici, metaaldeskundigen, enzovoort. Stuk voor stuk klokkenluiders die voor de goede zaak, de waarheid rond 9/11, grote risico's nemen door hun naam verbinden aan deze omstreden en doodgezwegen kwestie.


Door AE911Truth is lang aan deze film gewerkt. Wie tegen de stroom moet inroeien heeft alleen succes als het werk zo gedegen is dat men er niet omheen kan. Gage stelde de presentatie van zijn film liever ruim een jaar uit dan de media het excuus te geven om, zoals helaas al jaren gebruikelijk is, dat wat onweerlegbaar is onbesproken te laten.

De film beantwoordt vragen als: hoe brachten twee vliegtuigen drie torens naar beneden? Experts Speak Out begint deze vraagstelling met WTC Gebouw 7, de derde toren die circa 17:25 uur plaatselijke tijd instortte, ongeveer zeven uur na de laatst instortende Twin Tower. De belangrijkste aandachtspunten handelen over de symmetrie van de instorting en het totale gebrek aan weerstand over een groot deel van het valtraject.
Bron met volledige review: http://www.waarheid911.nl/911documentaires.html#experts_speak_out

911 IN PLANE SITE, Dave vonKleist (2004)

After Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 in 2004, which documentary can't be taken too serious as a false flag accusation against the United States government, it was this early documentary from Dave vonKleist that brought me in serious doubt about the official statement. I mean, of course I doubted the layers behind that story, but not the possibility that it was completely fabricated. Due to the very early date, considering most of the 9/11 documentaries that would follow, I consider In Plane Site as a documentary of great importance. Although some later documentaries were much more sophisticated with more gathered facts, I still find this documentary pretty accurate in its core.
I copy/paste here one review from IMDB.com which is quite representative for my own impression of the film...
Author: rickr2889 from United States
23 July 2007

The questions raised by the video are valid questions. How could a plane have crashed into the pentagon leaving no wreckage whatever? The photos and videos of the fire fighters confirm there was absolutely no wreckage on the ground. Where is the wreckage what of the black box? An eye witness said he saw something like a missile hit the pentagon.

President Bush told school children that he saw the first plane crash into the tower on TV. Why would he make that up when there was no video of that crash on TV at the time?

How could the steel inner core of the towers melt when the fire did not reach the bottom of the towers not even half way down? Why is it that not a shred of evidence related to the planes has been released?

How does it happen that the tower planes and the pentagon plane somehow exploded into oblivion. One must admit that is very suspicious as though it were planned some how. How convenient that all the legal work on the corporate fraud was destroyed in building 7. Frankly it takes a lot of blind faith to believe the government and media explanations for what happened.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454587/reviews


De eerste documentaire waarbij de hoofdthema's, zoals op deze site (zie bron) omschreven, helder aan bod komen. Inmiddels verouderd en ingehaald door recentere documentaires. Het kostte mij een slapeloze nacht om al het materiaal te laten bezinken. Veel twijfels uiteraard en blijven focussen om van het eigen ongeloof geen gelovige te worden. Ineens klopte er niets meer van wat er in de kranten stond. De fase van 'is het waar?' was kort maar hevig. Veel heronderzoek en dat steeds weer opnieuw. Vooral het onderdeel waarbij de crash op het Pentagon systematisch met animaties en schema's werd behandeld kwam geloofwaardig over. Voldoende om serieus te gaan voor waarheidsvinding. Overige onderdelen gaven vooral aanzet tot twijfels over de gangbare lezingen, maar werden naar mijn idee pas echt substantieel na het kijken van de volgende baanbrekende documentaire Confronting the Evidence, 'A Call To Reopen the September 11 Investigation'.
Bron: http://www.waarheid911.nl/911documentaires.html#vonkleist
911inplanesite website: http://www.911inplanesite.com/911synopsis.html

Source: https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/268

Friday, December 12, 2003; Page WE47
WHEN two Irish documentary filmmakers went to Venezuela to shoot a documentary about left-wing leader Hugo Chavez, they had no idea they'd be caught in a political whirlwind.
Without warning, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain found themselves in the presidential palace in the middle of a coup. Amazingly, they had complete access to the rapidly unfolding events, starting with the coup, continuing with gun-toting riots in the streets (one out of four Venezuelans pack firearms) and concluding with an astounding turning of the tables -- well, maybe we can stop talking details on this point. What ultimately happened is in the history books now and you can look it up. But "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," which plays like a raw, Costa-Gavras-style thriller, and which makes disturbing implications about the role of the Bush administration in all this, is worth watching down to the last thrilling minute.
What makes the film more explosive is the continued uncertainty that hangs over the country. Chavez's story, and by extension Venezuela's, is far from over.
Chavez, a populist leader with a clearly socialist, anti-global-capitalism agenda, has a strong connection to Venezuela's impoverished people, estimated at 80 percent of the population. He is known and loved by many of those constituents for his promise to redistribute the wealth and also for his energetic outreach, which includes a government television station which he uses to answer live, call-in questions from the public.
"I need a bag of cement to fix my house," says one citizen shown in the film.
"I need a job as a teacher," says another.
But Chavez is a virtual pariah among the ruling classes, which includes wealthy oil exporters (the country is the world's fourth largest oil producer) and the privately owned media companies who relentlessly criticize him. And his refusal to play ball with Washington in the global economy, as well as his blunt criticism of the government's bombing campaign in Afghanistan, all but sealed his doom. (CIA Director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell are shown expressing their "concern" over Chavez.)
Predictably, Chavez became a target of capitalist interests in April 2002, when a junta marched into the palace and insisted a new government take over. Bartley and O'Briain were there for all of it.
"Revolution" captures the panic and fear among Chavez and his palace-bound cabinet, as well as his obviously loyal palace guard, as the provisional government gathers outside; the broadcasts of the handful of private TV stations which announce the takeover in smooth synchronicity with the coup; and the helter-skelter things that follow. Chavez agrees to submit himself to the leaders of the coup, but refuses to surrender leadership. He is whisked away to an unknown location. Members of his cabinet go into hiding. And the new provisional government moves in, headed by business leader Pedro Carmona.
But that's just the beginning of this 48-hour melodrama.
The reasons for the title (which echoes a Gil-Scott Heron song) become obvious soon enough. The lack of journalistic objectivity is surreal. Television stations stated that Chavez supporters on a bridge were firing on innocent people. In fact, they were reacting to snipers who had begun shooting at them. (The snipers, believed to be anti-Chavez forces, killed 11 in the crowd.) And when events began to change in Chavez's favor, those stations refused to carry the events.
The handheld, news-breaking immediacy of "Revolution" is intoxicating. You are right in there with the people of Venezuela, good, bad and ugly. And if the structure of the movie is somewhat sketchy, it's understandable. This was shot, as it were, from the hip. And that's the kind of white-knuckle filmmaking that makes documentaries more powerful, at times, than dramatic movies. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is an extraordinary piece of electronic history. And a riveting movie.

Published on YouTube on April 11, 2016 by Patrick Hens
Ierse documentaire over de staatsgreep in Venezuela tegen Hugo Chávez in 2002

Op 11 april 2002 werd Hugo Chávez ten val gebracht en ontvoerd door de Venezolaanse oppositie, met steun van onder andere de Venezolaanse elite, de grote privébedrijven (Polar,...), de werkgeversvereniging Fedecámaras, privé TV-kanalen, de regering van Spanje en de Verenigde Staten...

Twee dagen later bracht het Venezolaanse volk hem weer aan de macht met behulp van een legereenheid die hem trouw gebleven was.

Deze Ierse documentaire toont wat er toen gebeurde, hoe ook de media de feiten verzwegen of verdraaiden. Dit is een van de beste documentaires ooit over Venezuela.


Commentaar W911

Deze film gaat niet over 9/11. Reden voor de upload is dat deze uitstekende documentaire goed van binnenuit laat zien waartoe Amerika geopolitiek in staat is. Hoe zij hun invloed opleggen en souvereine staten dwingen om zich vanuit een underdogspositie stevig te profileren teneinde het hoofd boven water te kunnen houden. Corporate invloeden van geld worden door westerse media geassocieerd met vrijheid en democratie, maar in de praktijk gebruikt voor beïnvloeding, omkoping en andere vormen van corruptie en staatsterreur. Deze film toont de gepolijste vuist van de supermacht tegenover het geïmproviseerde incasseringsvermogen van een land dat zich ertegen verzet.

Published on YouTube on May 30, 2013 by Chewbacca2000

We should'nt need to ask these questions, we should know the truth. This film highlights the strong possibility that the Twin Towers and Building 7 might have been brought down, not by fire, but by controlled demolition.

(This is the "Final Edition" version of "What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?")
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film


Nederlandse review op Waarheid911.nl

"What's the Truth? How Indeed did the Twin Towers Collapse?" gaat zoals de titel al duidelijk aangeeft over alles wat direct verband houdt met de instorting van de Twin Towers en WTC7. Wat opvalt zijn de vele getuigenissen maar ook eerste indrukken van reporters van grote nieuwszenders, fragmenten die later niet meer zijn uitgezonden. De gebouwen worden bouwtechnisch besproken. Explosieven als thermiet en thermaat (later is deze kennis geëvolueerd tot nano-thermiet) komen aan bod evenals prof. Steven E. Jones , die bij één van de nieuwszenders (tenenkrommend) gelegenheid krijgt zijn hypothese uiteen te zetten, maar hierbij gevangen zit in een hinderlijk keurslijf van wetenschappelijke correctheid. Dus iets belangrijks wil zeggen maar het niet doet door het hinderlijk etaleren van zijn integriteit als wetenschapper in de korte tijd die netwerk NSNBC hem geeft.
Jones, die onder grote druk stond van zijn professionele omgeving, heeft dit gebrek aan media-ervaring later kunnen goedmaken. Anders is de toespraak van Robert M. Bowman , voormalig directeur van Geavanceerde Ruimtevaart Programma's van het Departement van Defensie (VS), tevens oud luchtmacht kolonel. Deze man, goed op de hoogte van actuele luchtmachtprotocollen, veegt de vloer aan met alle officiële verhalen waarbij gevechtsvliegtuigen door NORAD de verkeerde kant zijn opgestuurd.

"What's the Truth?" is vooral een sobere documentaire waarin ook stiltes vallen. Veel feitelijke informatie met schokkend beeldmateriaal van de gebeurtenissen op 11 september 2001.

I consider this as one of the best documentaries about the role of the mainstream media.

"How did the mainstream press get it so wrong in the run-up to the Iraq War?"

Updated: June 19, 2014

In 2003, the United States pre-emptively attacked Iraq in a war that would last for eight years claiming an estimated 189,000 lives, costing over $2 trillion and causing untold economic and emotional devastation for the Iraqi people.

In this 2007 documentary that originally aired on Bill Moyers Journal, Moyers investigates big media’s role as cheerleader in the clamor for war in the months preceding the March 19, 2003 invasion. How did the mainstream press get it so wrong in the run-up to the Iraq War?
Original Program Description

The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn’t have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on. How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 go largely unreported? “What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored,” says Moyers. “How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?”

In 2004, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner. He was hailed by media stars as a “breathtaking” example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House’s claim that the war was won. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared, “We’re all neo-cons now;” NPR’s Bob Edwards said, “The war in Iraq is essentially over;” and Fortune magazine’s Jeff Birnbaum said, “It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context.”

“Buying the War” includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of Meet the Press; Bob Simon of 60 Minutes; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.


In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 Minutes, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. “I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda,” he tells Moyers. “Saddam…was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn’t believe it for an instant.”

The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits. While almost all the claims would eventually prove to be false, the drumbeat of misinformation about WMDs went virtually unchallenged by the media. The New York Times reported on Iraq’s “worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb,” but according to Landay, claims by the administration about the possibility of nuclear weapons were highly questionable. Yet, his story citing the “lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons” got little play. In fact, throughout the media landscape, stories challenging the official view were often pushed aside while the administration’s claims were given prominence. “From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in the Washington Post making the administration’s case for war,” says Howard Kurtz, the Post’s media critic. “But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions.”

Full article on http://billmoyers.com/content/buying-the-war/

Excerpt from Wikipedia, which is not the best source for game-changing critical voices towards the establishment *understatement* but 9/11 Press for Truth truly is a classic among the 9/11 documentaries.


9/11: Press for Truth follows three of the Jersey Girls (widows of individuals killed in the attacks) as well as other family members in their search for answers about what really happened on 9/11.

Among their questions were: Why had NORAD failed to protect the known terrorist targets, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why did the World Trade Center Towers, including Building 7, completely collapse when no other steel-framed skyscraper had ever previously totally collapsed due to fire? Why did George W Bush stay in a Florida classroom for over 10 minutes after he had been told that the second Tower had been hit?

The film uses archive news footage, press conferences and newspaper clippings to document the unwillingness of the George W. Bush administration to provide answers to the families' questions or support a full independent investigation. It also shows how the mainstream media avoided asking the politicians the toughest questions.

Published on YouTube on Apr 25, 2013 by OilSmokeMirror
This is the Original UNCUT version of the film. Others not connected with it decided to selectively edit it and upload to youtube. This is the original.

Shot and produced during '05-'06, it was released free on the internet Oct 2006 on the GoogleVideo platform where it got 120,000 views before they decided to stop nunbering views a few months later.

Added by me, the poster: Oil, Smoke and Mirrors is a high quality documentary that places 9/11 in a geopolitical context.

Downloaded on October 13, 2017
From Dailymotion Account Ali Ahmad

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup was the 2009 edition that was written, directed, and edited by Dylan Avery. Unlike the previous editions, this was narrated by actor Daniel Sunjata (who shares the same beliefs of this film). Original music was composed by Mic Cartier and the music/score used in previous versions were not used. This version started with a history of false flag operations. The graphics, interviews, and footage were changed and updated. There were interviews with Dr. Stephen Jones about the alleged nano-thermite residue found at the bottom of World Trade Centers 1, 2, and 7.

Commentaar van Nederlandse site: Waarheid911.nl
Het gehele artikel staat op: http://www.waarheid911.nl/911documentaires.html#lc_an_american_coup

Met deze derde Loose Change lijkt het team Avery en Rowe eindelijk een juiste balans te hebben gevonden. De eerste doorbraak met de Second Edition had vooral het tij mee. In 2006 bereikte de complotkoorts rond 9/11 wereldwijd en in Nederland een ware piek. Loose Change speelde hier handig op in en maakte een dynamische filmdocumentaire met hitpotentie. Een film die door vele waarheidzoekers op handen werd gedragen en alleen al op Google 125 miljoen hits genereerde. Maar het was een onbetrouwbare film. Teveel aandacht ging uit naar het shockeren van het grote publiek, teveel focus op de inherente slechtheid van overheden en teveel gretigheid bij het scoren op gerechtigheid.

Loose Change Second Edition werd een pamflet, zelfs al zaten alle elementen van deze sterke derde versie er al in. Dylan Avery en zijn producer Jason Bermas beloofden beterschap in een opmerkelijke zelfkritiek [op 6min:30sec] en kwamen die belofte na in hun tweede Loose Change, The Final Cut. Helaas kampte die film met een combinatie van lang en droog. Het miste de vaart die de eerste versie zo aantrekkelijk maakte, waarbij opgemerkt dat de doelgroep van Loose Change in belangrijke mate moet worden gezocht bij het mainstream publiek. Dat is althans het lofwaardig streven van de makers. Wat Final Cut eveneens tegenzat waren de hooggespannen verwachtingen na het hitsucces van die eerste (Second Edition). Niettemin dwong Final Cut respect af, want het werk was grondig en vrijwel nergens tendentieus te noemen. Voor de echte 'die hard' bovendien een film waarin alle belangrijke kwesties goed werden samengevat.

Loose Change, An American Coup is een strakke film geworden. Erg knap hoe het complexe feitenmateriaal is gesmeed tot een soepel lopend geheel waarin wederom, zoals bij de Final Cut, alles voorbij trekt. De film begint met een aantal historische kwesties, zoals de brand in 1933 in het Rijksdaggebouw in Berlijn en het Golf van Tonkin-incident in 1964. Door dit incident, waarbij patrouilleboten van Noord-Vietnam de Amerikaanse mijnenveger USS Maddox aanvielen, voelden de Amerikanen zich gelegitimeerd om de eerste bombardementen op Vietnam uit te voeren. Het Tonkin Incident bleek, net als de brand van het Rijksdaggebouw, te zijn uitgevoerd onder eigen vlag. De V.S. declassificeerde in 2005 een rapport waaruit blijkt dat de aanval nooit heeft plaatsgevonden. Exact wat door vele onderzoekers al jaren was beweerd, maar ten onrechte werd afgedaan als complotdenken.

Wanneer tot de kijker doordringt dat de geschiedenis bol staat van staatsterroristische activiteiten waarbij de schuld in andere schoenen wordt geschoven, begint het eigenlijke thema: 9/11. Prettig in deze versie van Loose Change is de nieuwe vertelstem. Ditmaal niet van Dylan Avery, maar van de acteur Daniel Sunjata. Bekend van ondermeer Sex and the City en recenter in de in Amerika populaire brandweerserie Rescue Me. Waar Avery's stemgeluid, in het verloop van twee voorgaande Loose Change versies, telkens verder leek weg te zakken, lijkt Sunjata vocaal alleen maar aan zeggingskracht te winnen. Ook in Rescue Me nam Sunjata het in zijn rol van brandweerman op tegen de officiële verklaring over 9/11. Waarmee opnieuw aangetoond dat mainstream zich voor tegengeluiden begint te openen.

Er zitten ook minpunten in de film. Zo worden er citaten van NIST gebruikt om aan te tonen dat ook volgens NIST geen oorzaak kan worden gevonden voor het instorten van de gebouwen. Deze citaten lijken erg uit hun verband gerukt en zo ontkomt ook de redactie van Loose Change niet aan het risico van teveel gretigheid bij het aantonen van een vermeend extreem onrecht. Net als in vorige versies, overdrijft deze Loose Change af en toe door in detailkwesties te stellig te willen zijn. Zonde, want het maakt kwetsbaar en het is niet eens nodig.
Het valt ook niet mee om te vechten tegen conventionele wijsheden. Tegen de [...]

9/11 Mysteries (2006) - full documentary

Many 9/11 documentaries went by, but this early bird is a classic one. It still gives a good and solid perspective of the September 11 false flag attacks.

Published on YouTube by TrueBliu Nineleven on April 8, 2011

Winner best documentary, London Independent Film Festifval 2008

The Elephant in the Room is a documentary following British filmmaker Dean Puckett through his journey into the 9/11 Truth Movement: a global movement of 'conspiracy theorists' who believe that the official explanation about what happened on 9/11 is totally or partially inaccurate. The filmmakers travel from middle England, across Europe and to New York for the six year anniversary of the attacks, where the film takes one final twist as we are introduced to the 9/11 first responders who are suffering from various grave health difficulties due to the toxic dust that they breathed in trying to help their country during the weeks after this tragic event. Told with a personal hands on approach that avoids advancing any one position, the film asks the question: are these crazy conspiracy theorists? Or is 9/11 Truth a credible political movement? You decide. Featuring Cynthia McKinney, William Rodriguez, John Feal, Alex Jones, Scott Forbes, Luke Rudkowski, Richard Gage and many more...

Review in Dutch language on http://www.waarheid911.nl/911documentaires.html#elephant_in_the_room

Published on YouTube by Empire of Lies on 27 September 2014

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor", by , Massimo Mazzucco, is a 5 hour documentary that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11. All the most important issues in the debate are presented in full detail, showing both the positions of those who reject the official version, the 9/11 Truth Movement, and the positions of those who support it, called "the debunkers." You can be the judge.

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor - Trailer - http://youtu.be/OmM4Tra-rg0

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Review in Dutch language on http://www.waarheid911.nl/911documentaires.html#new_pearl_harbor

9/11 in the Academic Community, a winner at the University of Toronto Film Festival, is a unique film that documents academia’s treatment of critical perspectives on 9/11. It explores the taboo that has been effective in shielding the American government’s narrative of the events of 9/11 from scholarly examination. Through a powerful reflection on intellectual courage and the purpose of academia, the film aims at changing intellectual discourse on 9/11 and the War on Terror.

As well as probing the repercussions several scholars have endured due to their individual investigations into 9/11, this documentary provides an analysis of impairments in professional inquiry, ranging from the failure to critically reflect on terms that function as “thought-stoppers” (such as “conspiracy theory”) to the structural approach that restricts inquiry to the broad implications of 9/11 while shutting out enquiry into the events of the day itself.

Morton Brussel, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has stated: “The main thesis of the film concerns the silence of the academic community on this vital issue. I think it is extremely important and very well produced.”

Since 9/11 served as the rationale for the Global War on Terror, the expansion of the military and intelligence complex, the invasion of other countries in violation of international law, and the curtailing of civil liberties, the film provides an inspiring demonstration of intellectual courage that will cause many scholars to reflect on the academy’s role and strength to dismantle the war system.

As Alvin A. Lee, President Emeritus of McMaster University, has stated in his endorsement of the film: Academics should “stand sufficiently outside society intellectually to see, understand, and interpret what is going on.”

Source article: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


Bron: Waarheid911.nl

Waarom zwijgt de academische gemeenschap?

De wetenschappelijke wereld deed onderzoek naar 9/11 vanuit meerdere invalshoeken, zoals de impact van 9/11 op geopolitieke verhoudingen, de toegenomen terreurdreiging met als gevolg grote aanpassingen op gebieden van privacy en veiligheid. De wetgeving rond veiligheidsvraagstukken werd wereldwijd in landen aangepast. Maar wat er precies gebeurde op 9/11 zelf, die grote drijfveer achter zoveel ingrijpende maatregelen? Die vraag heeft binnen de academische wereld nooit tot een debat geleid en is nimmer kritisch getoetst. Wat volgens de Amerikaanse overheid op 11 september 2001 plaatsvond is door de wetenschap aanvaard als een onaantastbare werkelijkheid.

Sommige kwesties voortkomend uit 9/11, zoals de oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak, werden wel aan een kritische beschouwing onderworpen. Met tal van schokkende uitkomsten tot resultaat. Toch bleek dit voor academici nog steeds geen aanleiding om met terugwerkende kracht een club van aantoonbaar liegende en bedriegende topbestuurders tegen het licht te houden. Een groep die geïntegreerd is binnen een netwerk van geheime diensten, instellingen en belanghebbenden binnen het militaire industriële complex.
Kortom: wel onderzoek naar de gevolgen van 9/11, niet naar de iconische gebeurtenis zelf. Het label 9/11 bleef buiten schot. Een uiterst merkwaardige omstandigheid voor een gebeurtenis als 9/11 met zijn enorme impact op de samenleving.
Bron: Center for Public Integrity

Een veelgebruikt argument is dat 9/11 al uitputtend door wetenschappers is onderzocht. Is dat waar?
De 9/11 Onderzoekscommissie heeft haar onderzoek naar de gebeurtenissen van die elfde september gebundeld tot een boek van 571 pagina's. Deze commissie was geselecteerd, zoals de voorzitter Thomas Kean en vice-voorzitter Lee Hamilton zelf opmerkten, door de meest partijdige mensen van Washington. Ze hadden te weinig te tijd en te weinig geld. Volgens eigen zeggen was de commissie gedoemd om te mislukken. Regie van de commissie werd bovendien bepaald door een insider in Washington, Philip Zelikow, die nauwe banden onderhield met de Bush regering.
Uitvoerend directeur Zelikow werkte in de eerste termijn van de regering Bush nauw samen met Nationaal Veiligheidsadviseur Condoleezza Rice en bepaalde mede het veiligheidsbeleid dat tijdens 9/11 zo ernstig had gefaald. Als 'onafhankelijk' commissielid kwam zijn visie neer op een beoordeling van zichzelf en de mensen waaraan hij loyaliteit was verschuldigd. Pogingen van buitenaf om Zelikow van zijn functie te ontslaan werden genegeerd. Documenten waren voor de commissieleden zeer beperkt toegankelijk. Van de honderden voetnoten bestaat 25% uit verwijzingen naar uitspraken die onder marteling werden


Created 6 years, 1 month ago.

17 videos

Category News & Politics

There is no commercial intend behind the use of any of the videos brought together on this account. All content is purely informational, educational and significant to convince critical audiences about the numerous omissions and lies in the official 9/11 account as well as deliberate efforts to mislead the general public.

"The World-Wide 9/11 Truth movement is currently the largest investigative journalism project on the planet."
– Barrie Zwicker

Your support will strengthen the work for 9/11 awareness and truth. It helps to attract more people and make them more conscious about the worldwide efforts to bring clarity in the event that brought us into many wars, without solving the actual pretext of fighting terrorism.

Plz support by following @W911 on Twitter
[Daily 9/11 News + Following the downfall of the free press. Aiming at a critical non-biased audience]

Plz support by following the NLW911 Dailymotion video account, with a large amount of significant footage and information about 9/11

Plz subscribe to this great Bitchute W911 account! Larger numbers will attract more people! That, unfortunately, is also a fact.