I Distrust Most Conspiracy Theories, But This is Different: Movie Tonight

The weakness common to most conspiracy theories is that they usually assume flawless execution, and flawless secrecy among all participants.

And often those who believe these theories are the same people who complain that government (another conspiracy of sorts) can’t do anything right.

Because of my inclination to be skeptical of conspiracy theories, I have ignored much of the chatter coming from the 911 Truth movement.

But then a few days ago, I saw an announcement for the movie being shown this evening at the Peace Center of Nevada County:

Second Sunday Cinema presents a documentary,
9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

Sunday July 8, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
246 So. Church Street, Grass Valley (corner of Church and Walsh streets)

If you thought that the fires at the World Trade Center twin towers, set off by the horrific jetliner impacts of September 11, 2001, were the cause of the destruction of those iconic skyscrapers, you may be mistaken. Experts now cite evidence showing that high-temperature incendiaries and explosives were planted throughout the twin towers and the lesser-known 47-story Building 7, also destroyed later the same day.

Director/Producer, Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth states, “It’s really not possible for people to imagine the kind of evidence that has been distorted or kept hidden up to this point. That’s why it’s so important for people who care about this issue to come and see this film. The film features 43 experts in building engineering, physics, chemistry, and other technical fields, plus a half-dozen psychologists who discussed the denial of the evidence that the AE911Truth engineers have been seeking to get attention to since the founding of the nonprofit organization in 2007. The group’s petition, signed by 14,000 concerned citizens in addition to the architectural and engineering experts, calls upon the U.S. Congress to initiate a new independent investigation.

For more information see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

By donation only. Refreshments and Popcorn. Discussion to follow the film. Shown by the Peace Center of Nevada County, and the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalists Community of the Mountains.

Come Early at 5:30 for potluck dinner!
The Gold Country Vegan group invites you to bring a vegan dish to share.

Being unable to attend the showing this evening, I located the same documentary online on YouTube (see below), and watched it, and am now convinced that there is a huge conflict between the official story and the actual facts presented here for all to see.

What makes this documentary different, as I suggest in my title?

The evidence presented in this film — particularly with regard to the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by a plane — is very compelling. And the authority and experience of the critics — some 1500 architects and engineers — is remarkably compelling.

If you are like me, you may finish watching this documentary with a feeling of cognitive dissonance: the evidence is incredibly compelling, but … who could do such a thing, and for what purpose? And … who could pull it off so flawlessly?

If you can’t make it to the showing at the Unitarian Church in Grass Valley this evening, you can watch the same film right here, below. If you don’t have time for the full 2 hours, the first 20-30 minutes is enough to make your head spin.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments

11 Responses to “I Distrust Most Conspiracy Theories, But This is Different: Movie Tonight”
  1. The scariest part is that if this is the truth, then how much of the rest of the so called world we think we know is sheer fantasy. I find it hard to believe that all this stuff could have been professionally and secretively placed, and nobody ahas come forward to admit to doing the phyiscal placing. Those with the cash and motives would not know how to do it. Building Seven was psosibly a rush job, to take advantage of the situation? What was in building Seven, and who wanted it gone?

  2. Also there could have been a huge chance that one or both of the planes would have missed their targets, and then how would you explain the explosions? Planes would have had to have been under remote control, another layer of complexity for the conspirators.

  3. depelton says:

    Great questions, Doug. I’m totally with you. Huge skepticism is in order, and yet — at least with respect to Building 7 — the official story requires us to believe that all (without exception) prime support pillars in the entire building gave way at precisely the same microsecond, allowing the building to free-fall for several seconds before collapsing beautifully — that is to say, symmetrically — upon itself.

  4. Anna Haynes says:

    NIST (or another mainstream engineering group) needs to create a resource like SkepticalScience.com to address the objections this group is making. Or maybe someone could at least produce a (counter-counter-counter-) argument tree.

    From Wikipedia –

    “Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.
    [I agree that having a debate proper doesn’t help, but it’s still good to publicly address the arguments being made]

    “In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.”

    Caveat: I haven’t seen the film, but I would want to see/hear the mainstream response to each argument it raises.

  5. Anna Haynes says:

    (p.s. Just for the record: I have no aptitude for chess.)

  6. depelton says:

    Anna:

    You should watch at least the first half hour of the video before accepting uncritically the assertion of Professor Bažant that the controlled demolition theory has no merit.

    There are at least 1500 architects and engineers who disagree based on some rigorous analysis.

    I say this because one of the studies reported in the documentary involved plotting specific points on Building 7 — as its collapse is displayed on video — and measuring them against elapsed time and finding that the acceleration for the first few seconds is completely consistent with free-fall.

    Anyone who says says that the controlled demolition theory has no merit has the burden of explaining how every weight-bearing pillar in the building could fail within the same few microseconds, leading to an unprecedented symmetrical collapse.

    I’d be glad to have it explained away because I really hate the conspiracy theory.

  7. depelton says:

    By the way, there seems to be something wrong with the peer-review process at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, where Bažant’s work is regularly published, if you can believe this report:

    http://911blogger.com/node/18196

  8. gregoryzaller says:

    For balance sake, it would be worth taking a look at this site: http://www.debunking911.com/index.html.

  9. depelton says:

    Thanks Greg, that looks like a very interesting website. I notice that it refers to Building 7 in this manner:

    “New ~ WTC 7 explained in Structure Magazine. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.”

    Interestingly, the video I embedded above explicitly refutes this one-column (79) theory.

    I’m beginning to wonder if there is any chance that (non-engineering, non-architect) lay persons like me have any hope of sorting any of this out by reading the copious arguments on both sides.

    I really do have a lot of inherent resistance to accepting the conspiracy theory.

    But … I’m also having trouble accepting that a somewhat random set of forces could drop that building in a manner identical to what has only been observed elsewhere with controlled demolition. It begins to strain credulity a bit. Sort of like a sudden gust of wind sweeping up a bunch of plane parts in such a way as to leave a fully functioning airplane on the runway with engine running and ready to take off.

    (I’m having fun with this cognitive dissonance, in case you can’t tell).

  10. gregoryzaller says:

    Illusionists are able to fool entire audiences. We are only human and once the mind creates a compelling story, cognitive dissonance fades the contradictions. Fear dramatically exacerbates this effect because survival is most likely with decisive action. Conspiracy theories are amplified by fear.

    Interesting. Watch the video more closely of the fall of WTC7 and you will see a utility structure on the roof sink and disappear well before the building walls begin their descent. as if the building collapse was lead by the center. This would also explain the free fall of the exterior.

    Also consider that there were many firefighters in the building before being evacuated because of danger of collapse was determined. How could large explosives not be seen or placed and survive in an inferno where beams were failing from heat?

    I didn’t go to the church presentation. My concern isn’t that there is a conspiracy theory but that it was promoted in a church. The work of all great religions is to awaken us from illusions, not promote them.

  11. depelton says:

    Interesting point about the center caving first. Thanks, Greg.

Speak Your Mind (You Must Use Your Real Name)

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Bitnami