apple.com— I bet some people are going to be pretty mad. I personally would...well...nevermind. Just watch the trailer. Looks very..."interesting..."
Jan 6, 2006View in Crawl 4
@ jesusphreak: The "Truth" is, you want the "Truth" to be that there is some big government conspiracy so you can have a good reason to dislike the American government.Far from it. I don't know what the "Truth" is. I haven't pushed the "bomb on plane theory" over the "shoot down" theory. However, both are more plausible than the "plane nosediving intact into the ground" theory, given the debris field (including major engine parts), and the high percentage of eyewitnesses who saw a midair explosion.Since the 9/11 Commission Report doesn't properly address the forensic and eyewitness accounts in any detail, it's well worth questioning the account.For the record, I highly doubt that the US gov't, or members thereof, masterminded 9/11. I think it's highly possible, given all the coincidences, that certain officials allowed it to happen.A partial list of "coincidences" that should make anyone curious...<a class="user" href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html">http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html</a>I'm drawing no conclusions, just questioning.
"Coming in the summer of 2007...New Orleans 05! Closely followed by Tsumani 04! Booyah!"- DubyaHell, this accompanied with the 4x as many remakes of older films, no one has any creativity anymore.
cubbieco comments:"WTC7 - In addition to being on fire it was recently bombarded my a massive amount of debris from two much larger towers falling right next to it. Did any of the debris from the neighboring towers end up on the roof possibly adding a significantly higher weight load then it was designed for? Combine this with the steel becoming weakened by fire and the building fell. Hmmm... Why wasn't the debris tested for explosives???? Think for a sec. You are working in WTC and people start wiring the buildings for demolition. Do you think you might notice? These buildings were working 24/7. Real people were going in and out of those buildings at all times. They would have noticed. The demolition theory is just plain ludicrous. And yes, I spent a lot of time at 911research.wtc7.net and actually did read the views. There was no explosive testing because there were no explosives. Firefighters would have recognized detonators anyway as they sifted through the remains."you obviously have not studied this for you point out circular logic:" There was no explosive testing because there were no explosives" Boy that a great foregone conclusion at a murder sceneWe didn't test for poison because he was dead and we don't know why he is dead.but we know it wasn't poison because we didn't test for it.1.The commission own words on WTC 7: "the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and howthey caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ...2. Firefighters didn't sift through the remains, FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: <a class="user" href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html</a>"Heck of a job Brownie"3. No chance to set explosives? There were evacuations of the towers just before 9-11At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.<a class="user" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html</a>Stratesec did the security Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11 Marvin Bush a principle member. <a class="user" href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html</a>4. Firefighters and Police officers heard explosions: <a class="user" href="http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html">http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html</a>5.Picture and video of the Madrid Skyscraper fire which burned for 24 hours and did have thesame type of construction as building 7<a class="user" href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html</a>6. video of Building 7 going down notice that there is not even 1/20 of the fire as Madrid and the time length of the fire, and the rate of fall of the building <a class="user" href="http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/">http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/</a>Pull it means to demolish with explosives which takes 2 weeks, also notice the rate of fall.You don't want to see the elephant in the room.
soon? i think not, now if it showed any thing kinda hinting when it was going to be relaesed by how good it was, then yes, but fr all we know they havent even started to shoot yet, and movies like these can take many years.
bionicantboyJan 6, 2006
@ jesusphreak: The "Truth" is, you want the "Truth" to be that there is some big government conspiracy so you can have a good reason to dislike the American government.Far from it. I don't know what the "Truth" is. I haven't pushed the "bomb on plane theory" over the "shoot down" theory. However, both are more plausible than the "plane nosediving intact into the ground" theory, given the debris field (including major engine parts), and the high percentage of eyewitnesses who saw a midair explosion.Since the 9/11 Commission Report doesn't properly address the forensic and eyewitness accounts in any detail, it's well worth questioning the account.For the record, I highly doubt that the US gov't, or members thereof, masterminded 9/11. I think it's highly possible, given all the coincidences, that certain officials allowed it to happen.A partial list of "coincidences" that should make anyone curious...<a class="user" href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html">http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html</a>I'm drawing no conclusions, just questioning.
cartelJan 6, 2006
Everybody knows flight 93 isnt real. No digg.
fuzznightJan 6, 2006
the popular mechanics story is super sketchy about where they get their "facts". conspiracy theory sites are more convincing than that article
kuchinoJan 7, 2006
It's only early if they Show the movie wrong, if its respectable it will be ok.
tonageJan 7, 2006
If Hollywood has to be the one to make a move about 911 then it should never be made.
Closed AccountJan 7, 2006
"Coming in the summer of 2007...New Orleans 05! Closely followed by Tsumani 04! Booyah!"- DubyaHell, this accompanied with the 4x as many remakes of older films, no one has any creativity anymore.
ichingJan 7, 2006
cubbieco comments:"WTC7 - In addition to being on fire it was recently bombarded my a massive amount of debris from two much larger towers falling right next to it. Did any of the debris from the neighboring towers end up on the roof possibly adding a significantly higher weight load then it was designed for? Combine this with the steel becoming weakened by fire and the building fell. Hmmm... Why wasn't the debris tested for explosives???? Think for a sec. You are working in WTC and people start wiring the buildings for demolition. Do you think you might notice? These buildings were working 24/7. Real people were going in and out of those buildings at all times. They would have noticed. The demolition theory is just plain ludicrous. And yes, I spent a lot of time at 911research.wtc7.net and actually did read the views. There was no explosive testing because there were no explosives. Firefighters would have recognized detonators anyway as they sifted through the remains."you obviously have not studied this for you point out circular logic:" There was no explosive testing because there were no explosives" Boy that a great foregone conclusion at a murder sceneWe didn't test for poison because he was dead and we don't know why he is dead.but we know it wasn't poison because we didn't test for it.1.The commission own words on WTC 7: "the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and howthey caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ...2. Firefighters didn't sift through the remains, FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: <a class="user" href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html</a>"Heck of a job Brownie"3. No chance to set explosives? There were evacuations of the towers just before 9-11At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.<a class="user" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html</a>Stratesec did the security Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11 Marvin Bush a principle member. <a class="user" href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html</a>4. Firefighters and Police officers heard explosions: <a class="user" href="http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html">http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html</a>5.Picture and video of the Madrid Skyscraper fire which burned for 24 hours and did have thesame type of construction as building 7<a class="user" href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html</a>6. video of Building 7 going down notice that there is not even 1/20 of the fire as Madrid and the time length of the fire, and the rate of fall of the building <a class="user" href="http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/">http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/</a>Pull it means to demolish with explosives which takes 2 weeks, also notice the rate of fall.You don't want to see the elephant in the room.
hofferfishJan 7, 2006
i agree ^ hollywood should not capitalize on a recent tragedy like 9/11
computer_kidJan 8, 2006
it's way too soon
sparkmonkeyzJan 8, 2006
soon? i think not, now if it showed any thing kinda hinting when it was going to be relaesed by how good it was, then yes, but fr all we know they havent even started to shoot yet, and movies like these can take many years.
cwoolf34Jan 8, 2006
get ron howard on board and I will see it. I loved "the perfect storm". It was very factual.