30 April 2006
"9/11 Revisited" official website
Watch it online here.
Here's what the author of this film has to say about his creation:
When I first set out to make this video it was only going to be so I could show my family & friends the biggest question I have surrounding 9/11. Ever since I decided to upload it I have received tons of messages from people all over the world thanking me for making it.
I would like to send a special thank you to the Scholars for 911 Truth, 911Truth.org & 911Blogger.com for helping me get this video out to the public.
Thank you for taking the time to watch 9/11 Revisited... and please tell-a-friend!
- Dustin Mugford
That question, in Mugford's mind, was: what brought down the World Trade Center towers in New York? And what, even more intriguingly, caused
the collapse of the WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper which was not directly impacted by an airplane and suffered what seemed to be only minor damage during the course of the attack itself.
While my path to the 9/11 truth movement was a bit different from Mugford's - in his case, it seems, the question of what happened to the WTC was what got him thinking that the official story of the events of that day could have been a hoax, whereas I started doubting the official story observing the US governmental and policy response that seemed completely inconsistent with what one would expect in the case of a genuine surprise attack - Mugford got one thing right - the events that took place in the Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001 are the linchpin of the events of that day and the historical record of that day.
The film asks many questions about what happened to the three skyscrapers destroyed that day, the key one being: how could all three collapse with a nearly free-fall acceleration? That alone would be peculiar but not only did the top of each building hit the ground so fast as if nothing were in its way, the concrete that made up the buildings ended up pulverized into fine dust - dust fine enough that even though it was ankle deep in some places it hardly impeded those who had to walk through it. According to an EMT I spoke to who was there within hours of the disaster that dust was much finer than regular sand - you walked through it and you hardly felt it. So, it was hardly the gravitational energy that pulverized the buildings as if that were the case the speed of their fall would be slower; then the question is, once again: what performed that Herculian task?
We might have had a chance at learning the answer for sure had we had the necessary evidence to examine; but that was not to be. However, while we might not be able to tell exactly what did happen we can tell with certainly what did not: those towers could not have collapsed in the way outlined in the official theory. Well, I take that back - the laws of physics are not absolute, so, scientifically speaking, they could, but the likelyhood of that would have been negligible. Since I have not seen a stampede of scientists throwing away their basic physics books it would be fair to assume that basics of physics such as energy conservation laws still hold and what happened that day could not, in any practical terms, have been explained by the theory laid out in the official 9/11 Commission report.
The reasoning presented above is just my personal take on one of the many questions raised by "9/11 Revisited". I am not asking you to unquestioningly accept either my reasoning or that of Dustin Mugford or anybody he presents in his film. I challenge you, as do other 9/11 skeptics, to think for yourself and find fault in any and all of the above.
But if you fail - if you come to the conclusion that something quite different happened in New York City on that tragic day than what the government would have you believe - wouldn't you be willing to examine all the other parts of the official theory of what happened that day, parts that the film does not cover?
And one more remark before I let you go - hopefully, off to actually see the film. I have on many occastions been told that a lot of the problems I have with the official theory of 9/11 amount to little more than inconsistencies with inconsequential parts of the story. I am pretty sure that other 9/11 skeptics have encountered similar responses. Well, aside from the fact that it is often a minute inconsistency that gives away a bigger lie - if the question of how the towers fell is to you just a minute part of the story of 9/11 then I will have no further comment. But otherwise... well, otherwise there is plenty to think about, in my humble opinion.
Watch the film - and if what you saw made you think, or if you already doubted the official line on the events of 9/11 and think the film is likely to get others thinking and wondering - spread the word.