I’ve always been drawn in by the subject of conspiracy theories. I’m not one of those howling-at-the-moon types of course and my mental breakdowns have never yet led me to camp out in the middle of the Nevada desert to seek out just how the US government is working with aliens (a la Robbie Williams). But I do think it’s positive that we have people that question what’s presented to us as truth by government and media. They may not be right and some of them can be pretty wild in their theories but they work quite well as a kind of check on the more questionable events in our crazy world.
So when I heard about the documentary The Anatomy of a Great Deception I had to watch. It’s had limited release and very little exposure so far but as of now you can watch it in its entirety here.
A brief synopsis. The tragedy of 9/11 was not what it appeared to be. Let me expand on that. Specifically that the twin towers and the less-talked about World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse because of the planes. They were demolished by planned explosions that coincided with the planes. And that being the case, who knew about it, who carried out the explosions and why?
Much of the documentary goes into detail about the structure of the buildings and the way in which they collapsed. It debunks the findings of the official report put out t the time by government agency NIST.
Much of what’s presented in the documentary isn’t new. The theory of explosives being detonated has been knocking around since the tragedy itself. Check out ae911truth.org and see for yourself. Disappointingly the 90 minutes leave the “who” and “why” elements of the equation to the end: they’re rather rushed through and we don’t really get much conclusion. Maybe there’ll be a sequel that addresses this.
Naturally I went and googled for a bit to see what else is around to support some of this stuff. There’s a lot. Do I believe what I’m being told? Well, the evidence was presented in the film pretty convincingly. I feel pretty sick at the thought of it being true. I guess I need to research the other side to the argument.