ada the leading man is my tpye

Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Marc Powell I found "The Anatomy of a Great Deception" to be very interesting indeed. On the one hand, David Hooper recognizes that, on 9/11/2001, the World Trade Center towers were struck by airliners hijacked by Islamic extremists. The back story of Hooper's struggle to understand inconsistencies in the official narrative regarding the terrorist attack is very compelling, and his asking of an innocent question is, in fact, very likely the way that many began their quest for truth about the events of that day. On the other hand, while Hooper comes across as a sincere seeker of truth, much of what he says is scientifically inaccurate and much of the evidence he cites is either grossly exaggerated, intentionally misrepresented, contradicted by evidence he conceals or, in a few cases, materially altered in an attempt to deceive his audience. Following are a few examples of what I am referring to:David Hooper claims that pre-planted demolition charges, suspiciously not mentioned in the official government reports, were present in the World Trade Center buildings and somehow set to explode as the airliners impacted. As evidence, he presents an audio recording made by a Ginny Carr, who was recording a business meeting in another building near the Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001. In the recording there can be heard two distinct crashing sounds approximately nine seconds apart, the second of which is considerably louder than the first. David Hooper tells us that the first crashing sound is a bomb going off in the basement of the WTC North Tower and the second is the plane crash. However, in the original recording (available at 9/11 Internet archive sites), the first crashing sound is actually somewhat louder than the second, and the scream of approaching jet engines can be heard before the first crash sound. It is clear, therefore, that the filmmaker cut off the beginning of the recording so as to conceal the sound of the approaching airplane, and tampered with the sound levels so as to make the second crashing sound louder giving the false impression that it was the plane impact. Based on the height at which Flight 11 impacted the building and the nine-second delay, the second crashing sound was most likely from elevator equipment, building rubble and/or aircraft wreckage falling and impacting the bottom of elevator shafts.In another example of misrepresentation of evidence, a NIST computer simulation of the collapse of Building 7 is shown where the building facade appears to crumple like tissue paper as it collapses. However, NIST conducted two global collapse simulations for Building 7, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of the WTC North Tower, and one that did not include any debris impact damage. The simulation with debris impact damage closely resembles the actual recorded collapse event. The simulation shown in the film is the other simulation that differs significantly from actual events. David Hooper presents the wrong collapse simulation thereby giving the false impression that NIST scientists are either incompetent or trying to pull a fast one.David Hooper also misleads his audience by concealing evidence that contradicts his theories. For example, the falling of the east mechanical penthouse of WTC Building 7 is shown only once in the film, but the seven second delay before the start of global collapse is not shown. In fact, virtually every depiction of the collapse of Building 7 in the film starts at the beginning of global collapse, when the north facade begins its descent, and is presented without a soundtrack. The reason for this is obvious. The falling of the east penthouse, the seven second delay before the start of global collapse, and the utter absence of explosion sounds are contraindicative of intentional demolition, and completely consistent with the official explanation of the collapse mechanics.It can also be irrefutably proved that video and photographic evidence is routinely misrepresented in the film. A prime example of this is when the filmmaker presents a still photo credited to the NYPD, that appears to show smoke emanating from the south side of the lobby level of the WTC South Tower. Hooper snidely informs the audience that the photo was obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the Freedom of Information Act (as if to infer it was only released reluctantly) and that it shows an unreported explosion in the lobby that occurred after the airliner crashed into the building. However, other photos taken on the same roll of film and part of the same FOIA release, clearly show that the smoke was actually coming from a white van parked on Liberty Street in front of the Marriott Hotel more than 200 feet from the South Tower. The van was one of several vehicles damaged or set ablaze by falling wreckage and/or burning jet fuel from Flight 175. The filmmaker had judiciously selected and chose to present the one photo from the film roll where the burning van is concealed behind a pedestrian bridge and where the smoke appears to be coming from the World Trade Center building in the background. Incidentally, photos on the NYPD film roll also show an undamaged (and not burning) South Tower lobby. A slideshow of all photos in the FOIA release can be viewed on YouTube by searching for "NIST FOIA 09-42 Release 4 / 42A0003-3of3 - 1/2" and "NIST FOIA 09-42 Release 4 / 42A0003-3of3 - 2/2".There can be no excuse for distortions and fabrications such as those described above in a supposed documentary presented by an individual who claims to be seeking justice for the families of the 9/11 victims and who insinuates that the United States Government is responsible for their suffering. If I were one of the many financial backers listed in the closing credits, I would demand my money be returned and then distance myself from those responsible for this mockery.

ralph-260 Only someone that is working for the government or is completely afraid of facing the implications of the reality of 911 will dispute this film.Highly recommended if you are not afraid of taking the red pill...only if you are prepared to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.If throw out everything else, Building 7 alone demands an real investigation, since anyone with any common sense can see it was demolished on purpose...As far as the twin towers, why should anyone pay a demolition crew to bring down a building anymore, when NIST says that you can do it from the top down with a few thousand gallons of Diesel fuel for a fraction of what a demolition company will charge. Does anyone really believe these people?

Murray Morison David Hooper - the excellent director of this intriguing documentary - came to doubt the official narrative about 9/11 relatively recently. But he made a thorough investigation and has valuably chronicled his journey in this film.There is not much here that is entirely new to those who have had their doubts for years, but the way he has marshaled his arguments is powerful. He successfully demonstrates the weakness of the NIST case. He demonstrates the duplicity of those who claimed "no-one heard explosions" by referencing the 118 separate instances of those who did. Some of the footage of this was new to me. He points out that the molten metal pouring from WT1 or 2 has never been adequately explained. And he adds that fires remained burning underwater for days after the collapse (that was new information for me too). There is no explanation from the 9/11 Commission or NIST that explains that phenomenon. Nor are there explanations offered for the presence of the chemical signature of nano-thermite (which cannot be produced by burning paint as argued by some 'debunkers') His ending is powerful, suggesting those so motivated need to continue their own research. He gives enough hints to suggest this 'conspiracy' is darker and more widespread than most realise. It is an odd synchronism for me that I received my copy of his DVD the same day I found out a film has been made about the sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967 - a cut and dried case now of a false flag event.

socraticmethod09 This is nothing more than a compendium of readily available information, for anyone willing to take the time to find it. Usually, too, documentaries have counter-arguments to add to their credibility. This one does not. Which leaves out the documentary contention. There isn't anything "thrilling" about this, except its complete lack of the science of the collapse which is well-documented and also available to anyone willing to look for it.Breathtakingly cursory explanations of what "science" there is in this "piece", are easily dismissible to anyone with a tenth-grader's understanding of the physics of falling objects. How the structures came down is mystifying; I'll grant that. To anyone not familiar with the energy involved in a plane moving at better than 500 mph, then slamming into a steel building and transferring ALL of that energy to the structure in 1 second it's hard to grasp. 3500 Mj is the amount we're talking about. .00007 Kilotons of explosive is the equivalent. This is assuming no fuel in the plane. But, there was. So, a small fraction of a KT of explosive is set off in a building then it's set on fire. What will happen next? I wonder.The film maker claims to have burnt through his savings in researching. Leaving out his on-camera time, all of the footage is available for free. His bio (self-written), says he's made $80 million. He claims, also, to have spent his life living and working in High rises. This does not sound like the "average Joe" he claims to be; nor does it make him an expert. I drive cars, but I don't fix them. If you have to watch this, do it for free, on Youtube. He'll sell you a copy for 14.95 though.So, it's not a conventional documentary, and it's not a thriller; which leaves it a money-making venture, pitched as that which it is none of; kind of like going to The Chophouse ordering a $30 rib eye and getting a Big Mac served instead.I see a new reviewer has weighed in. Poorly referencing a false flag operation (that in no way, shape, or form exists), and citing the sinking of a ship the USS Liberty, that sailed home under its own power, was decommissioned in 1970, and then sold for scrap in 1973. So when was the USS Liberty sunk EXACTLY?! This information is provided by the reviewer AFTER watching the documentary about the alleged false flag attack perpetrated by Israel. Who didn't need any flag to blame because THEY WERE ALREADY FIGHTING Egypt. The US and/or the Navy never fired a shot save a volley from the Liberty's deck-mounted .50 cal.I can only GUESS that the reviewer meant the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Where no one died, the US did finally admit that it was misrepresented to SPEED UP our direct involvement in Vietnam (it was an inevitability make no mistake), faster than sentiment at home would allow.Why the reviewer can't get the facts straight is open to interpretation. But, again, it serves to illustrate the mindset of anyone looking for conspiracies. Look long enough at ANYTHING W/O OBJECTIVITY, you will find it. Guaranteed.