911 Mysteries

BUY IT AT AMAZON: CLICK HERE!
STUDIO: CFP Domestic
MSRP: $12.98
RATED: NR
RUNNING TIME: 90 Minutes
SPECIAL FEATURES:
• None

The Pitch

“It’s like V for Vendetta, if you subtract the political relevance.”

The Humans

An assortment of 9/11 survivors, theorists, and experts. And one lunatic with a copy of Adobe Premier.

The Nutshell

Did you know someone (not pointing fingers) was responsible for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center? Yeah, I mean, aside from the terrorists. I’m not pointing fingers, but mysteries surrounding the attack suggest something more complicated. Now, I’m not pointing fingers, just so you know; I’ll let the evidence speak for itself.

(Notpointingfingers.)


Fucking arrows did it.

The Lowdown

I’ve had my share of intellectually corrupt material to review here at CHUD during my (sadly ending) tenure. From the occasional bit of fiction that stretches a flawed or disconnected premise (The King) to the non-fiction that sacrifices persuasive argument in favor of alarmism (Islam – What The West Needs to Know). Strangely enough, most of these films have to do with religion, turning me into a one trick pony. “Don’t be an idiot when it comes to religion,” I cry, without much of a platform to stand on.

Today is the day I learn a new trick, and I’m so goddamn excited to show it to you.

Here goes. “Don’t be an idiot when it comes to conspiracy theories.” Again, I’m standing on sand here, but the sand is made up of tiny pieces of ground-up common sense. It’s kind of hard not to toe the idiot line when considering conspiracy theories, but where 911 Mysteries (implying there are going to be 910 more of these circular shits?) is concerned I’ve got to start simple.

Like the Loose Change abomination, the inconsistencies of which have been explained away by its creators as “intentional” to inspire the audience to research on their own, 911 Mysteries (they didn’t put a slash, so I won’t put a slash) is a terribly misleading abuse of an editing suite designed to leap at half-truths, shovel sand into the eyes of the emotionally susceptible, and bark up trees which are only there in the goggle-eyed vision of filmmaker Sofia Shafquat.


Spider-Man 3 previs sequence from when Raimi thought the crane scene wasn't cool enough.

I don’t exactly have limited space here, but I do have limited brain power and haven’t myself fully researched all the claims made in 911 Mysteries. Fortunately for me, there are sites such as this one which travel point-by-point through the film, providing additional information and cross-checking facts as necessary. It is through this guide that I first heard about a claim of Shafquat manipulating camcorder footage included in the film to support a point, which, if true, is unscrupulous at best and despicable at worst.

However, since I can’t pick apart the misstatements individually, I will instead gladly harp on how 911 Mysteries is an example of how not to couch any sort of argument, crackpot or otherwise. (Unfortunately, my harp only has two strings.)

The first mistake comes right out of the gate, as the filmmaker addresses the camera directly and, in the process, places a significant block in the path of the audience’s trust for the material that follows. The fumble-tongue in question occurs when he says that he “literally” didn’t sleep for a week while assembling the documentary. If he’s exaggerating, then he’s already broken trust with the audience by doing so; if he’s telling the truth, then he has discredited himself handily in the first two minutes of the film.


In fine form, Popular Mechanics responded with Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
Mr. Griffin responded with "WKLB" and smugly refused to explain the acronym.

That makes the first lesson: Maintain an air of professionalism, or no one will respect your work.

The second is this: Execute your research with diligence. Sure, the halls of academia ring with the giddy laughter of doctoral candidates cherry-picking evidence to support their hypotheses, but do you, a filmmaker, really want to be compared to academics? No, of course not. That’s why you need to research thoroughly, and present from that research your most compelling argument. You may have to adapt your thesis along the way.

It didn’t quite happen that way for 911 Mysteries. I can’t comment on the research methods employed, but good methods result in a well-ordered presentation, which takes into account and deals with claims counter to the thesis. What you get with this film is a mess of chronologically-confused events, inadequately cited references, and eyewitness information truncated (or, if true, edited) to introduce only the small domain of points Shafquar wants. This kind of disingenuous editing lends the whole film the feel of a zealot, unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints lest they shake his faith.


No joke, the average penis length of the NYFD.

All these failures in method combine to carry a thesis that will continue to fascinate people more than it probably should, that being that something fishy went down on September 11, 2001. (More fishy than passenger jets flying into occupied office buildings, I mean.) For a piece of work that claims not to point fingers, the goal clear through is damnation. Unfortunately for Shafquar, the methods of the film are those of a small intellect. It takes smart moves to trick someone into hell. Insomnia and absolute certainty are incapable substitutes.

For anyone interested in more, the History Channel recently had a thoughtful and well-researched examination of various 9/11 mysteries.

The Package

It’s not biodegradable. Also, I think there may be some asbestos in it.

1 out of 10