Diacanu: I'm not disposed to believe 9/11 a US conspiracy (not least because of government incompetence), nor to spend much time pursuing the endless claims and counter-claims infecting the web; but on the other hand, if I can phrase this carefully, the official account has not filled the gaps sufficiently in the public perception to damp down speculation. Even if that is just poor 'marketing', it's a serious failure in a time when there is, not unreasonably, little enough trust in governments.

(If you can point me to a concise and authoritative debunking of Zeitgeist's 9/11 material I'd welcome it. EDIT: Belay that, googled umpteen debunking sites! I'll educate myself further...)

EDIT: Okey-doke, Zeitgeist's 9/11 section now thoroughly debunked to my satisfaction. :) I think a problem is our (certainly my) tendency to be impressed by visual evidence - in this case, the tidy way the towers fall, the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon and 93 sites, etc. On the wreckage in particular, we're used to seeing crashes where the plane's shape remains discernible - but of course most crashing planes are trying not to and land on their bellies, not nose-first into a wall. I can now return to unreservedly regarding United 93 as a brilliant film.