World Premiere- The Reflecting Pool- Ft. Lauderdale Int'l Film Festival- Nov. 3rd

"The REFLECTING POOL," the first narrative movie to question the
offical version of the 9/11 events, will have its World Premiere at the
22nd Annual Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival.

World Premiere- November 3rd, 9:00 pm
Cinema Paradiso Theatre
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

The theatre is located in the heart of downtown Fort Lauderdale at 503
SE 6th St, on the south side of the New River, one block East of the
Broward County Courthouse.



There were two special preview screenings of the film at the 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland on September 10th & 11th, 2007, followed by Q & A with the writer, director, producer, actors. The audience was mainly the choir, already familiar with 9/11 Truth research, so some of the questions posed afterwards were hard, like why didn't you include "such in such" information, as the film could not include all aspects of 9/11. Jarek Kupsc explained that the screenplay was written a couple of years ago, so they couldn't change the film to include all the new information.

A strong point of the film is its examination of the appartatus of state propaganda, and how mainstream media can be used to discredit and destroy those who challenge the great myths of our times. It contains a lot of information, but is a "buddy/buddy" story that draws people in to how hard it is for people to work on 9/11 truth issues.

One friend of mine absolutely hated it and walked out- because the main characters are smokers and she hates smoking. I hate smoking, too, but I think that one can overlook the flaws in the people who are the film's protagonists. Nobody in this world is perfect. We all have flaws, and just as we may disagree on the tactics to raise human consciousness about the defining event of this century, we need to respect those who are doing the best they can to wake up the American people and the world. The film strongly challenges the bogus "war on terrorism," and clearly the aim is to stop those responsible for 9/11 from profiting from it, and from doing it again, and from expanding their war on the world.

The Reflecting Pool is a valiant effort. I hope it reaches people who would never go to see a documentary. My life was transformed after seeing the film JFK, and I think the Reflecting Pool has the same potential to wake people up, and to transform them.

More Details on the film can be found at their website:

Am I the only one who is a

Am I the only one who is a bit skeptical of this? I feel that maybe the resources put into this may have been better put into doing a documentary as opposed to a Docu-drama. In my opinion as soon as this is dramatised it becomes easy for the public to dismiss as a film and not focus on the facts involved- however accuratly they are betrayed. Also in my opinion by dramatising this issue it also detracts from and trivialises the actual seriousness and importnace of it.

Can 9/11 truth be taken seriously when it is used in the context of entertainment? I suppose at best this film may gather some kind of controvosy around it, the same way in which the Da Vinci Code did but will the help spread our message or simply allow the skeptics the brush it away as fiction?

Here is a video I put together about 911/Iraq

put it on youtube last night.pass it on.

the lyrics.

"Stop telling those lies you dirty old man 3000 dead on the fateful eleventh.can you show some remorse and hang your head low?

whilst you swagger and sway and smirk in your dirty old way.

Stop telling those lies you dirty old man can you tell us what happened what really went on?did you think that the people would fall for the con?

whilst you swagger and sway and smirk in your dirty old way.

whilst innocent civilians are killed far away by gun toting mercenaries that your companies pay!

stop telling those lies we know they´re not true, the wars in the East are all caused by you.No one believes you you´ve lied all along lend me your ears whilst I sing you this song.

we want to know what went on that day!!"

We already have a ton of dokus.

"I feel that maybe the resources put into this may have been better put into doing a documentary as opposed to a Docu-drama. "

I think this is a great addition to our arsenal.

I've been waiting for this one...

It looked quite good from the trailer... I'll likely end up enjoying it, even if it isn't the solution to all of our problems.

Anyone know how the premiere on Nov-3 went ???

Any feedback from attendees, etc ???


I'm looking forward to seeing this too, the trailer was really good !!!

Many thanks and best wishes


While I realize people are interested in this because it is a drama, it's important for people to know the actual contents of the drama as well, and understand why not all agree on this film being a positive contribution for the movement.

I saw the film when the filmmakers came to Oakland and got up to comment on it since this film mainly highlights flashes, missiles, pods, and no Boeings, claims well debunked and years old ( ).

Additionally, it does not touch on our strongest evidence at all except for B7, and makes the common 6 walls error on the Pentagon (, among others.

I was glad to be able to talk to the filmmaker, who seemed well intentioned and quickly admitted that the research is now at least 2 years old. But he also seemed not to be aware that scientific organizations based on researching the 9/11 evidence do exist. He believed that the answers to questions like the flashes, "cannot be known," yet Ken Jenkins has an excellent simple physics explanation for them which brushes aside the need for claims about missiles, lasers and pods, ideas that make average people think we're nutty.

I mentioned several organizations now exist which he could refer people to which do take a look at the evidence using the scientific method,, and He said that their website has links, but when I looked, the links go to a group of sites which include letsroll911, serendipity, and at least one dead link.

Months later, no links have changed. is not there, and the old scholars page is. Obviously they still are not interested in the evidence since they are linking to letsroll911, the main pod site on the internet. That seems pretty meaningful.

That links page is a tight

That links page is a tight rope over a cesspool of websites - very low signal to noise ratio
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Cheers for pointing out the return of the bleeding "pods"

Oh joy.....>:(

Give Them a Break

I just emailed Jarek and he followed the suggestions you gave on improving his links page. There are only two of them doing all the promotional work plus they have a child. I cannot keep up with the links on my webpage- nor email nor phone calls- nor all my responsibilities. All I can do is try. They are trying, and have gone way out on a limb to produce this film, they have taken on a huge debt. I would cut them more slack. The attacks I've suffered lately are enough to kill my enthusiasm for more organizing eforts. It's hard enough without support, but impossible when local folk are really after you and making it absolutely insurmountable to complete projects that you have poured time and energy into. Of course perhaps some people would prefer that I cease my efforts since I'm so ineffective.

Carol Brouillet

You are doing important work

Ignore the criticisms Carol.

There are a lot of armchair critics out there and you should ignore their comments or snide remarks.

I don't think you are ineffective, on the contrary I am thousands of miles away here in Asia and I have seen many documentaries with you in it and even have a deception dollar.

For every critic you probably have tens of thousands of people you have touched in some positive way.

It is a pity they don't bother to tell you.

Be Encouraged.

The Reflection Pool is an EQ tool.

Most Documentaries are mere IQ tools.

IQ alone is not going to cut it.

We have to be prepared to use different Creative Efforts to reach out to people.

To at least get them to start asking questions and start researching for themselves.

How many skeptics have come upon the Truth when trying to debunk the 911 Truth Movement?

I am sure all sincere 911 Truthers have met at least some.

We should not be suprised by the anger of skeptics. Just ask them to research for themselves and prove us wrong.

Sooner or later only those complicit in some way will be left standing behind Bush-Cheney & Co supporting the 19 Hijacker Theory.

Emotions are the best way to break cognitive dissonance.

Reflecting Pool is part of the ART of THE 911 TRUTH MOVEMENT.

So far we have had the Science.

Science has taken us so far.

ART will take us Further. And Reflecting Pool WILL INSPIRE More Such Works.

Trust me. There are many many Hollywood players who know the TRUTH who are just itching to get started.

A good example is Shooter. For those who noticed the scene with the 911 Commision Report will understand.

The Director has openly questioned 911. Just check

Another good film which WILL INSPIRE MANY OTHERS.

SEVERE VISIBILITY which you have helped publicise.

Great soundtrack.

What you are doing is important. Pls keep it up.

I hope more people will appreciate the Art and Science of the Truth Movement and commend Artists
for their initial efforts.

Rome was not built in a day and just because there are some mistakes made along the way that does not mean we have to discourage people.

It is NOT about Perfectionism. It is about PERSISTENCE.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at


I wonder, why are Carol's and Kevin Barrett's posts often down rated?

Both are excellent posters/activists. Strange...

Great - links page is

Great - links page is updated ! that's wonderful!
And Carol I think your work is outstanding and the deception dollars 'THE' best tool for getting people to look into 9/11. Just tired of seeing long time activist suddenly promoting sketchy theories or sketchy people.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Jarek Kupsc's Response to Vic's criticisms

(He tried to post this himself, but to no avail)

To all concerned:

I am compelled to reply to some postings on the site
regarding my upcoming movie, “The Reflecting Pool.”

In the entry submitted by Victronix on Fri, 10/26/2007, the author
states the following:
“the film mainly highlights flashes, missiles, pods, and no Boeings.”
Victronix did see the movie at a preview screening in Oakland last
September, and she did ask me questions afterward, to which she
received sufficient answers. For the benefit of all the 9/11 bloggers
who did not participate in the Q&A in Oakland, I would like to publicly
respond to some troubling statements Victronix continues to post on the
1. “The Reflecting Pool” does NOT highlight mainly flashes. There is
ONE scene showcasing the recorded instances of flashes ­ which do exist
on 90% of available footage, including NOVA, CBS, and BBC
documentaries. In that ONE scene, journalist Alex is quick to DEBUNK
the flashes as, quote: “it looks more like a friction spark from metal
hitting metal.” Furthermore, the journalist insists on NOT FOCUSING on
the flashes later in the investigation, quote: “You should DROP the
flashes off your list. The idea they had missiles on the planes is
2. The missile theory is NOT SUPPORTED anywhere in the film. In the
scene focusing on Pentagon holes, journalist Alex reinforces her
skeptical view of such theories by saying, angrily, quote: “Maybe it
was a plane, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe a missile hit the Pentagon. We
DON’T KNOW. But we still have FOUR HIJACKED AIRPLANES to account for.”
3. There is NO MENTION of the pods, or Pod Theory, anywhere in “The
Reflecting Pool.” The flashes are NOT ASSOCIATED with the pods.
4. The “No Boeings” theory is NOT PROMOTED in the movie, or
highlighted. One of the protagonists, Cooper, is questioning the lack
of physical evidence of the plane inside the Pentagon. He does
acknowledge the small debris and the landing gear, but makes fun of the
“vaporized plane” theory promoted by Popular Mechanics. Journalist
Alex stops him in his “theorizing” saying, quote: “Enough with the
sarcasm, Cooper.” Nowhere in the movie we suggest or imply that no
planes struck the WTC.

Let me illustrate how far out of my way I went to make sure nobody gets
distracted by “pods” or other “anomalies” on the planes. While
creating the Computer Animation of Flight 175, I specifically DID NOT
INCLUDE the “pod” distortion in the design of “our” Boeing. And I have
to apologize to “Pod People” for making this creative decision, which,
I admit, differs from the original footage (see image).

To sum up, Victronix’ claim that “the film mainly highlights flashes,
missiles, pods, and no Boeings” is WITHOUT MERIT. I would even say
that her critique is MISLEADING. By suggesting that “The Reflecting
Pool” falls into the “Pod People” category, Victronix simply dismisses
the movie as “nutty.” We have seen a lot of division in the 9/11 Truth
movement over the “flashes and pods” issue. The “In Plane Site”
documentary has been systematically ridiculed by many serious
researches. I have seen that movie and I found some of the information
very compelling, and some, like the “Pod Theory,” not substantiated.
Ultimately, I chose to include the “flashes” in my film as one of the
many unexplained aspects of the story (I still consider the flashes
unexplained, despite some claims by scholars and engineers that they
were caused by oxidation of aluminum caused by the planes making
contact with the Towers. The flash on Flight 11 is seen BEFORE the
plane makes contact with the North Tower). I consciously decided NOT
to include the Pod Theory, which I found distracting and without much

I’m not sure why I’m on the defensive here, but let me conclude the
“flashes” issue with a little explanation of what a “narrative” movie
is. In “The Reflecting Pool,” the scene with flashes serves as “the
hook” in the “set-up” of the plot. In the first meeting of the two main
characters, the following dialogue takes place:
What I’d like to know is what caused the bursts of light on both
planes. Do you have answers?
No. But I have research. Not just blasts of light, but other things.”

The set-up compels the journalist to dig further into the story, and,
hopefully, the audience will go along for the journey of discovery of
other, more important things. The character of Cooper, the father of a
9/11 victim, is so desperate for answers, he is ready to embrace
“flashes” as evidence. Journalist Alex, on the other hand, is the
skeptic, and he REJECTS this theory. Showing just one side of the
multi-dimensional nature of 9/11 research would be trite. And trite
doesn’t make good drama.

Furthermore, in her blog entry, Victronix goes on to suggest that,
quote: “[The movie] does not touch on our strongest evidence at all
except for B7.” The B7 (WTC 7) issue takes up almost 40% of the plot,
and is clearly central to the movie. We spend a lot of time on
controlled demolition, including WTC1, 2 & 7. The longest scene in the
movie deals with suppressing domestic and international intelligence by
the government. We go after NORAD and the Stand Down Order with
vengeance. We deal with the unlawful destruction of physical evidence
from Ground Zero. I don’t want to spoil the movie by divulging all the
details, but the issues we bring up cover all the bases, or basics, if
you will.

Writing the screenplay for “The Reflecting Pool,” I was faced with the
difficult task of selecting what goes in, and what stays out. For
every fact included in the script, there are at least ten I had to
abandon due to their incompatibility with the dramatic structure of a
film. I had to present facts that are not only verifiable, but also
make sense from the logical, narrative standpoint. The biggest
turn-off for any dramatic movie is to become didactic and overload the
audience with difficult scientific information. One could easily shape
a ten-hour drama out of all the evidence, but for a two-hour movie to
be compelling, to have an emotional core the audience could empathize
with, that’s the tricky part. To make the movie work as a drama, I had
to let go of some of my personal favorites, including the entire
“subplot” of Flight 93, whose official narrative is preposterous in

In her subsequent blog entry, posted on 10/27/2007, Victronix continues
her line of misleading thinking:
Quote: “That's why providing the information to refute the claims in
the film is important -- people that see the film need to understand
that most of us DON'T think that pods fired missiles from the planes
into the WTC and made flashes when the missiles penetrated, or that
there were lasers on the planes that made the flashes, or whatever

Again, “The Reflecting Pool” DOES NOT even mention pods or lasers.
There is nothing to refute. The flashes are there for anybody to see
in real-life footage. We do not SPECULATE on their origin. Quite the
contrary ­ journalist Alex rejects them in the movie as INCONCLUSIVE

For those of you who remember, Oliver Stone’s “JKF” (a far superior
picture to “The Reflecting Pool” and supported by a multi-million
dollar budget) contained its share of inaccuracies, speculative
information and took “creative liberty” with most of the characters.
Still, in the final outcome, a lot of people were actually converted to
the “conspiracy” theory despite some historical faults in the picture.
“JFK” worked as a DRAMATIC MOVIE, and served its purpose in the large
scheme of things -- it prompted people to do their own research and
draw their own conclusions. As the writer of “The Reflecting Pool,” my
goal was to present some of the most disturbing aspects of 9/11 in an
accessible, and, hopefully, dramatically cohesive way. People who do
not watch documentaries (majority of Americans) and people who don’t
read research books (again, majority) must get their chance to look
into the truth behind 9/11. If “The Reflecting Pool” doesn’t reach
that audience, another movie will, as I’m sure someone, somewhere in
time will make a dramatic 9/11 movie that will make even the hard-core
9/11 researches happy.

In conclusion, I just spent four hours trying to find a gentle way to
“debunk” my “debunker” on one single blog. I do not wish to do it
again. The irony of it is that the “debunker,” Victronix, is
apparently a valiant 9/11 Truth researcher, therefore we basically
stand on the same side of the barricade. Wouldn’t the four hours of my
time and however many hours of her time be spent more productively if
we both did our work without bothering each other? I’m not shunning
criticism, but there is a difference between unfounded allegations and
creative input, which I always welcome (such as the fact that the movie
erroneously states that the Pentagon plane went through SIX walls of
reinforced concrete, whereas, in fact, the only obstacles in the way of
the plane were columns supporting the next floor).

Noticing an increasing amount of dissent within the 9/11 Truth
movement, I’m reminded of my youth in the Communist Poland, where Riot
Police would successfully break up our Martial Law protests by dividing
a large mass of demonstrators into smaller, easily breakable groups.
I’m sure you all know what I mean.

With deepest respect for the 9/11 Truth Community, Researchers,
Bloggers, and my vigilant friend, Victronix,

Jarek Kupsc
The Reflecting Pool

PS. In anticipation of further allegations that “The Reflecting Pool”
promotes the Pod Theory, missiles, lasers, or other anomalies, please
feel free to repost this blog entry as my official response.

PPS. The links page on our website has been
updated. You may have to reload the page or clear you cookies.

(He also sent a photo, but I don't know how to upload it on this comment form- so I will probably repost this as a blog with the photo.) Carol Brouillet

Carol Brouillet

not a bother

>> Wouldn’t the four hours of my time and however many hours of her time be spent more productively if
we both did our work without bothering each other?

Luckily, I won't be spending 4 hours on this. After YEARS of this work I can pretty much put it out as fast as the words can hit the screen. No real bother.

The reality that anyone at the event can confirm is that the audience mainly got excited about the stuff that was "sci-fi" to them -- there were mainly the "what happened to that plane that we all saw hit the tower so that it "flashed"?" and "Do you think it was a missile that fired?" types of quesions. And there was a large audience who were newbies who had come to hear a solid talk by a professional. This would set the stage for concerns by critically thinking people who see through "flashes."

I would never have bothered to discuss the evidence if it wasn't fairly significant both in its inclusion in the film, the focus on it, and the obvious public response to it -- just what Von Kleist and Phil Jayhan would have wanted.

This is a forensic criminal event. There is evidence. Presenting debunked evidence that merely "hypes" people and can be easily made to discredit us doesn't advance the cause well.

There's no great divisions here anymore (despite real fascism in the US) -- the vast majority of activists and researchers understand the relevance of grounded and strong evidence and are working toward that.

These guys are using my artwork without permission

to advertise their movie - I'd appreciate it if they stopped doing that.

I'd also appreciate it if their ad using the icon was removed from the center column of this site.

It's fine if people want to use it for non-commercial purposes but using it in an ad isn't cool.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Thanks Jarek Kupsc for your reply to Vic's criticisms

Herblay FRANCE

Bonjour ,

Thanks Jarek Kupsc for your reply which has put back my hopes in your film.

I followed up her links and put my reply to her at

which does not seem to go down well (actually noted -3 )

PLEASE give us a download by internet of your film so that we can see for ourselves and try to understand Victronix's comments.

Loose change became famous because people like us all over the world could download and promote the documentary. Do the same and we on this blog and elsewhere can make your work known world wide.

Hoping to see your film soon here in France.

Thanks John

Reply to Victronix: Is a disinfo web site?

Bonsoir ,
much appreciated your entry and followed up the link to "the common 6 walls error"
and found Interesting the information on the six walls. Has improved my knowledge on this issue. Will have to look more into it before taking a stand point.
Howerver had a quick look around and have a strong feeling tha this web site is spreading disinfo.
Looked up to see if others have the same idea and found

Yours John

This is something we need.

Just like the flawed Loose Change, this is an emotionally engaging drama. Emotions are a powerful way of persuasion. If it were merely a matter of logic, the Official Conspiracy Theory should not have survived past September 12, 2001. My logical mind new that the attacks were impossible without a NORAD stand down. I knew that on 9/12/2001.

My own emotional experience had opened my mind to the logical fallacies of 9/11. I had been involved in exposing the truth behind the Yogurt Shop Murders. I knew our society was capable of something as evil as 9/11.

Carol was right with Deception Dollars. She is right about this film being a door opener. The trailer shows the emotional transition needed to accept the truth of 9/11.

The Yogurt Shop Murders opened my mind to 9/11 Truth:

Just to clarify

I agree that we need emotionally engaging drama -- of course. And it's completely understandable that people would be very excited about a drama finally appearing and want that to happen. But to many of us also, the evidence we present to the public via that drama is equally important.

I witnessed, after the showing of the film, question after question after question from people coming up to the mic to talk about the flashes, missiles and whether the planes were real commercial jets. When I saw how excited people were by those ideas mainly, rather than any of the other ideas in the film, even though I hate to speak in public, I finally had to get up and make a statement.

Importantly, this is why those ideas came to us in the first place -- likely, to distract from the real evidence, which is far more mundane in comparison.

For example, after Loose Change promoted the idea that FL 93 was swapped in Cleveland -- an idea that has virtually no basis in the evidence but which serves to obscure the very obvious and far more likely possibility that the plane was simply shot down -- the "no plane, no wreckage at all" in Penn has spread throughout the movement and now has to be debunked. It keeps people from really looking at the "shoot down" and instead focuses elsewhere.

Also important-- voting posts like these down has nothing to do with Carol's work as an activist , but has to do with the content of this film. Carol has many other posts that never get voted down or critiqued negatively and she continues to do a lot of constructive and important work. I especially appreciate the unique and dedicated effort she has made in documenting all of the local 9/11 events and efforts over the years at her website, which is a tremendous resource she has contributed ( We all do what we can and we all have different contributions, and Carol's is an ongoing contribution that is tireless.

So it's important to understand that critiques like this don't have to do with people, but with content and evidence.

The filmmaker is an artist and likely very interested in exposing the lies, but he included the baseless claims as the primary lies, which ultimately turns off a lot of people to our work. In a way, this seems like a mindset -- that the actual reality of the evidence isn't as important as the idea that a lie happened. But some of us will disagree with that and that's what critique is about. It's not about the filmmaker being a bad guy or people not liking Carol's posts, it's about the evidence. The filmmaker is not a 9/11 researcher, he is an artist. That's fine.

The problem is when we refrain from speaking up because we don't want to hurt people's feelings when we see real problems from people who had good intentions. Perhaps my critique is too negative and if so, I apologize -- that comes out of frustration from many hours of my life spent debunking, exposing and refuting pods, missiles, and their associated flashes. Those ideas typically led people to worse hoaxes, no planes, nukes, DEW, etc.

Many people who have never been educated in science get excited by missile and flash claims and then spread them in screaming email subject lines and move on toward more and more bizarre stuff, spread that, and so today, when we type "Request for Correction" and "NIST" we get Judy Wood's space weapons claim as the top several links. That's how it works.

Films like this -- no matter how well intentioned and artfully rendered and beautifully promoted -- contribute to that final outcome: the real scientist, maybe a NIST insider, who is considering looking into the RfC goes and does a google search, gets Judy Wood and her DEW claims, and then turns away feeling embarrassed that he ever considered it when he sees it's utter nonsense.

We all know our movement has exploded since the scientists got on board. The distractions early on from missiles, pods, holograms, nukes, no planes, etc. were functioning to keep people away who could take apart the science of the cover-up. We can only guess that those were intentional efforts, and likely will never know. Always there are good and well intentioned people who unwittingly spread the information.

That's why providing the information to refute the claims in the film is important -- people that see the film need to understand that most of us DON'T think that pods fired missiles from the planes into the WTC and made flashes when the missiles penetrated, or that there were lasers on the planes that made the flashes, or whatever else.

Again, critiques of films like this have little to do with Carol's work or the fact that Carol was the person posting this, but have to do with the content of the film.

Good points, Victronix

It is important to reach people, but reaching them with bad information
does more harm than good. When newbies figure out they've been
lied to, they're likely to reject the whole movement and write it all off
as science fiction.

It's easy when you spend a lot of time in the activist echo chamber
to think that taking off into ever-wilder endeavors is leadership.
Truth is, as you say, somewhat mundane. Demands for verifiablity
frustrate the sensationalist urge.

Activism that alienates is counterproductive. Leaders need to
cater to the nature of the people they're trying to reach. "Incredible"
should not be regarded as a compliment.