The events of September 11, 2001 have left lasting scars on the psyche of America and other countries around the world. It set in motion a global understanding of modern terrorism, and sparked an ongoing war that shows no signs of abating. The desire to come to terms with this cataclysmic moment in history has taken many forms over the years - from somber mourning to reignited patriotism to outright rage.

But, one vocal segment of the population is driven by skepticism; from the earliest aftermath of the towers' collapse, they've charged that a mass conspiracy is at play. The boldly titled 9/11 Conspiracy Solved is a representation of this viewpoint.

Based on years of collected research from investigators Michael C. Ruppert, Mark H. Gaffney and Kevin Ryan, the film contends that 9/11 was the ultimate inside job. They assert that the plane attacks were orchestrated to mask a $240 billion dollar covert operation which was largely set in motion many years earlier as a means of weakening the Soviet Union following the Cold War. This operation was funded by $10 million dollar securities which were to become due on September 12, 2001.

Throughout the course of the film, the audience is assaulted with a rapid-fire collection of sketchily detailed charges involving recovered hard drives, specific victims who were targeted in the towers, suspicious money transfers which occurred in the moments before the attacks, and the role that insurance giant AIG may have played in the proceedings.

9/11 Conspiracy Solved isn't conceived with the sophistication or pacing that an experienced filmmaker could bring to the material, and it seems to have no sense of how effectively information can be delivered and absorbed. It's essentially a lecture recited at a break-neck pace and set to a powerpoint presentation. Over the course of 43 minutes, the film's narrator outlines a dizzying series of connections and inconsistencies - some of which could have easily merited deeper exploration on their own - but the very nature of the production, coupled with a troubling lack of authentication for some of its more incendiary claims, undermine the film's efforts to provoke its audience at nearly every turn.