I tried to get an interview with Whitman, and unfortunately did not. This is not one-sided. Facts are not partisan. Would members of the Bush administration talk to me?  Would James Connaughton? These are the people who are guilty of misrepresenting the facts to the public.  

Even if they would speak to me, would they say anything other than their official line which already exists everywhere in the mainstream media? The whole “fair and balanced” thing bothers me because the news has largely ignored this part of the story, and theirs is the only story we’ve really heard. 

I’ve seen a couple pieces about the 9/11 dust on television, and they were biased, and from what I recall did not bring up the fact that there are thousands involved in lawsuits. When there are lawsuits, those who are defendants often will not talk to the press, let alone independent filmmakers like myself.

Usually there is at least a graphic announcing that the other side refused comment. Or was there a conscience choice not to do that? I don’t mean to be negative – I think it’s an excellent movie - but I’m just telling you what some reviewers are going to say.

I have spoken on the radio on numerous occasions about Mt Sinai Hospital and others refusing to speak with me. At the time, I did not feel it was necessary, neither in the context nor rhythm of this film. It may even seem like “sour grapes” to put in a graphic announcing that the other side refused to speak to me. Why would I need to be confrontational about that?

The people who delivered the facts delivered them effectively. Why would I need someone denying the facts? Would that make the “defendants” appear even more callous? I suppose, if they would have spoken to me, that would have been even more effective in showing the criminal conduct of personnel within certain official government agencies. There are good people in all of these agencies. 

All that said, if they still want to talk to me, I’d think about doing a director’s cut. It is interesting to me they wouldn’t want their side of the story and opinions on this issue.

What do you think about this Village Voice piece and its criticism of The New York Times coverage of this issue?

The Times was obviously the mouthpiece for the EPA about the safety of the air right after 9/11. They didn't thoroughly investigate the material which was being fed to them by the doctored, toned down releases from the EPA. Or they blatantly chose to ignore the real data.

From what I’ve heard, representatives from the Times were present at some of the early community meetings in which Marjorie Clarke and others warned about the potential hazards in the environment, yet the Times did not seem interested in reporting on the hazards of the contamination.

And now it appears that someone at the Times actively sought information to discredit a high profile case of illness from the dust. I find that interesting in and of itself.