Am I reading the review wrong, or remembering the movie wrong? The opening scenes of the movie are a helicopter shot over Gotham/Chicago, followed by seeing the bank robbers alternately drive up to enter the front of the bank with machine guns and rappel in from the roof. They bust in, kill each other after specific task are completed, get shot by William Fichner, bus runs through the doors killing one of the guys, Joker shoots the bus driver, leaves a grenade in Fichner's mouth and drives off. The grenade expels smoke once the pin is pulled, but it's hardly from an unknown source, nor is there a major explosion other than the bus driving into the bank. Again, I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago, but I don't remember the scene that Dana uses at one of the points of her argument. Which explosion are you talking about?

As I recall it starts with a window on the side of the building blowing open (and the robbers repelling out). The whole comparison still strike me as more than a little forced.

Yes, in the opening SHOT of the movie, a helicopter POV over Gotham/Chicago, the camera moves closer to a large building and, within a few seconds, a large, square window shatters and, yes, two criminals abseil down a cable across to the opposite roof and deal with the outgoing emergency phone call once the robbers downstairs take the bank.

I have actually seen that particular sequence three times and not once did I think "OMG - 9/11!"

Though now that Dana's made the connection, I can see how some people might.

I think Dana means the very start of the movie, when the Bat signal appears out of a cloud of smoke.

"Though now that Dana's made the connection, I can see how some people might."

The only people that would make that connection are 9/11 George Bush obsessives, like Dana. Breaking a window and planes flying into a building are not even remotely like each other.