Feel free to pick this apart.

9-11 Press For Truth Analysis Part I

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-11-press-for-truth-analysis-part-i.html

This is the hot new video in the 9-11 Denial Movement, although that seems a bit odd as the film does not (according to those who've seen it all) include any mention of the popular conspiracy theories, like the Bumble Planes or the missile into the Pentagon, or the controlled demolition at the World Trade Center. I am going to analyze the film in short bits; today I'll look at the first 10 minutes.

The film starts with a brief intro of clips from 9-11, including the initial CNN report and the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower. It then jumps to President Bush. The music at this point is rather harsh and jarring in the background as the president gives his speech that evening. The image splits into two, then four then 9 and so on, distancing us from him.

We are introduced to three of the four Jersey Girls, 9-11 widows from the Garden State. Note particularly the soft music as they are introduced. The voice over notes that these widows had questions. At the top of their list is the question of "Why had the US military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?"

72MB MOV
153MB WMV

Video Google

Here is footage of presentations given by Executive Producers Kyle Hence, and Rory O'Connor as well as Phil Berg Esq. The presentations are followed by a Q&A session that includes me. There is also an interview in the beginning from a WWII Veteran and a Vietnam Veteran. This is a little over an hour.

Yesterday, I took part in a questions and answers session that followed a screening of 9/11: Press For Truth. The topic of what can be done came up. I referenced the illegal immigrant movement, and their ability to get millions of people to take to the streets, and asked, "Why can't we do that? Isn't this important enough?"

Well is it? Why can't we do it? Isn't it time? Isn't there enough people in this movement to fill the lawn in Washington D.C.? We could have family members speak, and researchers and activists within the movement also speak. Who is good at making rallies happen? I think it is time we do this.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Recommendations of people to talk to? I'm all ears.

Today, I had the pleasure of joining Joanne, Tim, Fred, Wendi, Kyle, Rory, Phil, and several others to watch a screening of 9/11: Press For Truth. This was my first time getting to watch the audience react to the movie. They laughed when they were supposed to, they shouted out expletives at some of those on the screen, and they cried at the end. The end of 9/11: Press For Truth makes me cry everytime I watch it.

The movie was followed by presentations from Kyle Hence, Rory O'Connor, and Phil Berg Esq. That was followed by a very short Q&A session. I feel bad we didn't have enough time to talk.

After everything was said and done, Joanne and Tim took Kyle and I out to dinner at the Italian Bistro. I had the lasagna, and it was gooooood.

Here are the pictures I took of the event. Enjoy.

See if you can spot any discrepancies.

Source: 9-11commission.gov

STATEMENT OF GENERAL RALPH E. EBERHART, USAF COMMANDER NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES

17 JUNE 2004

Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton and distinguished members of the Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and represent the outstanding men and women of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). This team of professionals is dedicated to protecting and defending the U.S. and Canadian homelands. We shall never forget those who lost their lives and who were injured during the attacks of 11 September 2001.

NORAD
Prior to the attacks on our Nation two and one half years ago, our air defense posture was aligned to “look outward” to counter external threats to North America. We considered flights taking off within the U.S. and Canada as “friendly by origin.” Our aerospace warning and control missions were oriented and resourced to detect and identify all air traffic entering North American airspace. We were prepared to intercept potentially threatening inbound aircraft as necessary.

Source: wnbc.com

November 2, 2006

NEW YORK -- A nun who worked at the World Trade Center site in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks died Wednesday after a battle with lung disease that she said stemmed from inhaling toxic dust at ground zero, according to her lawyer.

Sister Cindy Mahoney volunteered at ground zero to bless the remains of victims.

Attorney David Worby said Mahoney, who was suffering from interstitial lung disease, hoped her story would help prove the connection between exposure to dust at the World Trade Center site and fatal illness.

According to Worby, Mahoney requested that an autopsy be conducted after her death to prove that the toxic dust at ground zero made her sick.

Worby, whose lawsuit against New York City was given a green light last month by a federal judge, said Mahoney's initial autopsy was conducted in South Carolina Wednesday, but that additional tissue samples would be tested in the coming weeks.

911 call on 9/11 response - daily.stanford.edu
Honest search for the truth or yet another conspiracy theory?

October 31, 2006
By Emma Vaughn

At a Friday screening of the documentary “9/11: Press for Truth” at Gunn High School, Stanford grad Paul Thompson and Berkeley English Prof. Peter Dale Scott charged the Bush administration of failing to make Americans safer and pointed to a governmental cover-up at the film’s Palo Alto debut.

Much of the content, which traces the events and government actions leading up to the terrorist attacks, is based on Thompson’s book, “The Complete 9/11 Timeline.” In addition to news clips and government evidence, the film uses survivor statements to raise provocative questions regarding the attacks and the role of the current administration.

“In looking at what happened since 9/11, I don’t feel like this country has been secured or made safer in any way, shape or form,” Thompson said. “It is just so shocking what has not been done. This country is so open to another attack. It wouldn’t even take Al Qaeda at this point.”

Source: govexec.com

"What's that? You have protested before at 9/11 Truth rallies, and spoken at 9/11 Truth commissions, and endorsed organizations seeking 9/11 Truth? No restricted aviation information for you. You're a bunch of Conspiracy Theorists." - Jon :)

By Chris Strohm, National Journal's Technology Daily
11/1/2006

The Transportation Security Administration announced Wednesday that it intends to do background checks on plaintiffs who have filed suit in federal court to determine if they can have access to restricted aviation information.

The move is expected to help family members of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and their lawyers move forward in litigation against U.S. airlines, airports and security contractors.

In a Federal Register notice, TSA said it intends to do criminal background checks and security-threat assessments on plaintiffs or their lawyers to determine if they can have access to sensitive security information, which is a designation the agency uses to prevent the release of information that could pose a threat to transportation security.

By Jon Gold
10/31/2006

Some of you who have been doing this for a long time, have gone through bouts of feeling alone. Thinking you're the only one who cares. Thinking you're the only one who thinks the actions of this Administration, and their friends, are wrong.

Within the last year and a half, this movement has received a lot of attention. The build-up initially started when Dr. David Ray Griffin gave his famous lecture at the University of Wisconsin.

Since that time, we have had several "mainstream" individuals come forward with doubts.

We have had a Physics Professor come forward, and cite very convincingly that Controlled Demolition may have been the cause of the towers' collapse, as well as building 7.

We had a celebrity by the name of Charlie Sheen voice his concerns regarding the official story of 9/11.

We have held several events where "standing room only" was not uncommon. Some of those were the 2005 Emergency Truth Convergence, 9/11: Revealing The Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, the American Scholars Symposium, 9/11 & The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, 9-11 Research; Why The Official Story Cannot Be True, and many others.

I will be attending for anyone interested. Along with Wendi Polinow, Fred Weber, DHS, and a few others.

By Jon Gold
10/30/2006

The biggest obstacle the 9/11 Truth Movement faces, and has always faced, has been people's perception that people who serve as our elected officials would never do something as dastardly as 9/11.

One would think that all of the dastardly things this Administration has done would be enough to push anyone over that hurdle. However, maybe everyone needs a refresher of just exactly what this Administration is capable of.

If this Administration would never doing something like 9/11, then does that mean they would never do something like steal the 2000 and 2004 elections?

Does that mean they would never do something like torture?

Does that mean they would never abandon people in New Orleans, and never lie about the knowledge of perhaps the levees breaking?

Does that mean they would never cover up something as important as Global Warming?

Page 311

It doesn't mention my name, but I'm just happy it was included.

Source: voice.paly.net

By Nick Nordlinger of the Paly Voice
Posted Thu Oct. 26, 14:10:33 PDT 2006

The controversial new documentary 9/11: Press for Truth raises important questions concerning the executive branches wrap up following 9/11 and is sure to inspire controversy and debate.

The film tells the story of four women who united together after each losing a family member to the 9/11 disaster. Feeling that the government had not spent nearly enough time investigating 9/11 or preparing for such an attack after several previous warnings, the women took on their own investigation, rallying the press toward their cause and putting pressure on the executive branch to launch a more thorough investigation.

The film makes accusations that may seem excessive, even ridiculous, at first, but as the story continues and ample information is provided to back claims, the points that the film strives to make begin to seem well-founded.

The film certainly inspires deep thought by raising important questions. Why did the World Trade center bulding seven tower inadvertently collapse when it was not even hit by a plane? Were explosives inside the building? Why was more money spent investigating Monica Lewinsky during the Clinton administration than was spent investigating 9/11 in 2001? Why didn't we, as the film suggests, capture Osama Bin Laden when we had him cornered in a cave in Afghanistan?

By Eric Salter
www.journalof911studies.com

Click Here

Conclusion
There are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.

Full Report (2.4MB)

Let's discuss the reasons why. I can think of MANY.