The Debunkers Attempt To Debunk 9/11: Press For Truth

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?"

Here the film engages in a little casual dishonesty. First we are shown a clip that the first hijacking was reported to the military at 8:38 AM (true). Then the announcer intones, "The last plane was reported to have crashed in Pennsylvania just after 10:00 AM (true enough, but the screen says 10:06, which is false; the 9-11 Commission concluded that the plane crashed at 10:03). One of the Jersey girls laughs and says, "That's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

And that is a lot of crap. First, even if we use their times, that's not even an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

As you can see most advance warning that NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector, a unit of NORAD) had for any of the hijacked planes was seven minutes for Flight 11. The notion that our air defenses could have intercepted any of these planes with that little warning is completely unrealistic.

The movie then goes on to contrast this supposedly slow response by the military to the 1999 incident where air traffic controllers lost radio contact with Payne Stewart's plane. But in that incident air traffic control (PDF) got no response at 9:33 AM EDT. A Cubana Air flight tried to raise the plane at 9:38. According to the NTSB report on the plane crash the a military plane intecepted Stewart's jet at 9:54 CDT. That may sound like 21 minutes, but note the Time Zone change--it's actually an hour and 21 minutes. So the notion that the military did a crackerjack job with Payne Stewart, but was sluggish in response to 9-11 is just not borne out by the facts.

Next we comes a question about Bush's personal response on 9-11. Once again we get the creepy music; this documentary makes no bones about who's the villain of the piece, and it ain't Osama. We're shown a clip of Cheney talking about the Secret Service yanking him from the White House, and this is contrasted with Bush sitting in the classroom reading to the children, with I guess the implication being that the Secret Service screwed up by not pulling the President from the room. One of the Jersey girls helpfully asks, "If people fell down on the job, by not informing those who were in leadership positions, who had the power to do something, why were we not looking at our protocols so we could fix it going forward."

Of course, one assumes that the standing order since 9-12 is that if there is a terrorist attack again, the President is immediately to be pulled away from what he's doing. And as for that "power to do something", what exactly does she think he could do, run outside and shoot down the hijacked planes with a SAM?

So now we're two "questions" into the movie and they're asking about procedure changes in the event of a terrorist attack?

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part II

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

Doing the second ten minutes here. First there is a complaint about how very few people who were rounded up initially ended up charged. But we know now that very few other people in America were involved in the plot. There is no mention of Zacharias Moussaoui, however, which is a rather glaring error. By November of 2001, the narrator says, the Jersey Girls decided that an independent investigation was needed to do what the Justice Department and the media "seemed unwilling do". Boy, gave the Justice Department two months, did they? We get a little teaser of CT nonsense from one of the Girls:

"We felt that the country was at risk from terrorists and incompetence... and um, maybe worse."

Oh, yeah, maybe worse, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

Then we get into the destruction of the towers. Again, no direct controlled demolition discussion, but it's certainly hinted at. "Why did the buildings fall? How could skyscrapers just like, crumple to the ground in ten seconds?" As usual, the narrator is unable to resist the "factoid". "Never before, or since, had fire caused a steel frame building to collapse."

Of course, that's BS both ways. The World Trade Center towers did not solely collapse because of fire; there was also a little matter of the planes slamming into them, destroying columns and stripping fireproofing from the steel. And steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire before; just not highrise steel framed buildings.

Then we get into World Trade Center 7, and I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to doubt this is anything less than a CT film cleverly disguised.

We get the mother of a firefighter giving us the next lie:

"The largest structural collapse in world history, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War and not one governmental or elected official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

In fact the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings are probably the most studied disasters of all time. Major building code changes have come out of these studies. Are these women, who tell us how much they have studied 9-11, simply unaware of all this?

The announcer also tells us that Tom Kean (whose name is hilariously mispronounced the way it looks--it's really pronounced Kane) and Lee Hamilton headed the commission which was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, but the commission members were all former "DC insiders and lawyers". (Menacing music). Boo, hiss.

Then we get a gripe about the money. As usual they cannot resist having one of the family members lie for the camera. Bob McIlvaine is called on to do his part:

"Remember in the 1990s they spent a hundred million dollars to investigate Clinton's sexual exploits. 100 million dollars!"

Except of course that the Starr Investigation cost $80 million and it investigated a heck of a lot more than Clinton's sexual exploits (including Whitewater), and resulted in the imprisonment of the sitting governor of Arkansas, as well as other convictions. McIlvaine is the father of a 9-11 victim and a longtime 9-11 Denier. He even appeared on Cynthia McKinney's bizarre Citizen's Commission back in 2004.

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part III

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

The third ten minute segment of the movie mostly concerns the 9-11 Commission report.

Another odd bit: As New York City Mayor Bloomberg begins his testimony, one of the JGs says, "We begged and pleaded that people should be put under oath." This is just a poor choice from the filmmakers, because what could Bloomberg have to hide? If you recall he wasn't even mayor when 9-11 happened, he was just a candidate for the office. "At the beginning they were not...."

So subsequently they were? Sheesh, you got your way and you're still griping?

Next we get into the crappola about Phillip Zelikow. The movie makes it seem like the Jersey Girls did some crack investigative work.

Kristen Breitweiser: "We have found out that not only did he serve on the transition team for the Bush Administration, that he was a person who wrote a draft memo for the setup of the Bush Administration's National Security Council, that he was an individual who wrote the preemptive war strategy that was eventually used for the war in Iraq, that he's a close friend of Condoleezza Rice's, we want him to resign."

One thing that is soft-played in this film (but it's not hard to read between the lines) is that the Jersey Girls and many of the other family members portrayed in this film are also anti-war activists, who not only opposed the war in Iraq, but also the one in Afghanistan. While informing us of the supposed conflict of interest of Zelikow, the filmmakers make no effort to advise us of conflicts of interest for the family members.

At about 22:00 we hear griping that the commission was not being given the information they needed. Immediate afterwards, there is a complaint that too much information was provided. Somewhat reminiscent of the complaint the two grandmothers had about the food at the nursing home:

Grandma 1: The food here is terrible.
Grandma 2: And such small portions!

Then we get the complaint that classified documents were only viewed by two of the commission members: Republican Zelikow and Democrat Jamie Gorelick. More sinister music, and "At that point I knew the fix was in."

Classified information is classified for a reason. Revealing it to one Republican and one Democrat strikes me as a common sense solution. But of course to the conspiracy nutbars, the Democrats are just as likely to be involved in the coverup as the Republicans. I don't quite know where they get this idiotic notion, but it seems to be pretty pervasive.

Hilariously, the mockumentary goes on to present its first administration hero; Richard Clarke. Never mind that Clarke admitted that he failed in his responsibility to protect the nation from terrorism. He's a hero because he apologized for his mistakes.

Then we get griping about how President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on meeting with the commission together, in private, and not under oath. More creepy music. More griping about them not being under oath. But of course if you really believe that Bush was lying about 9-11, do you think that being under oath would change that?

Then the 9-11 Commission Report was issued and we get more griping about that. It didn't answer my questions, complains one of the JGs. What questions were unanswered? They don't specify, but as we have already seen, most of the question that these people are asking have been answered. They just don't like the answers because they don't implicate Bush.

Then we get griping about the fact that the news media pretty much accepted the 9-11 Commission Report as doing a good job. Chris Matthews, hardly an administration shill, asks whether the families, "Can't deal with reality." A Newsweek editor says that the families seem unable to accept that there was no way the attacks could have been stopped. Good thinking, but of course, that's not what the movie wants us to think.

We get griping that the news media, "Failed again and again to connect the dots." Another little aside to the conspiracy crowd. One of the women says that she was hoping for another Woodward and Bernstein. Let me guess, that would result in the impeachment of the President? Is it obvious that's what this is really all about--that the Jersey Girls wanted heads to roll?

Ah, but the Woodward and Bernstein did arise, in the person of Paul Thompson, the man behind this movie. Amusingly one of the women comments that "He would back it up with links to mainstream media sources..." just as the video shows this:

Yeah, that well-known major media source, Mother Jones.

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part IV

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

This continues the vanity section for Paul Thompson. We learn how he first became suspicious of the official story and how some reporter for the Village Voice thought he was the shizzle. We see the great man himself reflecting on his greatness. But then we get back to the real topic, which is the greatness of Paul Thompson's timeline.

The facts presented here are true, but there is a careful intent to present them as proving advance knowledge by the Bush Administration of 9-11. We are told of Ramsey Yussef, but somehow in the context of the never-attempted plot to blow up planes over the Pacific, not the 1993 WTC bombing. In fairness, the film does include Dan Rather talking about Yussef's connection to the prior incident, but that part is soft-played in comparison to the "they should have known about the possibility of terrorists hijacking planes."

Indeed, that is the message here for the most part. But of course terrorist hijackings were nothing particularly new. Not to mention that this particular threat was discovered back in 1995. So you're saying that the Clinton Administration should have instituted changes to security at airports that would have been in place when the Bush Administration took over?

I'm not going to delve into the arcana that follows; you will believe it or not based on your political party. There's nothing really factual to debate; all that's left is partisan slant, which is not a topic we cover on this blog.

That's it??!!

Where's the rest? They just gave up - the last entry was for September 26? Nice of them to imply Langley AFB isn't part of NEADS, though.

regarding John Farmer

Kevin, I was reading one of your comments in another recent blog of Jon's, "Opening Statement Of General Ralph Eberhardt Before The 9/11 Commission," and wanted to show you a quick video that I made of John Farmer lying at 9/11 Commission hearing #13, May 18, 2004, in his opening Staff Statement, because you mention John Farmer in your comment. I just uploaded it to YouTube earlier this morning: Exposing One Of The 9/11 Commission's Blatant Lies.

I also uploaded a shorter version of only John Farmer's statement: One Of The 9/11 Commission's Blatant Lies.

*yawn*I'm not gonna waste my

*yawn*
I'm not gonna waste my energy on those idiots

and judging from the fact they only did the first 30 minutes they got tired themselves too lol

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a
revolutionary act." - George Orwell

QUOTE Flight 93: NEADS

QUOTE
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.
UNQUOTE

eh Say what?

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Remind Matt Taibbi of his promise to cover "the science"

http://alternet.org/columnists/story/43937/?comments=view&cID=285143&pID...

Oh yeah, um, the screw loose change people are going to look great arguing against 9/11 widows.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Yeah, really

still waiting, Matt . . . tick, tick, tick . . . .

A Fair And Balanced...

Review...


  • 9-11 Denial Movement
  • crap
  • BS
  • hilariously mispronounced
  • longtime 9-11 Denier
  • crappola
  • conspiracy nutbars
  • idiotic notion
  • Hilariously
  • mockumentary

___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Oh, the irony.

PFT is too MIHOP for them, and controlled demolition too strongly implied.

How much effort and prodding

How much effort and prodding was needed to even get an investigation..... Please.... I can only shake my head.

Then the part of the film talking about how Bush and Cheney had to give their testimony together in a secret session where they would not have to swear under oath to their testimony..... then they still had jurisdiction to have to apporve what the commission was allowed to reference in their report....

I only laugh because it sickens me to the point I want to VOMIT!! then when the deniers make excuses for it I need not look for a bucket.

I would give all I own for an opportunity to view the video of that testimony.....

I'm guessing that Cheney was doing all the talkiing....and Georigie was bobbing his head & smirking

"Yea..Yea...That's right...That's how it was....yea..yea...Dickie....you tell em...you tell em...Yea....yea....that's right. that's right.... that's how it went..... yup yup yup yup."

Why did they testify together when they were not together during the happenings of the day.... this is not SOP when questioning anyone about anything official relating to any crime..... Even small town Arkansas Cops know better

Screw: Screw Loose Change;

Screw: Screw Loose Change;

 

my thoughts exactly....

my thoughts exactly....

Music References...


  • The music at this point is rather harsh and jarring in the background as the president gives his speech that evening.

  • Note particularly the soft music as they are introduced.

  • Once again we get the creepy music; this documentary makes no bones about who's the villain of the piece, and it ain't Osama.

  • More sinister music, and "At that point I knew the fix was in."

These individuals obviously think that using music in a movie is bad. Imagine what Star Wars would be without John Williams. The movie is a documentary. When a scene in the movie is supposed to get the audience's attention, what better way to do it than with music? What a ludicrous argument.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I think that some of these

I think that some of these people add their own fluoride to their water

Yes, brilliant minds seem to think alike!

Behold the breathtaking logic in this absurd exchange between some Harvard students on Jan. 30 of this year:

At 10:27 PM, sarika bansal said...
I watched the video [in plane site] a while ago and remember being struck by how odd the facts were. That said, I was also struck by how MTV-ish it was, what with all the background music and cool effects. While the facts presented could potentially point to a conspiracy theory (though I'm sure they left out others that would have diluted the theory), I basically discredited the video because of its presentation. Why would the filmmakers make such a serious issue so cool-looking? Why would they choose to distribute it through some random website? And considering the internet is such public domain, why has NO major media source picked it up? Why hasn't anyone written a book on it? There are so many little alternative publishing companies out there, I'm sure at least one of them would have realized how fast such a book would fly off the shelves and doesn't have "big business" bogging them down.

If there were credible answers to all the above questions, I would perhaps maybe start to think the 9/11 conspiracy was a distant possibility.

AND

At 11:57 PM, sarika bansal said...
I'm curious as to why you want people to watch this movie so much, and why it's so imperative for everyone to watch before continuing the debate. I watched it and was far from impressed. There's all the stuff I said before about how it looked so MTV-like and how it was distributed on the Internet where the idiot can reign if he/she so chooses (and yes, I would be far more convinced if there were people in lab coats presenting the same information -- that probably sounds elitist and classist but I think it's true for a lot of people). Also, there were so many anecdotal quotes from unidentified individuals, especially towards the end. I would trust Scientific American/Popular Mechanics over those random quotes any day. Yes, some of the facts presented are odd at first, but there's so much going against the conspiracy idea that I've basically discredited the movie.

First, there's the point Andrew raised before, about how 9/11 was CHAOTIC, and reporting errors could have easily occured. Don't you remember? People on the news were saying one thing, then another a few minutes later, and then a third thing a few minutes later. People were running everywhere -- I'm sure someone reading this went to Stuyvesant and could tell you how parts of the city were like "every man for himself." Honestly, if the US government has the brains and foresight to orchestrate that madness, why can't they figure out issues like health care and immigration?

Also, do you remember what happened to the economy after 9/11? Stocks went down for a few months and unemployment went up. The city government had to shell out millions to get the city functional again. The World Trade Center employed a lot of very intelligent people, and a lot of companies were complaining how they lost their best brain power. Why would the US government do that? Do they have something against having a funtional national economy? Why would they waste THAT much money to justify a war on terror? I mean I guess they could have done it, just like I could fly from Boston to New York via Mogadishu.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

INSTITUTIONALIZED

INSTITUTIONALIZED..... this is what they do to young minds.

they teach them rational thought in this way..... If you were told that a feather was thrown at a window made of glass and the glass shattered..... what would you tell me would happen if I threw this feather at this glass window?

the young 6 year old first grade student replied...."Nothing.... a feather will not break glass"

the college student replied..."The window will break"

they taught this college level course and explained to the students that the student that replied that the glass would break was using rational thought based on the prior evidence that was presented that the glass broke.

If you ask me.... the student that replied that nothing would happen was using rational thought and the older educated student has simply been institutionalized.

If this film had been presented by someone in a white lab coat they would have assumed it was a scientist... then they would have changed the channel to MTV

Isn't it funny?

These are (supposedly) the best and brightest, but I've talked to people in housing projects who went into some detail about why steel buildings can't collapse from fires--what does this show us? It's been eye-opening is all I can say. Either someone's been hiring ringers to take their SATs (look up Harvard AND plagiarism for more such scandals) or...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

stop thinking

I'm sorry but our universities have been turned into institutions hell bent on creating worker / consumer zombies.

they rarely promote free thinking or individualism. I went to school for architecture and I was coralled at every turn... it was depressing.

this mentality rolls right over into the corporate structure.... ever work in an office environment....you know what I'm talking about

Re: whining about "sinister music"

Republican operatives do this kind of sh*t in their sleep, and these f-wads are complaining? Please.

And, oh yeah, I guess there's supposed to be Benny Hill music playing whilst the towers go down.

"There's nothing really

"There's nothing really factual to debate; all that's left is partisan slant, which is not a topic we cover on this blog."

lol, you mean except for the partisan slant of being a total 9/11 official story lap dog?

no john! they arent supposed

no john! they arent supposed to put emotionally evocative scores in documentaries!!! documentaries aren't art! They are supposed to deliver us cold hard facts in the form of a totally unbiased unartistic bland presenation!!!

(sarcasm)

Foreshadow of things to come?

 

 

Truth hurts: the congregation of the New Life Church responds to a letter read out to them from Pastor Ted Haggard, in which he confessed that he was guilty of sexual immorality.
Photo: AP

__

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Group think! It only takes a

Group think!

It only takes a few to make the others follow right along... as they have been conditioned to do in every aspect of life they have ever known.

My advice to these people . . .

PUT DOWN THE KOOL-AID AND WALK AWAY . . .

NOW

(damn, I feel sorry for that baby)

terrorist threat

Why are you promoting a movie which claims that we aren't taking the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously enough? There is no terrorist threat!

Shills!

Anonymous, I sympathize...

But it doesn't help to call people shills. Most people agree that PFT is a bit too close to LIHOP for comfort, but at the same time it informs people of the problems with the commission itself, and is a good intro for people who might die from the shock of full MIHOP exposure all at once.

Let me just say, without "shilling" anyone, that I agree that the Islamic terror threat is a bogus slander and a hate crime and evil to boot--WORSE than the protocols of the elders of Zion because this story is backed by the world's most powerful killing machine. There will be hell to pay for those who wove this intricate web of lies. Bank on it.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

If there is a threat.... the

If there is a threat.... the threat is far more possible due to the war on terror.

the seeds have been planted and we (our government) have been spreading the fertilizer

Shills

Oh, so you are agreeing that slandering Islam is fine as long as it helps the movement. You too Mr. Harvard are a shill planted to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. You are just a member of the power elite your pretend to hate. Is it any surprise that you go to the same university that graduated Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and George W. Bush?

seriously, you HAVE to use a

seriously, you HAVE to use a name if your gonna throw around insults like that. please.

Anonymous

I have to keep my identity secret, so the government can't track me and throw my into Guantanomo for unveling the government operators in the 9/11 truth movement.

They are watching.

Here's what a member of the power elite does after work...

After pushing papers around for 7 hours, helping people with their computer issues, etc., this member of the power elite goes into the heart of the power elite's power base (Harvard Square) and sits with a few signs he had Staples print up for him and mount on posterboard.

He hands out a bunch of DVDs he copied on his power-elite-issue DVD burner at home to passersby, during which time the President of Harvard walks (limps actually) and glances down briefly at one of the signs. He probably has no idea that this is the guy who emailed him to ask him to look into the fact that Harvard's Professor of History Ernest May who served as Senior Adviser to the 9/11 Commission is teaching Harvard freshmen lies about the events of that day. He walks on with a concerned look.

shortly after this encounter, a seemingly deranged woman offers RT her accordion, valued at $250, for just $125. RT has exactly 2 dollars to his name at the moment (not counting student loans or meager retirement savings that cancel each other out) so politely declines. How about I play yous a song for a dollar? She asks RT and the couple who had stopped to get a DVD. Sure--he forks over his second to last dollar (the power elite always want to keep a dollar on hand just in case) and proceeds to experience a painful grinding out of accordion noise, after which he boards the subway to go home in time to vote.

RT, power elite that he is, failed to return a census form and was listed as inactive on the voter rolls, so he had to wait extra long to exercise his democratic privileges. He also did not realize you couldn't bring in political material so he had to take off his 9/11 Truth Now button and place his signs by the security guards' desk.

On his way out the poll guy who asked RT to de-politicize himself on the way in stopped RT and said "Sorry man, it's the rules--for what its's worth, I agree with you." RT thanked the courteous poll worker and stopped outside to chat with local sign holders, one of whome just happened to be in the demolition business. He had never heard of building 7, so RT filled him in. Whoa, said demo guy. I see where you're going with this. OK, thanks.

RT made it home and scrounged around the house including his roommates' rooms for change so as to buy some milk and some dinner. With a total of four dollars in silver, he bought a quart of milk and a small bag of cool ranch doritos. RT then made himself a "dorito sandwich" for dinner (saving the pate and caviar for a special occasion you see.)

Now that RT has had a chance to reflect on his membership in the power elite, a membership that meant scrubbing dishes and toilets for rich kids and for which he is still working to pay, he wonders if he's doing the right thing by using his membership privileges (such as they are) to call the rest of the power elite out on their silence with regard to 9/11. Maybe RT would not have had a dorito sandwich tonight if he would just shut up and take the money that rewards obedient silence on the part of members of the power elite.

Nah, RT prefers sleeping well at night knowing he is not part of the problem, but part of the solution, and what's more, his side is about to break through whether he lives to see it or not.

The last thing RT is thinking about as he lays his head down is what some desperate and frightened shill thinks of him.

Good night!! And, good luck with the treason business!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

"Shills" just not called for.

In fact, it's pretty ridiculous coming from an "anonymous," because it makes you sound like a shill.

There is no terrorist threat?

I beg to differ. There is terrorism occuring on a global scale killing thousands of people almost daily. islamic terrorism, in particular, is a very real threat. it has been for decades. suicide bombers do exist. lets not become so polarized by 9/11 that we cannot acknowledge that islamic terrorism has been a problem for decades.

the engineers of 9/11 used that fact. 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. the engineers of 9/11 did not claim that irate swedish blondes with large breasts perpetrated 9/11 in the name of Yoga. the hung it on an obvious target - islamic extremists.

further - i think the threat of islamic terrorism is a real one. our military adventurism in Iraq - and our torture of muslims - and our utter disregard for their culture - makes islamic terrorism somewhat of a self-fullfilling prophesy. we are ENCOURAGING IT - and it is happening globally on an accelerated basis.

i see the islamic world as a victim of 9/11 for this reason. They - like the american public - are being played. i believe it was the hope of the engineers of 9/11 to actually encourage terrorism - so that another false flag would not be necessary. how else do you explain our open borders and unprotected nuclear power plants?

so - when the Jersey widows talk of their concerns about securing america - they are not totally coming from left field.

just a personal opinion

i really truly cannot stand when people whip out the LIHOP - MIHOP - Limited Hangout accusations.

Look - there is an arrogance inherent in accusing someone of being "too LIHOP" or "not MIHOP enough", etc etc. It always makes me cringe because it implies that the person who is leveling this charge is claiming to know the truth - which none of us truly do.....yet.

I liked DRG's The New Pearl Harbor because he carefully catagorizes evidence - pointing out which subcatagory of LIHOP or MIHOP the evidence falls into.

All too often members of this movement claim to KNOW the truth - stating theories and opinions as facts - and this is why we get tarred by the 'conspiracy theory' brush in the media.

Press For The Truth is a RESPONSIBLE treatment of 9/11. It does not claim to hold all the answers. It demonstrates that there is credible evidence of lies, cover-ups, and wrongdoing - and demands accountability.

Hell - just a review of this site shows that none of us agree on 100% of the issues. we all have different interpretations of the facts. so - i wish people would get out of the habit of accusing good films like Press For The Truth for not forwarding their own pet theories and opinions.

LIHOP is an opinion. MIHOP is an opinion. There is evidence to support both - and combinations of the two.

I resemble that remark.....

....or opinion, I should say.... :)

Worthwhile points, John.

I have expressed my thoughts regarding PFT more than once and tried to enumerate both it's many virtues (the focus on the Jersey Girls, Paul Thompson, the Admin.'s resistance to an investigation, exposure of Zelikow, etc.) as well as its (very major, IMO) flaw: casting suspicion on Pakistani complicity almost exclusively. Which I find very questionable and dubious.

I don't criticize the film merely because it's LIHOP or a Limited Hangout....it's the specific nature of the LH that bothers me. For example, "Crossing the Rubicon" is somewhat LIHOP and I highly value that piece of work, however imperfect.

To me, the Pakistan PFT "drawback" is very much worth noting and severely sullies my view of the film. To paraphrase John, just my opinion.

Also, speaking for myself, I have no doubt that certain theories I hold about 9/11 may ultimately be proven to be in error. Like all of us (that didn't participate in the attacks), I'm on the outside looking in and don't have answers, just informed (hopefully) guesses.

I do know one thing about PFT: in no way would there be any reason as far as content or style why it might possibly appeal to one gender more than the other.... :)

Bwahahaha

"I do know one thing about PFT: in no way would there be any reason as far as content or style why it might possibly appeal to one gender more than the other.... :)"

"Which I find very questionable and dubious..."

Here we go again...

Altruist... did you not hear Paul say, "I'm not saying Pakistan is the answer..." (shot of White House), etc...? Did you not hear Paul ask if "terrorists" were still being led by American intelligence, etc...?

Do you think I'm questionable and dubious? If PFT is questionable and dubious than so am I.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Of course not....

....we just have a difference of opinion on a major aspect of this film...

You do great work, Jon...I'm a fan....

Believe me, I don't want to beat a dead Hangout, I mean horse :)....just felt JA's thoughts deserved a response, since my views with PFT are representative of what he was talking about....

Despite my misgivings about PFT, I try to consistently call attention to its virtues, and I do give it out (to completely random people of no particular demographic, of course).

Good.

That's all I ask. That you at least promote it. I've seen people look at me with "glee" over the fact that they now have a movie they can show people without feeling the slightest bit "crazy."
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

When...

This movie was released, 911Truth.org said something that was very profound... "Help us help this movie..."

There's a reason they said that. It appeals to everyone. Of all ages.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

.

.

Sorry Jon, I'll never get there with this film....

....while I think it can be a good transitional film for those that have no idea the OV is a complete lie and can't comprehend full-blown MIHOP in one step/film.....the scapegoating of Pakistan is just way, way overdone....and far more likely US, Israeli, British means, motive & opportunity ignored....so, if I can give out 4-5 films to a person, I might include this....with caveats that they don't just watch PFT.

There is no way I would give just this movie, without others to follow up with, to someone.

If we reach critical mass in this movement, it wouldn't surprise me at all that Pakistan would be burned (not that they aren't involved at some minor level) to protect the real interests that benefited from the psy-op that was 9/11. And this movie, inadvertantly or not, kind of sets that burning of Pakistan up. IMO.

Show...

This movie first, and you can't go wrong. That's my opinion.

As far as setting up the burning of Pakistan... don't you mean setting up the burning of the intelligence apparatus within the United States, and Britain that made Pakistan the "Terrorist Farm" that it is today? Americans don't want to invade ANYBODY. At least not the ones that know any better. We're not angry with Pakistan, or its' citizens. They are people just like us, and deserve the same respect that we expect from them.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What I was trying (and failing) to convey is that...

....the interests that executed 9/11 could conceivably try to "blame Pakistan" if the American public wakes up to what a sham the OV is and somebody has to take a fall....somebody would have to be blamed/sacrificed as another line of defense for those interests.....

Based on what I think I've learned, Pakistan and the ISI are pretty much controlled by our government and the CIA, respectively. I fail to see how Pakistan was a beneficiary of 9/11, or its consequences, and why the ISI would wire Atta $100K. It just doesn't ring authentic to me. I get why our military-industrial-complex benefits. Or Big Oil. Or Israel. But not Pakistan. Helping 9/11 would just seem to bring a sh_tstorm of hell on their heads. But hey, I'm not an expert in these things.

No, the American people are not angry with Pakistan...yet...but if the corporate media machine were to crank up its propaganda with Pakistan in its sights...how long do you think it would take before they were demonized, on whatever pretext, in the eyes of average Americans?

Not benefitted?

White House Sells F-16s To 9/11 Co-Conspirator Pakistan

US 'to offer F-16s to Pakistan'

U.S. Approves Sale of Missiles to Pakistan

U.S. Hopes To Win Hearts In Pakistan

U.S. Gives Pakistan 8 Military Aircraft Free Of Charge

Why would the ISI wire $100,000 to Atta? That's a damn good question wouldn't you say?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

To me, it possibly says....

....thanks Pakistan, for the potential alibi.....

But then, I am a "conspiracy theorist".... :)

It just makes sense to me that Pakistan is given carrots if it plays along and will be punished ("exposure" of the ISI/Atta "connection"?) if it doesn't...

Hey, like I said, I'm on the outside looking in...and I don't have the answers...just among the possible answers for who the real villains in all this are...Pakistan seems like the weakest possibllity to me....

piffle

"Then we get into World Trade Center 7, and I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to doubt this is anything less than a CT film cleverly disguised."

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not the ONLY mention of WTC7 throughout this lengthy analysis? He'd have been better off not even mentioning it at all, because he says absolutely nothing about WTC7 after this snitty little statement and WTF does the statement mean anyways?? He mentioned WTC7, makes a snooty little statement that means ABSOLUTELY nothing and then moves on.

This is SO typical of the 911 debunker shill tactic. They either IGNORE the most damning evidence, or they mention it briefly, make a snide, usually irrelevant comment, and quickly move on. That's right: "nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving. After all, it's only a smoking gun. Just keep it moving, people."

their efforts

are hardly worth evaluating.

My favorite...

Then we get griping about how President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on meeting with the commission together, in private, and not under oath. More creepy music. More griping about them not being under oath. But of course if you really believe that Bush was lying about 9-11, do you think that being under oath would change that?

That is the dumbest statement I've ever seen from a debunker. The difference between lying, and lying under oath is whether or not you get to go to jail for perjury.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

But of course...

Since NEITHER were under oath, NEITHER had to tell the truth.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The hypocrisy is......

Even the 9/11 Commissioners doubt NORAD and feel they lied...

However, if WE make the same statement, we're labeled as "kooky conspiracy theorists"...

Gotta love it.

/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

IMHO

This thing of letting the POTUS and VP testify together, in private (holding hands, no doubt), and NOT under oath was without a doubt the MOST egregious failure of the 911 Commission! And the fact that their testimony was taken this way is some of the best evidence of a cover-up I can think of.

That calls for the CREEPIEST DAMNED MUSIC SCORE I CAN THINK OF!!!!

I'm thinking slasher flick material or some such: maybe some Psycho-style screeching violins . . .

And, yes, it is supremely idiotic to suggest that since we've already made up our minds he is lying, it should make no difference whether or not The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES testified under oath? Ummm, I think it's the other way around. We MIGHT be more inclined to believe the President if we knew what he said and if he had said it under oath. However, we don't have that luxury, so yeah, we're gonna assume he lied just like he's done a gazillion other times.

More...

Here the film engages in a little casual dishonesty. First we are shown a clip that the first hijacking was reported to the military at 8:38 AM (true). Then the announcer intones, "The last plane was reported to have crashed in Pennsylvania just after 10:00 AM (true enough, but the screen says 10:06, which is false; the 9-11 Commission concluded that the plane crashed at 10:03).

"a seismic study authorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concluded that the crash happened at 10:06:05 a.m. [Kim and Baum, 2002 ; San Francisco Chronicle, 12/9/2002]"

One of the Jersey girls laughs and says, "That's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

And that is a lot of crap. First, even if we use their times, that's not even an hour and a half.

The military was contacted at 8:38 am. That means no military jets managed to intercept any of the hijacked planes for an hour and 18 minutes. 1:18. They're right, that's not even an hour and a half.

However, Lorie Van Auken may not have been aware of the fact that they would reference when the military was contacted when she said what she did. It is VERY possible she may have been referring to when Betty Ong first contacted Vanessa Minter at 8:21 a.m.

(8:21 a.m.): Flight 11 Attendant Ong Phones in Hijack Report, Officials Doubt Validity
Flight 11 attendant Betty Ong calls Vanessa Minter, an American Airlines reservations agent in North Carolina, using a seatback Airfone from the back of the plane. Ong speaks to Minter and an unidentified man for about two minutes. Then supervisor Nydia Gonzalez is patched in to the conference call as well. Ong says, “The cockpit’s not answering. Somebody’s stabbed in business class and ... I think there’s mace ... that we can’t breathe. I don’t know, I think We’re getting hijacked.” A minute later, she continues, “And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s ... we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something ... I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.” As this quote shows, other flight attendants relay information from the front of the airplane to Ong sitting in the back, and she periodically waits for updates. She goes on, “I think the guys are up there [in the cockpit]. They might have gone there—jammed the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can’t even get inside.” The first four and a half minutes of the call is later played in a public 9/11 Commission hearing. Ong apparently continues speaking to Gonzalez and Minter until the plane crashes. [New York Observer, 2/11/2004; 9/11 Commission, 1/27/2004] 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey, who has heard more recordings than have been made public, says that some officials on the ground greet her account skeptically: “They did not believe her. They said, ‘Are you sure?’ They asked her to confirm that it wasn’t air-rage. Our people on the ground were not prepared for a hijacking.” [New York Times, 4/18/2004 Sources: Bob Kerrey]

That is an hour and 45 minutes if you go by 10:06 for Flight 93. An hour and 42 minutes if you go by 10:03.

In other words, "that's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Actually, the questions submitted by the family members were...

NORAD
March 18, 2004

1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.

Linda Slobodian writes in “Norad on Heightened Alert: Role of air defence agency rapidly transformed in wake of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks”

“Where was Norad, the multimillion-dollar, 24-hour eyes and ears of North American skies, when the hijacked planes embarked on their sinister missions?

Ironically, Norad was doing its job: peering 300 kilometres out into the Air Defence Identification Zone encircling North America. Its task: to help assess, within two minutes, if each of the 7,000 incoming aircraft every day is friend or foe….

When the second plane hit the other World Trade Center tower, Norad swiftly shifted its attention to help prevent possible further attacks.

Norad was instrumental in getting fighter jets -- normally on 15-minute alert -- airborne within eight minutes. ”

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/calgaryherald101301.html

2. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification?

3. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks?

4. Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

5. Were surveillance satellites orbiting North American airspace on 9/11?

• What exactly does the satellite imaging reveal?
• What companies own these satellites?
• Where are the records and logs for these orbits?

Some of the questions the commission REFUSED to answer.

Wasn't it when it was discovered that NORAD lied to the 9/11 Commission that the Jersey Girls questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 Report?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What was that...

About "casual dishonesty?"
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

LOL @ "the debunkers"

You know, as much as I laugh at the "fake plane at the pentagon/no planes/fake Osama/hijacker alive" posits, nothing is more sad than the people obsessed with "debunking" the 9/11 activists.

What's more, is they claim to hate the Bush administration and are anti war, yet go out of their way to use O'reilly and Hannity talking points. I was JUST waiting for a debunker to try and "debunk" 9/11 Press for Truth. I'd easily call it the best documentary of the year, next to Iraq for Sale and TerrorStorm.

If ya guys think the "no planers" are bad, the debunkers seem even more obsessed and out to lunch.

According to them, were all "9/11 deniers" and we somehow dont believe 9/11 happened, or that we believe no Arabs were involved. That I believe shows how grasping at straws these idiots have come too.

Oh no... what will I say to this?

Next we get into the crappola about Phillip Zelikow. The movie makes it seem like the Jersey Girls did some crack investigative work.

Kristen Breitweiser: "We have found out that not only did he serve on the transition team for the Bush Administration, that he was a person who wrote a draft memo for the setup of the Bush Administration's National Security Council, that he was an individual who wrote the preemptive war strategy that was eventually used for the war in Iraq, that he's a close friend of Condoleezza Rice's, we want him to resign."

One thing that is soft-played in this film (but it's not hard to read between the lines) is that the Jersey Girls and many of the other family members portrayed in this film are also anti-war activists, who not only opposed the war in Iraq, but also the one in Afghanistan. While informing us of the supposed conflict of interest of Zelikow, the filmmakers make no effort to advise us of conflicts of interest for the family members.

Where does it say that Kristen Breitweiser was inaccurate?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

And...

What's wrong with being anti-death and destruction, and chaos, and torture, and how is that a conflict of interest when seeking the truth about 9/11? It isn't. If anything, it means you're more likely to try and find out how and why it happened so it doesn't happen again.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

And...

Not only did he serve on the transition team for the Bush Administration, write a draft memo for the setup of the Bush Administration's National Security Council, write the preemptive war strategy that was eventually used for the war in Iraq, and is a close friend of Condoleezza Rice's, but...

Click Here

This IS a conflict of interest, and WAS NOT addressed, and is MOST CERTAINLY NOT crappola.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It's...

Not even worth my time.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Not really

other than to have good, fact-based responses ready for the people who will buy into this load of crap which is nothing short of a smear job in a "fact-free zone." It's just one sneer shy of an Ann Coulter -style hatchet job and we all know how much media attention Coulter attacking the Jersey Girls has garnered in the past. So, gotta be ready! Dems may now have control of the House, but how that impacts the truth movement remains to be seen. And I'm not particularly hopeful that it will be a positive impact.

It...

Just makes me angry. It's all bullshit. Every word. It's a bunch of pro-Bush people sticking up for their fascist dictator of a "President."
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

So what he is really saying

So what he is really saying is that if his wife was murdered, it would be of no significance to him who actually pulled the trigger. In fact, it wouldn't even matter if they just didn't bother to investigate it for 411 days or to indict the son-of-a-bitch that 'supposedly' did it.

Ok...I'll buy that.