Grand Lake Theatre 9/11 Truth Film Festival A Huge Success!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Our two-day 9/11 Film Festival and Speakers Event at the historic Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, California, began early Monday afternoon, September 10th, and culminated Tuesday evening, September 11th, with a standing room only crowd in the main auditorium which seats 630 people, and was a wild success by any standard.

Jeanette McKinley, an artist living across the street from ground zero on September 11th, who provided dust samples to Dr. Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage, gave two presentations.

There were two sneak previews of a new independent film, The Reflecting Pool, with in-person presentations both days by the three Los Angeles producers, stars and cinematographer: Jarek Kupsc, Joseph Culp and Jodie Baltazar. The Reflecting Pool is a dramatic film, not a documentary, and does a superb job of dramatizing a very complex and difficult subject. The Reflecting Pool will premiere on November 3rd at the Fort Lauderdale Film Festival. Visit

There was a premiere of a new video, "9/11 Let's Get Empirical" (a speech by Dr. David Ray Griffin on his new book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking) followed with a presentation by the film maker, Ken Jenkins.

Other film screened:
Hijacking Catastrophe - 9/11, Fear and the Selling of the American Empire
NYC - Ground Zero 9/11/06 (with 9/11 First Responders and Dr. William Pepper)
Zeitgeist (Parts 2 & 3)
9/11 Press For Truth
9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions

Short discussions of films by instructor Mickey Huff, Dr. Paul Rea and Jim Hoffman.

Keytnote: Richard Gage, AIA, "9/11 Blueprint For Truth: Architects and Engineers Examine the Evidence"

Thanks to:

sf911truthalliance: Carol Brouillet, Brian Good, Judy Shelton, Hummux, Sandy Cashmark, Camille Souve, Diane Fershel, Dana Carlson

Bonnie Faulkner and Yarrow Mahko, Guns & Butter

Alan Machaan, owner, Grand Lake Theatre

Larry Eisenstat, KKGN, Green 960AM

John Parulis, 9/11TruthBurn (Note the steel beam burned through with thermite in the third photo of Richard Gage at the podium.)

The crowd was enthusiastic, and the event went on until midnight.

Kudos to everyone involved!

Bonnie Faulkner
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

flashes and missiles

The event overall was excellent with tremendous organizing to pack the theater -- great job by everyone. RIchard's talk is getting better every time I see it. I wished I could have seen all the talks.

I did have to get up and comment on "The Reflecting Pool," however, which showed just prior to Richard's talk, since this film highlights flashes, missiles, pods, and no Boeings, claims well debunked and years old ( ). Additionally, it does not touch on our strongest evidence at all except for B7, and makes the common 6 walls error on the Pentagon (, among others.

I was glad to be able to talk to the filmmaker, who seemed well intentioned and quickly admitted that the research is now at least 2 years old. But he also seemed not to be aware that scientific organizations based on researching the 9/11 evidence do exist. He believed that the answers to questions like the flashes, "cannot be known," yet Ken Jenkins has an excellent simple physics explanation for them which brushes aside the need for claims about missiles, lasers and pods, ideas that make average people think we're nutty.

I mentioned several organizations now exist which he could refer people to which do take a look at the evidence using the scientific method,, and He said that their website has links, but when I looked, the links go to a group of sites which include letsroll911, serendipity, and at least one dead link.

Watching this film was frustrating because it is something we all want -- a drama -- yet the evidence it presents risks turning away critically thinking people, while growing the pod and missile crowd.

Interestingly, it never showed the collapses of the Twin Towers at all, which I found strange.

Camille's good photo and essay report is here -

I just watched it last

I just watched it last night, and I have a different take on the issue of pods and no Boeings.

The reporter is initially interested in the flashes when he is given a tape which shows them, but the family member convinces him that it is of no value.

The reporter meets a potential "Deep Throat" in a parking garage, but when he starts raving about holograms and no planes, he decides that the guy is a nut and gets away quickly. The family member who set up the meeting apologizes, saying that he SOUNDED legitimate on the phone.

I took it to mean that there is a lot out there of dubious origin and value, therefore the movie highlights the need to sift through all the misinformation and disinformation. It was not an endorsement of either of these perspectives.

The best parts dealt with the former Soviet reporter's observations about the nature of the media in the US and USSR -- "The difference is we knew we were being lied to, so we learned to read between the lines instead of assuming anything we were told was true" -- the Fox News-style treatment of 9/11 skeptics, and the persecution of reporters asking legitimate questions. Also, showing a family member instigating, assisting, and pressing the reluctant reporter's quest suggests that this is not something which dishonors the families.

I understand that the film is not yet in its final form, so it may tighten up before it is shown for real.


The filmmaker actually explained to Vic that the pods/flashes thing was simply what initially got the reporter interested, just as it was what initially got HIM interested. It was simply used as a device to get the story rolling. It is not pursued any further in the film partially because Jarek recognizes that it is not strong evidence.

Eschew fundamentalism. Egad.

front and center with debunked evidence

>> It is not pursued any further in the film partially because Jarek recognizes that it is not strong evidence.

It's worse than just being weak evidence - missiles are refuted evidence and are the tools used most often to discredit us to average people.

And unfortunately the filmmaker won't be there to explain this to most people watching. People like Steve Jones donn't come to the movement because they saw films saying missiles were fired. That's why GeorgeWashington's sticky post on this site is as important as it is.

If we want to pack the movement full of people endlessly debating where all the passengers were disappeared to, films like this will be the way to do it. Quite a few complete newbies to 9/11 truth got up to the mic to ask him detailed questions about flashes and missiles, not about the standdown, not about Mineta, not about the put options, or the questions of the families, etc. Question after question was flash/missile. That's when I decided I needed to say something.

I understand your point

and even agree with it, to an extent. I just don't think it's as big a deal as you do. The film is not meant to be a documentary, it's meant to tell a story that will hopefully spark people to do their own searching.

It's not like everything hangs on any one film or documentary, or on any given person being 100% right about everything. I am at peace with that.

Yes, but

I agree. But since it was the only film highlighted in here with a link, it had a focus on it, and so I felt the need to respond to it. I would prefer to ignore it and focus on the positives, otherwise, since it was such a positive event overall.


"I would prefer to ignore it and focus on the positives..."

That would be a very welcome move. Pass the idea on.

Great Job et al

Richard Gage was fabulous and even on 3 hrs sleep.

Was that piece of steel on the stage (to the left of pic)...

during Richard Gage's presentation from your "Burning Man" demonstration John ?

Looks like a thick old "lump".

This (to me) looked like a mouth watering event and I look forward to watching / listening to any recordings made.

Thanks to all that made the event possible, you're all TRUE patriots and heroes.

Best wishes

Thanks, as always

for your kind support, 911veritas! Maria Gilardin videotaped Richard Gage's presentation, and I am expecting a copy from her. I was so busy running around trying to get the sound system functional that I forgot to record it!

I am also expecting a copy of Jim Hoffman's presentation, which I heard was very unifying in its message.

Hoffman unifying? that would

Hoffman unifying? that would be a welcome change from him. Hoffman does some good work(though i disagree with his conclusions on the Pentagon)but often shoots himself in the foot by attacking people and getting all condescending and absolutist. always telling people what and what not to talk about and stuff. it gets old being treated like a child by the disinfo police and told whats best for us.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

A wee bit of sarcasm

that was.

Critique, not attack

>>shoots himself in the foot by attacking people

Hoffman critiques. There is a difference. Conflating critique with attack is a common mistake when someone who is able to critique the evidence does so and others disagree. Like intimidation, describing critiques as attacks protects the errors from awareness and keeps the focus on personalities.

Hoffman has a long history of personal attack for his ability to critique, primarily around the issue of the Pentagon -


that so many people perceive his critiques as attacks. At what point does he accept some responsibility for that mis-perception?

One person's critique is another person's attack. It is somewhat a matter of semantics.

im not conflating, he takes

im not conflating, he takes it further than critique sometimes, thats how i see it. and i was just wondering because im not sure, but are you Victoria Ashley? Hoffmans girlfriend correct? and why do you continue to accuse me of intimidation? calling what you perceive as a legit critique an attack is intimidation? isnt that a difference of opinion? this is getting ridiculous. i asked you once before when you ridiculously accused me of intimidation to please leave me alone. im asking again.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


Correct, sir. Note that I have never made that quite valid observation directly, myself.

valid observation, yet

valid observation, yet somehow im sure i'll be accused of intimidation for asking. i honestly wasnt sure though, thats why i asked.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


>> yet somehow im sure i'll be accused of intimidation for asking

More of the same, claims without substance.

When someone says something like "what's next, book burning?", the fucntion is to color people's viewpoints, not address a fact, since no one is advocating censorship, only critique of the issue. But by saying over the top stuff like that, you influence people emotionally even if you don't intend to, in the same way that other labels do. Even my using the phrase "over the top" influences people. But since I've never burned any books nor advocated such a position, it fits.

I'm dropping this discussion for the sake of the rest of the event content and all the hard work put in.

so "over the top" isnt allowed now?

and for the record, the book burning line was directed at people who vote others down simply for mentioning a Jim Fetzer or other clear disinfo artists as if they advocate all of their work. lets try this one more time:

"i asked you once before when you ridiculously accused me of intimidation to please leave me alone. im asking again."

and tell Jim i said hi. OOPS! is that intimidation too? too over the top?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Yes, it was from Burning Man

Forgot to answer your question, sorry :)

thermite vs steel. thermite wins

Ya, that was the piece of steel we destroyed at Burning Man. I am working on a mini doc of the whole TruthBurn event.

I have a problem with...


Back to topic...
My step father is a tremendous business man. Case in point, I have this product that I'm working on and we got to naming it. I had all these great creative names and he said, "Name it something that people will know what it is when they hear it." Nobody calls a "guitar pick" a "plectrum" - it's technical name.

Why don't we call these movies what they are. Try these titles on for size:

Controlled Demolition of the WTC's - Unrefutable Evidence
How a 757 did NOT Fly into the Pentagon
How to Start a War for Dummies (my favorite)

Imagine driving by your movie theater and seeing some of those titles. Gets a lot more attention than "Loosechange," or "Reflecting Pool."

To that I say: 1)

To that I say:

1) Unrefutable isn't a word. Have you found some 'irrefutable' evidence of CD at WTC?

2) A 757 didn't fly into the Pentagon? I'll wait for it to come out on video (get it?)

3) What's so dumb about achieving a long-term objective of permanent military presence in the Middle East, enormous vested interest in the business of creating a new country and economy. Doesn't sound too dumb to me. Nefarious, yes. Dumb, no. What it should be called is:
"How to start a war based on lies, greed, and Imperialism, and how to sell it to dummies."
Like it or not that's exactly what went down.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Thanks for the report and thanks Victoria

Thank you, Victoria for the valid information about the potential public relations damage caused by the inclusion of pods/missiles in the Reflecting Pool movie.

Both yourself and Jim Hoffman have done an enormous amount of selfless service to improve the quality of materials to the public. Thank you also for the Herculean effort that you contributed to form the new Scholar's for 911 Justice organization.

It has been refreshing to see a growing number of others (on forum) with similar lessoned tolerance for the public perception of screwball theorists leading the 911 truth movement. Rather than being an insignificant factor, the pods/missiles theories often serve to effectively alienate the mainstream public.


The pods/missiles thing has been quite effectively marginalized- almost as much as the no-planes theories. People bashing the truth movement don't generally bother with either any more, because they know such attacks don't carry much weight. The movement's credibility is not threatened by these ideas. To say that it is is to underestimate both the intelligence and critical thinking abilities of your audience and the power of the truth movement, neither of which is a good thing.

I agree with your comments about the work of Jim and Vic, aside from the Pentagon analysis, which pales in comparison to the value and importance of Jim's WTC analyses.

Belated but necessary

I've come late to this but hope this will yet be seen:

Yarrow Mahko? Co-producer of the radio show Guns and Butter? One of my favorites - thanks to your archives I've followed all your programs back into 2005.

Unfortunately I am puzzled by your assertion that the pod / missile / flash delusions with regard to the second tower crash have been marginalized. How is this possible, when the very same demonstrably fraudulent operator who sensationalized the pod (along with "the plume" and a number of other red herrings), David von Kleist, has been featured several times recently on what in my estimation is one of the most important radio programs featuring the 9/11 truth movement... Guns and Butter.

Why, Yarrow, why?

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."


Was that theory featured on our show? No. What was presented was perfectly legitimate information, and some pretty hilarious music.

I stand by my statement that the pods/missiles theory has been marginalized by the vast majority of the movement.

I completely disagree with those who think vonKleist is some kind of radioactive hell demon out to destroy the truth movement. He may be wrong, but he is not a nefarious character. I've met him and talked to him (at a conference), and in my judgement he is a good guy and sincere in his pursuit of the truth as he sees it. I could be wrong, but I'm going with my gut, not the judgement of other people.

I also disagree with those who are afraid for the movement's credibility. If I was so concerned with my credibility I wouldn't have been working on this show since 2002, when my views about 9/11 were far less popular. The truth is unstoppable and will win in the end, no matter what.

I respect our listeners' right to make up their own minds about anything we present, and hopefully they respect our right as the producers to air what we feel is valuable, even if they disagree about the value. No one has a monopoly on the truth, and at this point we have many more questions than answers and need to keep open minds. And we need to stay united in our quest for the truth and not attack each other.

That is all the comment I will make publicly. The subject has been beaten to death and blown out of proportion. The world is still turning and the truth is still rising.

I'm glad that you value our show, thank you.

Zeitgeist part 1 not shown?

Why wasn't part 1 of Zeitgeist wasn't screened? I thought its insights into religion were a very important part of the documentary.

Zeitgeist part One

We originally planned on showing it, but I needed to edit down Ken's "Let's Get Empirical" from 90 minutes to 60 minutes, so that it could fit into the program. We had to choose between the full version of Zeitgeist, or the Full version of the latest David Ray Griffin film. There was some good criticisms made about part one of Zeitgeist by one of our group-

"The authors of this film, in spite of their sophistication about many
important issues, unfortunately seem to be totally clueless as to the
nature and purpose of religion. If one were to take their argument in
Part 1 and apply it to science, it would be like saying that science
should be shunned because the scientific method is part of a
conspiracy by scientists to create a way to blow things up and control
people with fear. Should we ban science because it is used to make
bombs? Science has done good things AND bad things. The same is true
of religion.

They leap from their critique of organized religion to an attack on
theism itself. This will turn off a lot of people and cause others
(like myself) to be embarrassed by the know-it-all attitude of the
narrator. Parts 2 and 3 include a lot of important material and I want
to recommend this film, but Part 1 makes me cringe.

They also fail to reconcile Part 1 with the montage of images and
commentary at the end of the film, which includes many highly theistic
religious figures, including none other than Jimi Hendrix, a very
religious man, whose statement about the "power of love" vs. the "love
of power" is one of the most potent and concise of the entire

The authors appear to be completely unaware that religion is primarily
about personal spiritual values, in the same way that science is about
physical things, and philosophy is about the meaning of it all.
Religion, in spite of its myths and abuses, functions as the
conceptual repository for the VALUES of civilization. And what about
PERSONAL religion, which is practiced completely apart from religious

The ability to appreciate love and to recognize what is good and true
requires the development a concept registry, just like an
understanding of physics or an examination of the merits of Plato.
Science, philosophy and religion ask different kinds of questions and
look for different kinds of answers, but it takes all three to get a
full picture of reality.

Philosophically, the film seems to advocate "being" over "becoming",
as if we should only do one and not the other. Why not BOTH?
"Becoming" suggests direction, growth and being alive. From the
perspective of personal growth, the notion of the sun as a metaphor
for God seems quite apt and even artistic.

To the person who thinks independently about these things (apart from
church dogma and doctrine) the idea of God usually suggests, at the
very least, the idea of a "higher self". We become what we worship.

If a person "worships" power and wealth, then that person's life will
become focused upon the acquisition of power and wealth above all
else. If a person thinks of God as the personal inspiration for all
they hold to be good, true and beautiful, then that person will grow
spiritually in those directions.

Values -- good or bad -- are expressed personally, in personal
relationships and by institutional constructs that are created and
agreed upon by PERSONS, not by giraffes, artichokes, lamp posts, or
moon rocks. Values are meaningless apart from their personal
expression. As a matter of fact, it's impossible even to think about
values without imagining their personal implications and consequences.
How can there be love if nobody's home?

Is it surprising that God is thought of as a personal presence?
Meeting someone that we respect and admire brings out the best in us.
A list of virtues written on a piece of paper does not have the same
kind of transformative effect. But where do we look to find someone
who is truly worthy of worship? Do we abandon the idea because human
company inevitably comes up short?

What would this film have us do? Give up our reach for higher
spiritual values? Throw away our relationship to God? To be replaced
by what? Where else can we look to find a living reality that has the
power to inspire and transform the way we relate to each other?

If we are "all one", as the film suggests, why is there so much
fighting going on? How does this idea accommodate our difficult but
meaningful personal relationships and an independent point of view?
Without individual selfhood and personal relationships, how can we
learn to love and grow?

The film does not bother to define the term "God" or explore the
depths of its possible meaning. Instead it sadly attempts to discredit
relatively advanced religious belief (that God has something to do
with love) by associating it with primitive religious beliefs (hell
and damnation). It also makes no effort to sort out and separate
church dogma from useful religious concepts.

In the rush to make their case that Jesus never existed, they
completely overlook his extraordinary and unprecedented teachings
about the nature of God, as recorded by his early followers. The
church legends ABOUT Jesus WERE plagiarized and added into Christian
doctrine in order to win converts from the existing cults of the day.
This is an old strategy that not surprisingly explains the historic
repetition of mythological ideas. Jesus did not teach these things.

Our problem is not that theism is a fraud, although it HAS been abused
in the ways that the film describes. Getting rid of religion is not
the solution, what we need is BETTER religion, just like we need
better science and better philosophy (and better government). Just as
getting rid of science would throw us back into the arms of
superstition and ignorance, ridiculing people's sincere inner reach
for higher values does NOT make the world a better place.

REAL religion (true spiritual values) may in fact be our most
effective leverage for recapturing and restoring the "Zeitgeist". "

Frankly, I was sick for a week in August, and overwhelmed with work after my return from a week in Colorado, and didn't have time to edit the DRG film- so it was easier for me, personally, and for us, to just axe Part I of Zeitgeist, and let Ken show the whole of Let's Get Empirical.

Despite the very good criticisms of Zeitgeist, I know that I personally love Part One ,as it confirms some of my own research, and I think it makes some very strong, valuable points, But I can understand how it could alienate people that we would like to win over. We did table copies of Zeitgeist in the lobby- the full version and the partial version- and by just including it in the film festival- I'm sure that it helped to raise awareness of the film's existence and should draw more people to check it out online. I have noticed that most of the ardent committed 9/11 truth activists do have a very strong spiritual foundation/belief system which gives them the strength to challenge the dominant belief system. I wouldn't identify it as "Christian, Buddhist, Jewish" or anything in particular, beyond a deeply personal spiritual sense of connection with something that transcends our own brief lifetimes.

Carol Brouillet


"I have noticed that most of the ardent committed 9/11 truth activists do have a very strong spiritual foundation/belief system which gives them the strength to challenge the dominant belief system. I wouldn't identify it as "Christian, Buddhist, Jewish" or anything in particular, beyond a deeply personal spiritual sense of connection with something that transcends our own brief lifetimes."

Without such spiritual perspectives beyond my own brief lifetime I would definitely be lost in despair and hopelessness.

Thanks for the interesting critique of Part 1. I loved it, personally, but I can also see validity in what the person is saying. It may be a bit simplistic, but I found it completely fascinating.

Thanks Carol

Thanks for raising these points. The truth movement only benefits from inclusivity. I place religion and spirituality on two separate subject lines. For me, 911 truth Is a spiritual practice and a quest. An argument can be made that everything is spiritual because everything is equally manifest, the truth is about how this all works out for the greatest good for the greatest number, with harm to none.

Thanks for your tireless efforts.

how much

how much did that thing weigh? thickness?


was 3000lbs, if you are referring to the sign. If you just mean the piece shown above, I am not sure. It wasn't meant to prove anything, just to be a symbolic demonstration. Check out and contact John Parulis, if you have further questions.