Snowshoe Films - Paul Zarembka - Hidden History of 9-11-2001
Reprehensor Thu, 10/04/2007 - 3:05pm
Paul Zarembka, (Professor of Economics, SUNY Buffalo), talks about the content of The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, until recently, the only critical examination of 9/11 to be offered by such a prestigious publishing house. (Hidden History is now joined by Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11" from the UC Press up there on the top shelf.)
Snowshoe films also chronicled Zarembka's confrontation with Zelikow.
- Login to post comments
that Zelikow confrontation
that Zelikow confrontation is classic. thats the kind of stuff i watch when i need a smile. the guilt is so obvious.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
WOW... Had not seen that Zelikow - two questions before...
He was so sure of himself brushing off the hijacker question, even though he looked as though he was lying...
but when it came to WTC7... damn... his final answer was to get up (even leaving his lunch) grab his case a scooot... lmao
Thanks for this, suprised I had not seen it before.
Best wishes
seriously? thats an instant
seriously? thats an instant classic right there man, i put it on my favorites list as soon as i saw it.
edit: unfuckingbelievable. nevermind.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
The Empire of The City - Google Video
I agree with most of the stuff in this film except for a couple of the "solutions" at the end. I think we should all vote and participate in our democracy and I think we can adjust the system and not have to abandon it. Let's see.
The Empire of "The City"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
Refleksions on Zarembkas point regarding WTC 7
Zarambkas (and presumably others') speculation on WTC 7 as an error in the operation, is interesting.
IF WTC 7 was an engineered event, a CD - and it is certainly difficult to come to any other conclusion, absent some very good explanation or counterargument - there are two possibilities:
1) It was rigged and demolished AS A QIUCK DECISION by Silverstein and Co. after a (supposedly) genuine SURPRISE-attack on WTC 1 and 2, in order to benefit from insurrance (or something the like).
2) The building was rigged beforehand, the plan to bring it down being instigated long before the attacks on 9/11 actually occured.
Possibility nr. 1 seems de facto impossible. To contemplate, plan and execute the rigging for a perfect CD within 7 hours, in a building on fire and without people noticing gear and equipment (explosives) being carried into the building, seems a quite far fetched scenario. Possibility nr. 2 must be the case!
Now: A possible countercritique could be "Well, to suppose that they would run the risk of bringing the building to the ground fore all people to see is ridiculous, therefore the CD-hypothesis is ridiculous". A very plausible scenario, though, is that WTC 7 was SUPPOSED to go down in the IMMEDIATE wake of the collapse of the North Tower (but didn't due to damage to the CD-mechanism in the building, forcing the perpetraitors to fix this damage and continue the CD 7 hours later), since 1) this would mask its collapse as an IMMEDIATE result of the falling North Tower and 2) would have all attention (and therefore all - at least all nearby - cameras and videorecorders) pointed at the North Tower and its collapse (like the basic trick of magicians). FURTHERMORE, this scenario would explain that the CD of WTC 7 would not need to have been done in an A-NORMAL way (like the two towers) fx. top-down or more sideways and twisted, but could be rigged as a normal "bottom-first" CD, since all attention would be focused elsewhere.
Thomas
Top Section of Tower that Appeared to Break Away???
The top section of (which Tower?) that appeared to be breaking loose and falling away from the building but disintegrated instead might have been
planned to fall on 7?
just a thought.
That was the south tower...
... which was too far away from Bldg 7 in order to possibly hit it.
No, on the contrary!
No, the point is the exact opposite!! The point is, that nothing (significant) was SUPPOSED to have hit WTC 7. The cloud of dust and debris would mask the fact that nothing hit WTC 7(which, again, would have been the INTENTION of the perpetraitors, according to this hypothesis), and since the collapse of the North Tower would have drawn all the attention, and WTC 7 would collapse in the IMMEDIATE wake of the Nort Towers collapse, it would not afterward be possible (or, at least, it would be highly speculative and difficult to verify amidst all the dust, smoke and debris that filled the air) to say that nothing hit WTC 7. The official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 would then be that large parts of the North tower had hit WTC 7 and brought it down. Again: the hypothesis is, then, that they miscalculated, and something from the north tower actually DID hit and damaged the collapse-mechanism in WTC 7, wherefore the collapse was interrupted and came only much later.
Sincerely, Thomas
No, on the contrary!
No, the point is the exact opposite!! The point is, that nothing (significant) was SUPPOSED to have hit WTC 7. The cloud of dust and debris would mask the fact that nothing hit WTC 7(which, again, would have been the INTENTION of the perpetraitors, according to this hypothesis), and since the collapse of the North Tower would have drawn all the attention, and WTC 7 would collapse in the IMMEDIATE wake of the Nort Towers collapse, it would not afterward be possible (or, at least, it would be highly speculative and difficult to verify amidst all the dust, smoke and debris that filled the air) to say that nothing hit WTC 7. The official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 would then be that large parts of the North tower had hit WTC 7 and brought it down. Again: the hypothesis is, then, that they miscalculated, and something from the north tower actually DID hit and damaged the collapse-mechanism in WTC 7, wherefore the collapse was interrupted and came only much later.
Sincerely, Thomas
Sorry, repost!!
I clicked twice, since it didn't seem to activate at first :-(
Didn't mean to repost
Didn't mean to repost
Top Section of Tower that Appeared to Break Away???
The top section of (which Tower?) that appeared to be breaking loose and falling away from the building but disintegrated instead might have been
planned to fall on 7?
just a thought.
It was too far away
It was the South Tower top section that started to topple and it was at least 700 feet from Building 7,.too far away for there to have been any plan to use it as an excuse for the destruction of Building 7.
Great interview
The only issue I have with what he said was near the end when he talked about the Pentagon and the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He's right about the flight data recorder showing the plane was too high at the last recording to hit the Pentagon. But I don't draw the same conclusion that he does that it means "the plane flew over and a missile hit the Pentagon." It DOES mean that someone was lying, or something was fabricated. Because the path of destruction (the light poles) does not match the FDR data, nor does it match the eyewitness testimony (Pentagon police officers). And the FDR data doesn't match the damage to the Pentagon, obviously. So somebody is covering something up.
But while Zarembka said he is proving the OCT wrong, but not proposing any alternative theories, that's exactly what he did there. He proposed the alternative theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon. I don't discount that possibility, but we don't have definitive proof that that's the correct alternative theory. We just know they're covering something up because of contradictory evidence.
That is exactly right.
Pilots for Truth doesn't take a position on what did or didn't hit the Pentagon. Their point is that the data from the FDR allegedly found in the Pentagon does NOT support the government's own account. It is clear evidence of a cover-up.
Moussaoui connected to Wellstone pilot?
Does anyone have this info online?
huh? where did you get this?
huh? where did you get this? ive followed the Wellstone murder quite a bit and never heard that one. sounds interesting.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
It was mentioned in the interview
Here's what I could find online about it:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=271
This one is about Jim Fetzer discussing Wellstone and Moussaoui in Dec 2004:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_12_36/ai_n8643124
Small world...
seriously. i live in West
seriously. i live in West Chester,Pennsylvania(Bergs hometown) and went to the same high school as Nick Berg who was killed by "al qaeda"(his dad doesnt believe that and i dont either)and also had his computer borrowed by Moussaoui. very small world......(thanks for the links)
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04214.html
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Thanks benthere, great links
I'm just like Chris, an esoteric connection between Moussaoui and Wellstone piques interest! Thanks for the links, benthere.
It turns out, there is little in the articles about the connection but it still raises eyebrows! The co-pilot had inadvertently left a 747 simulation disc at Moussaoui's training position, which turns up in his possessions after arrest! Conspiracy seems to be so treacherous, I find it difficult to infer what it means?
Alternative interpretations:
1) the disc wasn't left inadvertently at his position and the co-pilot/trainer is an accomplish,
or more likely,
2) there's involvement with the FBI connected to the incident.
3) Wellstone, in my mind, was an arch-nemesis of the administration and the definite target, but is it an added bonus to get rid of one more threat in the co-pilot revealing what he knows and may even be involved with the set up for the crash?
Well, I guess, I'm just one of those marginalized people as the Washington Monthly article adds in its hit piece above (benthere), which attempts to make Fetzer appear as pitiful as possible. I just ordered the Fetzer and Four Arrows book. Death by plane crash is far too frequent in American Politics to be accidental, in my humble estimation. The reviews of the book seem to suggest something better than the Monthly article. Again, it appears to be establishment media and you just
...can't believe them!
Fetzer is a disinformation agent, trojan horse
Fetzer is obviously a disinformation agent and a trojan horse. Everyone who just tentatively support the no-plane "theory" - and who is not a complete idiot - is someone trying to damage the serious diskussion of 9/11.
Here is Four Arrows' chapter
http://physics911.net/pdf/jacobs.pdf
Tripod II
This essay refers to the Tripod II bioterror drill as having been scheduled to take place on Sept. 12, apparently using Ruppert as a source. Is there any dispute about this? I could have sworn I heard that this had been scheduled to take place on the 11th itself, which was why FEMA personnel had arrived in the area the night before. Can anyone here offer any clarification on this?
Thanks for the link, Reprehensor
The chapter is certanly a worthwhile read and you know how to promote, sir! Thanks. I enjoyed it, immensely.
..don't believe them!