Severe Visibility- First 9/11 Truth Feature Film- Interview with Paul Cross
The morning of September 11, 2001, Paul Cross was at the White House for part of the post-production work of his film "Follow the Leader," a documentary about the everyday life of the President of the United States. On September 12th Paul visited the Pentagon. He saw that the damage to the building, the debris and the scene were not consistent with the official claim that a Boeing 757 had crashed there. He finished producing "Follow the Leader," which won an award at the Atlantic City Film Festival for best documentary, and traveled with the film, speaking about it.
Paul has a deep reverence and love for this country and the ideals it proclaims. When the truth of 9/11 hit him, he cried for days. "Severe Visibility," his latest film, is his response. It tells the story of Major Stanley Kruter (played by Paul Cross) who was injured in the Pentagon attack. The other major character is a foreign journalist who begs Kruter to tell him about what he witnessed from his window during the attack. Paul said he created Major Kruter to represent the average American who believes in "America," but that he identified with the journalist, who doubts that a commercial 757 airliner actually hit the Pentagon.
I heard about Paul’s film from a mutual banjo-playing friend last July, in 2006. Thrilled that a Hollywood feature 9/11 Truth film was being made, I phoned Paul. We had a friendly conversation. I sent him a copy of my DVD, but though he promised to send me a review copy of his film, for months I heard nothing from him. In April he emailed me:
"I feel like I am in Nazi Germany the way some people in Hollywood are reacting to it. What is everyone so afraid of?
Everyone seems to like the film but I have been told by most of the distribution companies that I have approached that
they are corporate and therefore don't want to release a film with so strong a statement."
His email was overlooked in my IN box. The film website hadn’t been updated since 2006. I called to ask what was going on. Paul said that his film had been rejected at film festivals across the United States. I wasn’t surprised. "Our Own Private Bin Laden," suffered a similar fate in the USA. Independent theaters are few and far between, and they are the only hope of free-lance film-makers whose prospects often depend on the resources of their financial backers.
Last year, Paul was unwilling to tour with the film or answer the questions producers must face. The film will premiere this June in Italy and this July in New York. Paul believes the American people do not wish to hear the message of "Severe Visibility," but they need to hear it. Crafted by an award-winning screenwriter and producer, this film could move many Americans to begin the journey that almost every American 9/11 truth activist has had to undertake to recognize the evidence that screams that the government story cannot possibly be true.
An archive of the interview with Paul Cross on the Questioning War- Organizing Resistance radio show can be found on the We the People Radio Network at Radio Show Archives- May 28th Show- Second Hour.
- Carol Brouillet's blog
- Login to post comments
damn this looks interesting.
damn this looks interesting. would LOVE to see something like this. just imagine though, if this is the fate of a fictional 9/11 truth movie whats gonna happen to Loose Change Final Cut? i personally never thought it would make it to big theaters.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Going Down?
Sometimes you have to stoop down a level or two to make your point with some people. You know, like when informing children that Santa Claus isn't real.
You have to ease your way to the truth, so as not to upset them too much. I believe from reading the subject matter above, that this is what the producer/director is doing with this movie.
Rather than diving into the hundreds of unanswered questions and scientific evidence surrounding 911, he allows the viewer to slowly awake from their zombie state to move towards the light of truth.
...
Don't EVEN go there!
I swear to g0d, if you start up with that "Santa Claus isn't real" crap again....
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent
http://www.chico911truth.org/
9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)
Can not wait
I can't wait to get a look at this. I wonder what content is so damning that the Hollywood hacks and corporate swine are backing away from so hard? This is dynamite, I absolutely love this! Any time you have people in Hollywood dropping projects like hot potatoes, there has to be something that people are scared of...awesome.
Dave
Phuckinehring
Awesome!
This looks like a great movie!
Has anyone seen that other film that was mentioned? "Our Own Private Bin Laden"? That sounds pretty good too.
These films look great!
I just watched these great clips:
http://www.ourownprivatebinladen.com/clips.html
ZB and others are confronted and asked thought provoking questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
And his previous documentary
This is the first I've heard of the earlier film of his they mention, 'Follow the Leader,' even though it won an award and was apparently screened in different places. Is anyone here familiar with it?
Our Own Private Bin Laden
Watch it here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8738
Speaks Volumns!
yup. it is a burden to realize that you have been lied to by your gov. and actually accept it. I am sure we all freaked out and cried when we came to a point that we had to face the facts. Those facts lead us to know that the theory our gov. shoved down our throats was a big lie to cover up evil. The "Evil Doers" as Bush likes to refer to terrorists is a self-description. Anyway, this film really looks as though it helps usher in that revelation of an evil plot to trick us. Wow. I really hope this gets seen in THIS country and beyond NYC. WE NEED IT. It takes 911 Truth from a different angle, a perspective that will speak to volumns!
volumns?
I think you mean volumes. ;-)
Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"
Pentagon Attack Errors
Just because it's a nice feature film doesn't mean it's got the accurate info . . .
I recommend a few pages on the Pentagon -
Pentagon Attack Errors
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
There are numerous pieces of evidence that point to the attack on the Pentagon being an inside job. These include:
* The location of the attack: The portion of the Pentagon that was struck was nearly empty due to a renovation program.
* The aircraft approach maneuver: The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver to strike said portion of the building from the southwest, opposite the direction from which it approached the capital.
* The incompetence of the alleged pilot: Flight 77 was supposedly piloted by Hani Hanjour, about whom a flight instructor said: "He couldn't fly at all".
* Signs of a cover-up: Numerous actions by officials indicate an ongoing cover-up of the facts concerning the attack.
These and other undisputed facts, constituting highly incriminating evidence of involvement of officials in the attack and coverup, have been largely eclipsed by an ongoing controversy over whether the Pentagon was hit by a jetliner at all. From early 2002, some skeptics of the official story have maintained that the Pentagon was attacked, not by a jetliner, but one of or a combination of a truck bomb, a missile or cruise missile, an attack drone aircraft or commuter jet, a flyover by a 757, and internal demolition charges. 9-11 Research provides a history of Pentagon strike theories.
The debate over what hit the Pentagon has thrived due to the apparent contradiction between the eyewitness and physical evidence. Whereas a large body of reports of eyewitness accounts strongly supports that a twin-enginer jetliner swooped in at a very low altitude and exploded at or in front of the Pentagon; photographs of the damaged facade and lawn show an apparent near-absence of aircraft debris and a pattern of damage to the Pentagon's facade showing unbroken windows in the paths of the outer wings and the vertical tail section.
Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.
* 'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'
* 'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'
* 'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'
* 'Aircraft crashes always leave large debris'
* 'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'
* 'The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'
* 'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'
* 'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'
* 'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'
* 'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'
* 'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
* 'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
Also, the recent review by Arabesque -
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-w...
with all due respect,
with all due respect, Arabesque got schooled in his own thread and in another by johndoex and the makers of the Pentacon.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
I spent most of the time in my thread
correcting their misinterpretations of my review. I encourage you to look at the evidence I quoted in my review before jumping to conclusions on who got "schooled".
Now they can sit here all day complaining about my review, but to someone who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, all you would have to do is point out the fact that their own witnesses claimed the plane hit the Pentagon.
Then take into account the fact that their own witness claims that the light poles were NOT knocked down where they were knocked down... I can't believe how many times I have to explain this. He says "nothing happened" where the light poles came down! Don't you think that puts his testimony--at the very least in doubt?
he actually talked to the
he actually talked to the witnesses while you didnt(you said "i dont have time to do that etc.). i dont want to argue though, if you think you won more power to you. its not a competetion anyway i guess.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
What's the point of talking to witnesses
if you are going to ignore what they say? That's my problem. It's fine if you talk to the witnesses as long as you don't ignore things like.. oh... "it hit the Pentagon" for starters, or "nothing happened over here" where the light poles got knocked down.
i dont know, it just seems
i dont know, it just seems kind of strange to me that a guy like you who devotes much time and energy into proving Flight 77 hit the Pentagon wouldnt try to get in touch with some of those witnesses like the makers of the Pentacon did and could only come up with-"i dont have time" as an awnser for why you didnt. wouldnt you want to talk with the witnesses whos statements you are basing your research on if at all possible? call me crazy. but seriously, i dont want to start another Pentagon discussion here. i shouldnt have said anything and just let the guys comments slide.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Look, this is exactly what I mean:
They talked to the witnesses and look what happened. Their testimony is self contradictory--it's impossible! Does that mean we reject everything they say? No, it means we look at all of the testimony and see what is and what is not supported. This is what I have done in my review of the PentaCon
Their testimony I believe is somewhat accurate, and I don’t doubt that they are being honest. But it is also provably inaccurate. Compare the four flight paths, they are not close. This is our standard for 9/11 "smoking guns"? I’m sorry, but we need better than that and pretending otherwise is a disservice to our real smoking guns.
If you talk to the witnesses, how do you know if they are remembering something correctly? The big details (General) are more easily remembered that specific. It gets very messy to try and sort together specific details (i.e. flight path) 5 years later, when the plane flew by in less than 10 seconds according to the statements. I have studied the testimony enough to see that the later someone comments, the more anomalies show up.
Talking to the witnesses this late after the event is "a waste of time" because it is only going to dilute the testimony further with anomalies. To some, this would appear to be “smoking gun” proof that the official story is wrong, and to others it is “smoking gun” proof of the fallibility of memory. It is a “waste of time” because there is no significantly contradictory testimony. See the WTC for all of the incrimination testimony. See WTC7. See flight 93. See the Oklahoma city bombing. But you are not going to find anything remotely “incriminating” testimony at the Pentagon except for the fact that there is no way that a hijacker flew that plane into the bottom floors of the building--it was remote control.
If you did the same thing with the WTC witnesses you would have the exact same problems. You just can't tell what you are getting is accurate or not and the only closest way to figure this out is to look at ALL of the testimony to find out what is supported and what is not. That's what I have done.
If you are going to claim that there is no contradictory evidence when there is plenty… that’s ammunition for the debunkers. Just be glad I did it instead of Popular Mechanics.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
yeah, i guess it would kind
yeah, i guess it would kind of suck to contact the eyewitnesses only to have them say something that DIDNT support Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. better to not follow up and just keep things the way they are just in case you dont get the right answers this time. gotcha. just so we are clear though, you revise your statement, you didnt talk to the witnesses because you "didnt have the time to" like you claimed before, its actually because you believed their testimony would change right?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Not quite
Take the time to read my collection of extracted 650 eyewitness statements. Read that and then ask yourself how they faked that. http://www.911blogger.com/files/What%20Witnesses%20Described.pdf
My position is that if a witnesses statement is contradicted by massive testimony (as I show in my review), then we can't pretend that these claims are credible. At worst it results in pointless debates like this.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
so you didnt contact even
so you didnt contact even one eyewitness huh?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Well let's see...
I already explained why there is no point. But let me give you another reason
Let's say I contacted the close to 100 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Let's say they all maintain their story. Would that change your mind? I don't think so. So why should I waste that much energy doing that? I know there are still people who wouldn't believe me if I did that.
I respect that, and that's fine.
You see, people are going to talk to witnesses, find out they said the plane hit the Pentagon (like they did in the PentaCon interviews), and still not believe them. So why would I waste that effort when there are people who have already made up their mind that they don't trust the eyewitness statements. I have other reasons why I haven't contacted the witnesses. I guess I shouldn't have said "don't contact them". I should have said, "don't contact them and then ignore them when they tell you a plane hit the Pentagon."
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
why initially claim(in your
why initially claim(in your thread) that it was time constraints that kept you from contacting the witnesses then just today change it to "the testimony wouldnt be credible now anyway"?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
It was
more out of frustration out of being called "insane" and the abuse in that thread than anything... I'll admit I shouldn't have implied that it's a waste of time to contact witnesses (if you are going to ignore what they tell you), but I was getting a little mad at being called a liar. I'll admit I shouldn't have said that, but I was a little pissed at the treatment I was getting. And I was just frustrated that they ignore their own witness statements.
As i said, I have other reasons why I didn't contact the witnesses.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
so it wasnt a lie, saying
so it wasnt a lie, saying that you couldnt contact the witnesses because of time contraints, it was just frustration? ok.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
You prove my point
Well you've already proven my point! The PentaCon witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon. Do you believe them? Nope? Why would I waste my time to find more if you aren't going to believe them anyways? There are plenty of witnesses who refuse to change their view that a plane hit the Pentagon. Their interviews are on the internet. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.
In contrast there is no one who has changed their story and said, no, no plane hit the Pentagon. And you're putting the burden on me to prove they are telling the truth? There's no contradictory eyewitness testimony anywhere. That's evidence that they are telling the truth in itself. Mike Walter still claims it was a commercial plane. Lagasse still claims it was a commercial plane. Steve Riskus still claims it was a commercial plane that hit the Pentagon.
So in that regard, yes I think it is a waste of my time when I would rather focus on other 9/11 research, and support the real work of Steven Jones and the other great researchers in this movement. Why don't you talk to witnesses yourself? Don't put the burden on me--there's no one supporting the no-plane position!
Let me give you an example... there was someone who came out with a BS story about seeing a global hawk hit the Pentagon. To the people who "know" a commercial plane didn't hit the Pentagon this constituted "evidence". The only problem is that this story was admitted fake by the "witness" who reported it. So are we going to base our "smoking guns" on any weak evidence that suits our theory, or are we going to look at all of it, and base our conclusions on all of the testimony--not some of it?
For skeptics of the official story, and who have already made up their mind on the Pentagon, the fact that the eyewitnesses massively contradict their position proves my point. You aren't going to pay attention to them. My hope is that honest skeptics will look at the evidence and then re-examine the physical evidence at the Pentagon. I've looked at the physical evidence and it supports the testimony in my opinion.
For the 9/11 debunkers, they can easily point to this eyewitness evidence, and people who don't believe that it's possible to fake a plane strike beside massive highways in typical early morning traffic jams will walk away thinking we base our conclusions of the paranoid suspicion (read: not EVIDENCE) that everything is faked.
The point is that we remain skeptical and admit, if someone said “it hit the Pentagon” we don’t turn around and say that it’s “smoking gun proof it flew over”.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Yes you love that straw man argument.
You think that Lagasse's testimony of where he places the plane which he DID see should be dismissed because he was incorrect about the placement of the taxi cab and poles which he did NOT see!
That is a logical fallacy. It is a straw man argument and you know it.
The fact that all of the witnesses were fooled into believing the plane hit the building gives them credibility.
They are not trying to push a conspiracy they are trying to defend the official story yet their accounts destroy it.
The entire nature of the operation was to DECEIVE people into believing the plane hit with a sleight of hand illusion pulled off with military precision.
But we have PROVEN that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it IMPOSSIBLE to have hit the light poles.
Yes people were deceived.
Yes we know you can copy and paste compilations of mainstream media reports of people who were fooled.
But that is not an investigation. That is not research.
That is you towing the government line by repeating unconfirmed mainstream media reports.
We conducted an investigation and proved the official story false.
You have not provided a single witness account that directly contradicts the north side claim and you have NOT discredited the citgo witnesses in any way shape or form.
Logical Fallacies
Here are Lagasse's exact words. For those who think I'm misquoting, watch the film:
“No Chance. There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here…none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”
Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.”
“This is where the taxi cab was. Right here. Not over there. Nothing happened over here!”
“What official story? The only official story would have been the Arlington County Police Report done after the event. There’s no official story other than that… I’ve never seen anything that said it was on the south side of that gas station. Ever [looks upwards in bewilderment]. These were the light poles. This is where the taxi cab was [pointing to the same incorrect location]. Nothing [emphasizing] happened over here. I can’t be any clearer about it.”
"Nothing Happened over here" is where the actual light poles were knocked down. No light poles were knocked down ANYWHERE else. The PentaCon completely skips over this fact, and then concludes his testimony is a "smoking gun".
Now you claim that he didn't "see it", but how do you explain the fact that he claims that light poles WERE knocked down in a different location than where they actually were? I'll quote him again, since you have such difficulty in reading what I say (to the point of calling me a liar) "as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here that was knocked down."
Anyone who has any common sense at all can figure out that if Lagasse saw the plane fly where the REAL light poles were knocked down (not where he mistakingly THOUGHT the light poles were knocked down), then it would support the idea that a plane did hit the Pentagon--as Lagasse claims.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
It seems that Dave McGowan
It seems that Dave McGowan is the only one who has intuited the relevance of the light pole knockdowns:
"As is apparent from the height of the light poles, an airplane flying low enough to clip them with its wings would have been all but scraping its engines across the roofs of the cars on the highway. And, sure enough, there is at least one witness report of the plane actually clipping off the antenna of a Jeep Grand Cherokee.
"Incredibly enough, some researchers have actually tailored their Pentagon theories to account for this alleged evidence, but I have no idea why. Are these theorists really that naive, or do they just pretend to be? Is it not perfectly obvious that this so-called evidence is patently absurd? How much thrust do you suppose is required to get a fully-loaded, 100+ ton aircraft off the ground and then propel it through the air at 500+ miles per hour? Isn't an aircraft engine essentially just an immensely powerful fan that is capable of displacing massive quantities of air and expelling it at an extremely high velocity? Is there something I am missing here?
"Some time ago, I watched an episode of the television show "Myth Busters" in which one of the myths tested was a story about a car being literally flipped over by the engine exhaust from a jet aircraft. As I recall, the test set up by the program's hosts failed to flip the car, but it did succeed in thoroughly trashing the vehicle. Steel body panels were literally ripped from the car by the force of the engine, as were the windows, the hood, the mirrors, and various other parts. While the car remained standing, it looked very much like it had survived a bomb blast.
"The cars in the light pole photos, on the other hand, are in pristine condition, as are their drivers. Some pedestrian witnesses, amazingly enough, have actually claimed that the plane came in so low over their positions that they ducked for fear of being hit. One such witness, Frank Probst, a retired Army officer, has claimed that as he dove for the ground, one of the plane's engines passed beside him, "about six feet away." Probst also claims that he saw the plane clip the SUV antenna and literally shear the light poles in half.
"Frank Probst has been propped up as a key witness by some defenders of the official story, despite the fact that his tall tale is contradicted by the photos of the obviously still intact light poles, and, more importantly, by the fact that Mr. Probst is still alive. Simply put, if Probst (and various other witnesses) had been as close to the passing aircraft engines as they claim to have been, they would not have been witnesses to the tragedy; they would have been additional casualties."
I highly recommend everyone read his three-part series on the Pentagon, starting here:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html
Speculation, and Smoking Guns
My personal opinion is that the Pentagon has more misleading arguments spread about it than any other aspect of the 9/11 attacks. Arguments like, this is “impossible” therefore it couldn’t have happened are the most dangerous of straw-man arguments. Misrepresenting the testimony is the 2nd most common error. Claiming that the testimony does not support the physical evidence is another (mostly made by people who haven’t even bothered to read more than a few out of context statements). These arguments are misleading and can be shown to be misleading.
The problem is that the government is covering up all of the evidence—not just at the Pentagon. They don’t do this because they want to create suspicions, they do this so that we waste time speculating (i.e. not proving what happened) instead of asking the important questions like how do hijackers fly planes into buildings when trained pilots can’t even do this? How can these plane reach their targets without being intercepted? How can the government have DNA of these supposed hijackers? Why is there thermite at ground zero? Why was there insider trading? Why did the WTC buildings fall at free fall speed? These are indisputable facts—no speculating required.
The fact that a plane hit the Pentagon at all would be suspicious. The fact that H. Hanjour could hit the Pentagon (on the first floor) defies rational belief. If you were responsible for flying a plane into the bottom floors of the Pentagon would you want to release the videos showing this improbable feat? Wouldn’t that make you question that a hijacker could do this?
Part of the consequence of disinformation (mostly honest mistakes and unintentional—I believe) force us to focus on the wrong questions and leave us ignoring the most devastating evidence of government complicity. As I believe, a commercial plane hit the Pentagon. I don't object to theorists who suggest otherwise, in fact I wish them the best. My problem is when they don't PROVE their case when they ignore relevant evidence (eyewitness statements, plane parts, Mineta Testimony, FAA testimony, etc. etc.) and instead offer only speculation for what happened. It is fine to object to the given evidence and ask questions about its legitimacy, but what I object to is the promotion of theories that are not provable. This is what Judy Wood does with her space beams. Let's not do the same at the Pentagon.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Which is why it is perfectly
Which is why it is perfectly acceptable to analyze the evidence and come to the conclusion that 77 didn't cause the damage at the Pentagon, but perhaps problematic to recycle endless theories of what did.
There is plenty to hang them on with a crash of any type at the Pentagon with or without 77, but after spending considerable time eye-balling the area, I find much of the witnesses' "testimony" to be quite fallible. And no one has yet explained why so many USA Today reporters were on that list.
Additionally, just last week I was driving on a ramp slightly to the north but between the Pentagon and National Airport as a jet was coming in for a landing, and I noticed how low and in close proximity it was to the opposite east (opposite) side from the impact area. IF (and I do mean IF) a plane was seen on the east side, as in a fly-over scenario, I could see how it may have been mistaken for a flight coming in for a landing.
But I have no theories to promote.
Not buying it.
"The entire nature of the operation was to DECEIVE people into believing the plane hit with a sleight of hand illusion pulled off with military precision."
You have yet to explain WHY they wouldn't just crash a plane (the easiest and most obvious attack, with no risk of exposure as a fraud).
Next, the point of the operation was not to fly a plane over the pentagon (which would have flown right over the center courtyard, visible to everyone near a window or in the courtyard. The point of the operation was to give the regime an ACT OF WAR.
There is no "straw man" in your rebuttal. There is a discrepancy over the accuracy of the testimony. If people disagree over some specific event, they can't all be correct.
"The fact that all of the witnesses were fooled into believing the plane hit the building ..."
That's not a FACT. That's an opinion. Learn the difference.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Don't fall for Jim Hoffman's disinfo over the Pentagon attack
Victronix,
You appear to have fallen into Jim Hoffman's disinfo trap on 911review.com concerning the Pentagn attack. It is important to understand the methods Jim Hoffman is using to confuse and obscure the truth, rather than helping us to illuminate the truth.
Jim Hoffman authored both 911research.com and 911review.com. In these sites, a significant portion is dedicated to discrediting many good researchers while attempting to prop up many parts of the official story. But he does this by using disinfo techniques, many of them identical to those used by the propagandists at Popular Mechanics, and confusing people about the evidence, particularly concerning the Pentagon attack. The sites are slick and appear to be very convincing, especially to those who are not yet thoroughly familiar with the Pentagon attack evidence as well as the massive disinfo campaign being waged over the issue. When I was new to the 9/11 issue, I was taken in by Jim Hoffman's "analysis" of the Pentagon attack. I have since, however, realized that I was duped after discovering that Hoffman is anything but honest with his propaganda techniques.
There is a reason that Jim Hoffman stands virtually alone among most 9/11 researchers in trying to prop up the official government lie that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You have to ask yourself why he is at odds with most of the other researchers including Professor Jones, David Griffin, Kevin Barret, James Fetzer and most of the Schollars for 9/11 Truth (before the spit of the organization), Webster Tarpey, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Marrs, Dylan Avery, Jasen Bermes and the folks at Louder than Words, SPINE (Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven), Dave Von Kleist, Eric Hufschmid, and many others. Then, you have to ask yourself why people like Jim Hoffman attampt to turn reality on its head by claiming the opposite, i.e., that most of the "credible" researchers support the official story of the Pentagon attack, and only disinfo agents disagreee. Actual quote by Hoffman: "[argueing for no AA77 at the Pentagon is] an idea that may be the single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement."
INCREDIBLE! In other words, Jim Hoffman is, in one broad swath, attamtping to discredit all of the above named researchers.
As far as the eye-witnesses go, Jim Hoffman cherry picks those who support the official lie. The best that can be said about the eye-witnesses is that they are conflicting. And, as anybody who knows about detective work will say, physical evidence trumpts eye-witness testimony. In a court of law, if the eye-witness testimony is in conflict they go with the physical evidence, EVERY TIME. And, the physical evidence simply does not support the official lie that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Jim Hoffman should know this, but instead he confuses the issue.
But, let's take a closer look at the eye-witness testimony. Most of the eye-wittnesses are not credible, being that they are mostly MILITARY and MAINSTREAM MEDIA employees. The military is perhaps the institution most obviously criminally involved with 9/11, and the mainstream media is the most obvious institution responsible for the cover-up of 9/11. So, how much credibility do these kinds of witnesses have? Especially all the ones who have come out of the wood work after the fact, some well after the fact. Think about it. How did 10 USA Today employees wind up in the right place at the right time to "witness" flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? What are the odds of that being possible? Check out Dave McGowan's discussion of the eye-witnesses at
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html to see just who they really are.
The science of the physical evidence outweighs any eyewitness testimony - Just ask any experienced investigator. On top of that, you have the official lies and cover-up behavior (confiscating the videos for example) - itself strong evidence that the government's version of what happened at the Pentagon is not true. There really is no reasonable argument to support the government's fable that flight 77 hit the Pentagon theory. When you have both A: Physical evidence contradicting the official story and, B: Massive cover-up behavior, it's pretty much an open and shut case for any experienced investigator. The only reasonable conclusion is that the official story at the Pentagon is a lie. Any other conclusion requires an extreme level of mental gymnastics and false logic. Just look at how closely Jim Hoffman's arguments resemble those of the Popular Mechanics propogandists, including the argument that, "Don't question this part of the OGCT because it will offend the victims' families." This BS is constantly trotted out by the likes of Jim Hoffman (911research.com) and Mark Rabinowitz (oilempire.us) in attacking those researchers who dispute the OGCT regarding the Pentagon attack and cell phone calls. This argument is a red flag that should immediately alert people to what is going on.
Anyone who argues that the "No-Boing" theory is unscientific either has not done their homework, or has been duped by the small but loud clique of "yes-planers" such as Jim Hoffman and his followers, who's arguments pretty much consist of ridiculing those who do not accept the official Pentagon fable and accusing them of being disinfo agents.
I recommend you do a little more homework on these issues. Here some places to start:
http://physics911.net - Scientific Panel Investigation 9/11
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html - Dave McGowan's excellent September 11, 2001 Revisited series
http://www.kasjo.net/ats/ats.htm "Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757 by Joe Quinn"
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm - rebuttal to Jim Hoffman
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/911pentagon.html - A picture I bet you've never seen before
After reading the above articles, I suggest you ask yourself why Jim Hoffman is trying to divide the 9/11 truth movement. If you are still not clear about this, I suggust you ask yourself why all the other 9/11 truth researchers who have actually PUBLISHED BOOKS and LAID THEIR RESEARCH ON THE TABLE are practically universal in rejecting the official government conspiracy theory (OGCT) regarding the Pentagon attack.
Uggh....
Your post is filled with everything that makes the 9/11 Truth Movement look bad... "The eyewitnesses were not credible" "The debris doesn't match" "Jim Hoffman is disinfo" etc etc etc
I have yet to see a single explanation as to how they would manage to crash something other than a 757 into the Pentagon without ONE eyewitness claiming otherwise, regardless of how many 'fake witnesses' they've prepared in advance. Even more importantly, there is no way the perpetrators could guarantee that such witnesses wouldn't crop up since the area was far to large to contain (ie they got really really super lucky). So there is no motive, no supporting witnesses, and no physical evidence of anything other than Flight 77 hitting the building. Granted, there IS evidence of a coverup, but that only lends credence to Hoffman's theory that the Pentagon crap is only being used to discredit us. Hell, even TODAY you can find absurd claims of a '14 foot hole'...
Regarding suggestions that the debris is not consistent with a 757: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
You obviously haven't done your homework
"I have yet to see a single explanation as to how they would manage to crash something other than a 757 into the Pentagon without ONE eyewitness claiming otherwise..."
The fact that you are not aware of the MANY conflicting eyewitnesses who DID claim to have seen something other than a 757 shows your level of ignorance. You then state a series of blatent falshoods: "So there is no motive, no supporting witnesses, and no physical evidence of anything other than Flight 77 hitting the building." Then you simply reference Jim Hoffman as your source, linking to the exact same disinfo at 911review.com that I was rebutting, which means that you complety missed the whole point or didn't read any of my post.
To get you up to speed on some of the witnesses who saw something contrary to the official story, please watch Pentagon Strike: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/ for an introduction.
Then, please do your homework and look at the other articles I recommended. Here they are again:
http://physics911.net - Scientific Panel Investigation 9/11
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html - Dave McGowan's excellent September 11, 2001 Revisited series
http://www.kasjo.net/ats/ats.htm "Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757 by Joe Quinn"
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm - rebuttal to Jim Hoffman
Pay particular attention to the last link which is a point by point rebuttal to Jim Hoffman.
I'm assuming that you are genuinely interested in uncovering the truth about the Pentagon attack and just are unaware of the mountain of evidence that contradicts the official story and the level of disagreement between Jim Hoffman and the other 911 researchers, so if this is where you are coming from, I am willing to take my time to have a discussion with you and share information.
If, however, you are just interested in clinging to an opinion without any real arguments other than, "Jim Hoffman says so" and you refuse to do your homework and take the suggestions that I gave you that would help you become more informed, then I'm not going to waste my time. Arguing over uninformed opinions is pointless.
The official report of 77 crash is wrong, no doubt......
but after spending much time reviewing the evidence I believe it is possible that an aircraft of the 757 type did hit that building.
Although I believe that the plane could not have been flown manually into that building due to ground effect and the extreme nature of the maneuver, I have seen pictures of wreckage consistent with a Boeing 757?
There is, in my opinion no point in arguing about this topic at length (757? & 77?); it is a waste of our resources. We will not know really what happened until we can view the wreckage and videos we have not seen! This should be the focus of our enquiries, the cover up!
Other worthwhile and tangible areas of investigation are the changing of FAA/Pentagon protocol's, the loss of 77's primary radar returns, the impossible Digital Flight Data Recorder flight path parameters and the Pentagon anti-aircraft defense system failing! These are things we should be talking about!!
By attacking Hoffman you are discrediting someone that has taken a cautious position on a few difficult issues, dissinfo, not that I can see!
Many people have come to the movement through their confusion of what happened at the Pentagon, yes, but this is obviously not where the 9/11 Truth Movement is having it greatest success, why, because we can't see and analyze the evidence as well as we can in many other areas!
Wake up and get off this tired subject, we don't know what crashed into the Pentagon, get over it already!!
Kind regards John Bursill - Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Boeing 767, 737 and 747 series
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
I have to disagree with your logic
"Although I believe that the plane could not have been flown manually into that building due to ground effect and the extreme nature of the maneuver..."
If the plane could not have been flown MANUALLY that way due to ground effect (flying 5 feet above the ground, for example, causing extreme turbulance which would have crashed the plane) and the extreme nature of the maneuver (which many professional pilots have said would have been impossible without the plane being torn apart and falling out of the sky), then are you saying that flying it REMOTELY would not have had the same effects? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
You claim to have seen pictures of wreckage consistent with a Boeing 757? Does that mean that you have positively identified actual specific parts at the Pentagon crash site that are from a 757? Or does that mean that you have seen pictures of wreckage on web sites that people like Jim Hoffman claims are parts from a 757?
Sorry, but the physics simply disproves the official story that flight 77 flew into the first floor of the Pentagon. If that were true, then the two 9 foot wide engines would have been digging into the ground. But there are no gouges in any of the video or pictures of the crash scene. And, these titanium engines would have to be either outside the building, or would have made 2 distinct holes in the foundation of the building and part of the first floor (after gouging into the ground), which video and photographic evidence disproves. So, where are the engines? Did they fold up at the last minute? Sorry, John, but you can't just ignore such evidence.
"By attacking Hoffman you are discrediting someone that has taken a cautious position on a few difficult issues, dissinfo, not that I can see!"
Um, sorry but Hoffman has not taken a cautious position on a few difficult issues. In no way is he being cautious, balanced, even-handed, fair, or respectful of other good, well meaning researchers. Rather, he has gone out of his way to destroy the reputations of most of the other 9/11 researchers who dispute the official story regarding the Pentagon with outrageous accusations. Statements such as, "[argueing for no AA77 at the Pentagon is] an idea that may be the single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement." This is completely inexcuseable behavior for someone who is supposedly well-meaning towards the 9/11 truth movement. Again, Hoffman stands virtually alone in this stance, while smearing in one broad swath so many other good researchers and activists, such as Professor Jones, David Griffin, Kevin Barret, James Fetzer and most of the Schollars for 9/11 Truth (before the spit of the organization), Webster Tarpey, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Marrs, Dylan Avery, Jasen Bermes and the folks at Louder than Words, SPINE (Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven), Dave Von Kleist, Eric Hufschmid, and many others.
What Hoffman did to sabotage David Ray Griffen's presentation in Oakland last year was unforgiveable and has left many 9/11 truthers here in Northern California resentful and angry at Hoffman's destructive and divisive tactics, and revealed for many what Hoffman's true agenda is.
"Many people have come to the movement through their confusion of what happened at the Pentagon, yes, but this is obviously not where the 9/11 Truth Movement is having it greatest success, why, because we can't see and analyze the evidence as well as we can in many other areas!"
Huh? This makes no sense. You agree that many people have come to the movement through their confusion of what happened at the Pentagon, and then say that this is not where the movement is having success and we should just drop the issue? If the Pentagon anomaly is one of the most convincing smoking guns of the whole 9/11 conspiracy for a lot of people, then that is obviously one of the strongest legs of the 9/11 conspiracy argument, is it not? Why would you want to nock out one of the strongest legs of the 9/11 truth movement? Wouldn't it make more sense to highlight the strongest legs, such as the Pentagon anomaly, to wake people up? Obviously the perpetrators disagree with you as well, as evidenced by the massive propoganda and disinfo efforts they are putting into trying to debunk this part of the conspiracy theory. They are obviously very nervous about this glaring hole in the official story and are working overtime on damage control.
According to the Scripps Howard poll last year, 1 out of 8 Americans believe that a cruise missle hit the Pentagon, rather than flight 77, almost as high as the 1 out of 6 who believe that controlled demolition destroyed the WTC. The hole in the Pentagon story, pun intended, is obviously one of the perpetrators' weakest links in the official story, and one of the 9/11 truth movement's strongest legs, opposite of what you are argueing. According to the Scripps Howard poll http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll:
"Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.
...
Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists. That lower percentage may result from an effort by the conservative Washington-based Judicial Watch advocacy group to debunk the claim."
That last line I think is quite revealing.
"Wake up and get off this tired subject, we don't know what crashed into the Pentagon, get over it already!!"
Um, we certainly know what DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon. Wake up and stop trying to suppress one of the strongest and most successful legs of the 9/11 Truth Movement, get over it already!!
Good argument! This is what this site is all about...
Thank you for the reply, you have many good points!
I have heard about Hoffman confronting people over the Pentagon crash and I don't think this is a good approach either as it has divided us. I thought he was proposing that the neo-cons may be using this confusion to harm our credibility at a later date, this was my explanation for his aggressive stance?
You said "Um, we certainly know what DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon. Wake up and stop trying to suppress one of the strongest and most successful legs of the 9/11 Truth Movement, get over it already!!" Suppressing the strongest legs would be ignoring the things I mentioned; the inaccurate DFDR data, Pentagon air defenses, improbability of the flight path with pilot control and the suppression of the video evidence, do you agree these are much easier arguments for us to use against the 9/11 commission?
I to had a similar view to you until I took a very close at the wreckage inside the building, I saw and compared it to actual 757 parts in service and there were wheel rims, a engine compressor wheel(I'm not sure what it's of but it is consistent with the RB211 engine), a landing gear strut and a wheel axle. Yes I agree this is not enough to identify the aircraft. This could be done very quickly if we could look the full body of evidence that we are prevented from seeing. We no doubt would quickly come to agreement and you’re probably right!
I will not try to explain things like the punch out hole, which makes no sense at all but as for the impact damage on the buildings exterior it is suspect but not out of the question. The arguments made in "In plane site" have been largely discredited due to over exaggeration and miss explanation! I wish we could talk on the phone so you may get a better idea what my angle is on this.
Have you listened to Robin Hordon, he has exactly the right idea on this subject, maybe you'll get my drift then. As far as ground effect goes a good analogy is running up against the curb in your car, could you keep it just touching it with out going up it or back onto the road, I suggest not. But if you had the Avionics of a 757 using the Flight Control Computers and an external input putting you in the exactly right position it becomes possible. For those systems can react a 100 times quicker than you. A 757 airframe can make that turn a that trajectory to the Pentagon; it can not be done manually or with the standard Autopilot Systems fitted! Remote control is definitely possible and the system is easily fitted by engineers in less than a week in previously tested and trialed.
I say 95% your right! But why concentrate on what crashed there? If we can not know for sure! I like to think about it like you but our arguments can be easily dismissed, I believe!
To me the most difficult aspects of the crash to understand, is the punch out hole, the lack of obvious impact damage by the engines in the building exterior. Anyway I'm over what crashed there until more evidence is available!
Thanks for the discussion, Hoffman who knows? Fetzer, Reynolds, Woods and In Plane Site are defiantly dissinfo although Hoffman has done some excellent investigation into destroying false arguments, I'm not against that as long as it's done in a way that doesn’t damage the movement that we both care so much about.
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
Informed civilized debates are where it's at!
Thanks, John, for keeping this discussion on such a mature, enlightened tone - so rare these days in internet discussion forums, unfortunately, that seem to degrade so frequently into pissing matches and immature flame wars. Imagine if the rest of the internet forum discussions could operate on this level and how much more pleasurable and functional the exchange of ideas and information would be!
Anyway, since I got involved with 9/11 research during the last couple of years, I have gotten an education on things I never really had to know about before, such as the methods and tactics of PSYOPS disinfo, psychopathy, and the psychology of deception and denial, among other things. It's been really sad watching the controlled demolition of the 9/11 Truth Movement during the last year or so, with the collapse of Scholars for 9/11 Truth being the latest tragedy, with so much name calling, divisiveness, ad hominem attacks, and disinfo agent accusations flying in all directions, with many hurt feelings among many former friends and allies. There's no question in my mind that at least part of this situation is a consequence of infiltration and well-planned disruption by the perpetrators in the Pentagon PSYOPS Department and other intelligence agencies of the criminal fascist regime.
At the same time, I think we all need to be cautious about pointing the finger at those who we have differences with in the movement, as I'm sure that of all the accusations of disinfo agents being made, the true number of agents in the movement is not even one tenth as many, and probably way less. And this certainly holds true for the way over-used disinfo agent name calling in all its various forms on the 911blogger forum.
I do think it is important, however, to try to discern the difference between those who are purposely engaging in disinfo and disruption, and those who have honest disagreements but may not be behaving in the most mature and respectful manner in dealing with these differences. I think that if we do ever publicly accuse someone of consciously engaging in disinfo, we had better have a good reason for doing so, and provide convincing evidence that leads us to that conclusion. I have very rarely accused anyone in this movement of being a disinfo agent, and when I did, I layed out my reasons, such as the case with Jim Hoffman.
Generally, I think that the over-use of the disinfo agent accusation is much more often in error when being made against someone who is disputing a part of the OGCT (official government conspiracy theory) as compared to the charge being made against someone who is supporting a part of the OGCT. There is a mean-spirited attacking and bullying often directed against many researchers who I think are well-meaning who attempt to explore what some regard as outrageous or implausible theories in their attempt to figure out how things could have gone down on 9/11. I would say that Jim Fetzer, though I don't necessarily agree with all of his methods or style of communication in dealing with other 9/11 truthers, I think has been ganged up on just a little too much on this forum, and attempts by some people to ban and censor him are way over the top.
Dave Von Kleist, while I don't think he is a disinfo agent, certainly engages in unsubstantiated speculation and other claims that hurt his credibility, so I don't recommend or distribute the In Plane Site video. However, if In Plane Site was the only video about the 9/11 conspiracy in existance, I would most definately distribute it, along with a disclaimer about the nonsensicle pod theory.
The problem with Hoffman's supposed helpful attempt to identify and deconstruct disinformation arguments within the movement is that he lumps the good with the bad, and draws way too broad of swath that ensnares way too many good researchers, such as David Ray Griffen, Webster Tarpley, Barrie Zwicker, among others. Also, he is a hyprocrite in that he engages in false arguments and disinformation himself. I look at patterns, and the similarities of the propaganda arguments made by dishonest 9/11 debunkers like those at Popular Mechanics are so similar to some of Jim Hoffman's that they have to be reading from the same script.
I haven't listened to Robin Hordon, perhaps I should look him up.
The whole discussion over what kind of evidence we should focus on is a complex issue. Some people think we should only talk about physical evidence. Other's say that we should instead follow the money and just focus on the who and why behind 9/11, such as whistleblower Richard Andrew Grove who worked on the 96th floor of the WTC for Marsh and McLennon at http://911synchronicity.com. Some say that the perpetrators can always find "experts" to dispute your scientific evidence and so it is a waste of time trying to try to prove anything scientifically. Richard Grove thinks that the documents he points people to that connect the money, individuals, and corporations behind 9/11 are the best evidence to use in a court of law. For me personally, it was looking at the physical evidence that pushed me over the edge into MIHOP.
Anyway, I guess my main point with this Pentagon discussion is that I don't think we have to be afraid of NPT discrediting the movement, as the concept of NPT at the Pentagon has and continues to wake so many people up and I just don't understand why some people on this forum are so hot and bothered over it. The argument that we will discredit the movement in the eyes of the mainstream public by disputing such and such part of the OGCT is just worthless. Why should we allow the lying mainstream media to tell us what arguments we should or should not present. If you make our decisions based on that, then we should all just give up on the 9/11 issue entirely and go home, because to even question any single part of the OGCT gives the MSM a reason to try to discredit us. Are we a TRUTH movement, or a TRUTH SUPRESSION movement, supressing any part of the truth that we are afraid someone might use to ridicule us?
I actually know someone who was in Washington DC on 9/11, as an independent journalist. He was one of the first on the scene at the Pentagon, and he told me that it was obvious to him right away that no large passenger plane crashed there. He told me that because of this, he knew that the official 9/11 story was BS right from the beginning. I think we should stop trying to second guess how much truth the public can handle and just focus on getting the truth out there, and let the chips fall where they may.
Keenan, thanks and respect! Do you get my point about....
sticking to the less contraversial evidence?
I've been talking to 911oz about Hoffman and he is very wary of him as well. I will be cautious with regards his slant on things in the future.
Please check out Robin Hordon, the Gun's and Butter interview was the best that I've heard, no disrespect to Carol's interview with him that was also excellent!
I really enjoyed talking to you I just have a problem with absolutes in the 9/11 truth campain, the less egg on our faces the better!
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
Yes, I just don't think the NPT at Pentagon is so controversial
As far as educating new people about the 9/11 inside job evidence, I agree that we should start out presenting a simplified version that includes just a few straight forward points that are easy to grasp. I would include the WTC controlled demolition, the Pentagon anomoly, and the fake Bin Laden video, and perhaps the financing and money connections - insider stock trading by CIA-connected Deutcha Bank, for example, and the fact that all of the corporate executives and higher-ups in the WTC knew not to show up for work that day and instead were flown to Offit AFB in the morning where Bush arrived later in the day.
I don't think the Pentagon NPT is so controversial, as most people seem to grok it pretty easily. The only reason I think it is so controversial for some people is because of the work of disinfo agents like Hoffman confusing the issue and making it controversial.
What I heard from Hordon
'Have you listened to Robin Hordon, he has exactly the right idea on this subject, maybe you'll get my drift then.'
I'm not sure what is meant hear about his having 'the right idea on this subject,' but when I heard Robin Hordon speak in Boston last December, he made it clear he thinks it was a military plane and not Flight 77 that hit the Penatagon.
Robin Hordon......
Yeah, maybe my intent was unclear.
I meant to say the things I think he thinks most important;
1. The changing of the FAA/NORAD protocols in June of 2001to give the Neo-cons the ability to slow/stop the response to the highjackings.
2. The loss of the primary radar target returns making it impossible to know what flight hit the Pentagon.
3. The impossibility that a pilot could fly that tragectory without outside assistance.
4. The Pentagon anti-aircraft defences.
5.The impossibility of the Digital Flight Data Recorder data being real.
I havn't heard him say it wasn't possible that a 757 hit the Pentagon. He consentrates on what happened before the plane/missile hit because that is less speculative and easier to argue! I got this feeling from the two interviews I heard him do. Guns & Butter and with Carol on her radio program.
The military plane I think is most likely too, but I won't say there is no doubt and I think Robin would agree, of course I may be wrong!
Have you heard him say no 757 hit the Pentagon rm?
He seems like an excellent person and I believe his work is as important as Steven Jones's, I wish I was as lucky as you and got to meet him!
Regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
Hordon
What I recall is him saying is he thinks a military plane is most likely, that he doubts it was Flight 77 or a commercial airliner, but I suppose that's not quite a flat out assertion on his part that it absolutely was not the latter.
I second that.
Dead on, John. Pentagon remains a mystery for now. All we know is that there is a cover-up and a stand down. RELEASE THE TAPES!!
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Testimony Analysis
"The fact that you are not aware of the MANY conflicting eyewitnesses who DID claim to have seen something other than a 757 shows your level of ignorance."
No actually, that's false. See my post here--I quote all of the testimony
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-w...
I also include a statistical analysis and it reveals virtually 100% claimed it was a large commercial airliner that hit the Pentagon. The exact model (750/730 is in question, which should be expected as this is a very specific detail).
"...of the people who describe the plane in more detail than just “plane”, close to 100% identified it as a large commercial plane of some type. Only a very small percentage claimed it was a small plane, and this is reflected in the chart above.
Furthermore, this would appear to lend credibility to the legitimacy of the testimony because there is significant disagreement about the exact model of the plane, and a relatively small amount of witnesses appear to have been confident enough to answer this question. Indeed, some witnesses claimed the plane was “either a 757 or…” another type. The only other types are listed below, and are so rare that I did not include them in this chart. It should be remarked that the difference in appearance between a 757 and 737 is not easily distinguishable, and this could explain why witnesses described both types frequently. The description “American Airlines” is frequently seen, and obviously this would be more readily apparent to witnesses than the exact model (757 or 737)."
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Good point! Regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
For what it's worth...
I remember watching on TV that day, and I DEFINITELY remember there being confusion as to what hit the Pentagon. There was debate on this from the word "go". I'm also pretty sure, 75% or 80% sure, that I remember hearing reports of a missle. I'm also 100% DEFINITELY sure I remember there being more news coverage and eyewitness reports on TV that day that have since been burried.
I saw some new footage recently, I think it was in that "The Explosive Reality" compilation... That one guy who is interviewed about 3 or 4 times is about as credible as Harley Guy. I think it's his brother.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that AA-77 did NOT
strike the Pentagon, including:
· Hani Hanjour could not have flown back 250 miles from Ohio to find & hit the Pentagon, (let alone the small, renovated wedge).
· Hanjour could not have made incredible maneuvers in a Boeing 757& fly 2 feet above the ground.
· A Boeing 757 can NOT make/disappear through a 16-foot initial impact hole. The airliner has a 125-foot wingspan & two huge steel/titanium engines that "disappeared" as did the 250 seats & the luggage.
· There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that slammed the Pentagon @ 530 mph, while the plane itself was supposedly obliterated. The fictitious DNA results were fabricated to bolster the official lie.
· 80 videos of whatever hit or blew-up the Pentagon are being withheld by the gov't for no reason. (The only videos released look like an A3 SkyWarrior!)
Colombo, what do you have to compare to this crash scene..
in aviation history. We do not have the data to say it is not possible!
A 757 has the same fuselage as a 737/707 much smaller than a 767 and I can not say for sure what size hole it makes at 500 mph into this armored structure, there is no precedent. Obviously it all looks very suspect!
This is a complicated subject that many propose to be expert on.
Put this way the more you know the less you know! We don’t know enough to make these claims that I hear here, that is for sure!
Regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
Impact hole
Size of the impact hole is just one consideration. We're supposed to believe that the Pentagon exterior was so vulnerable and could offer so little resistance that virtually the entire fuselage was able to penetrate the building--and what's more, to penetrate inner rings as well. At the same time, we're told that that same Pentagon exterior so overwhelmed the remainder of the aircraft as to shred the material to bits, with the wings unable to leave any discernible impression on either side of the hole. Images of the points of impact on the WTC towers correlate with the wingspan of a plane. In the case of the Pentagon, we just get a picture of a hole, with no discernible impressions to the left or right.
Bravo
You get it.
Hoffman and Pickering are aberrations in the movement.
The evidence does not support a 757 impact.
We have proven it.
Hoffman IGNORES the data we present and Pickering stuck to attacking us personally but ended up running screaming from the facts to the point of taking down the front page of his site.
Pickering has been exposed.
Anything 9/11 Great
Even though I'm not so committed to the "missile hit the Pentagon" school of thought, I look forward to the film. As a drama it looks to be compelling. For raising 9/11 Truth awareness, awesome. I'm not completely against the missile theory, it's just that it smacks of set-up. I just don't know why the 9/11 culprits would use planes for the WTC strikes yet resort to missiles for the Pentagon. Especially because with so many eyewitnesses and the pile of debris outside the Pentagon, it's hard to think that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. However, it's plausible that they used a plane shadowing a missile and the plane pulled off at the last second allowing for many wittinesses to see a plane. I think the real issue at the Pentagon is one that is still going on. There were nearly 200 different cameras apart of the Pentagon security system and the DC Traffic control. The real crime at the Pentagon is that they are not releasing any of the footage from all of these cameras which would show us exactly whatever it was that hit the Pentagon. It's nearly six years later and there a number of legal demands for the videos from conservative groups like Judicial Watch, yet all legal demands are being ignored by the Pentagon in violation of the law. That's gravely suspicious activity in the face of serious criminal inquiry. That's what I believe is priority #1 at the Pentagon.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
What hit the Pentagon?
I have always assumed it was a plane but not a 757. Probably a Global Hawk. The wreckage was not from a 757. Makes no difference, 9/11 was an inside job from start to finish. The details will come out soon enough. I have a feeling, when it does, we will be in for some surprises. All we can do now is speculate.
To "The Captain"
I assume you have no idea what the word "speculate" means moron. I make no claims on what hit the Pentagon. It could have been a flying saucer with little green men for all I know. That doesn't change a thing. 9/11 was an inside job. Period. You expect me to believe 19 cavemen with boxcutters pulled off 9/11?.............Get a brain Captain.......... As far as the Pentagon hit goes, a bird couldn't shit on the Pentagon without Rummy and the rest of the scum who run the military allowing it to happen.
you got that right
nothing is going to hit the Pentagon without permission. They're called patriot missiles and there are 5 batteries of them at the Pentagon.
SOURCE?
I looked very intently for documentation of the anti-aircraft systems at the Pentagon. The only source found was Griffin citing that French "Pentagate" guy, whom I don't trust. He is not an official source, and there was nothing particularly convincing in Griffin citing him.
Where's the real documentation of the Pentagon defense systems? You claim that they are "Patriot missiles" and there are 5 batteries. Where is your source?
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Plane shadowing missle??
What kind of missle? This seems silly. Missles are WAY super-sonic. How do you slow a missle enough to lag along with a commercial plane? Or if we're talking a military plane keeping up with the missle, it would have to be a small powerful jet. And what would be the purpose of this elaborate set up? I think it's far more likely that it was one or the other. Either the Boeing or a missle. Or maybe a military plane, but flyover is pushing it BIG TIME.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Nope
while there are (mostly russian) supersonic cruise missiles, the common US models -- such as the AGM-86 or the Tomahawk -- are subsonic. Shadowing might have been a real possibility.
______________
interns < internets
Severe , Visibility , link , download
John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE
Bonsoir Carol ,
I
t has been years that I have documented on your posting on the internet and I have to say that I have a lot of respect for your aide to bring out the truth on 911.
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.moz...
Everyone is working in his corner to change things and the 911 inside job is a subject too important that we have to pay for information or videos copies.
Can you please put up a link to "Severe Visibility" so that we can learn from this video. A download link would be even better!
Thanks
John
Does Anyone Know...
Where is Major Kruter is today? Did he testify during the 9/11 Commission? What happened to this guy?
There are other ways this film can be shown...Online, gorilla showings in cities, house parties, much like Press for Truth got out. I understand that Paul will appreciate getting compensated for his work but is Paul going to distribute this film outside the Mainstream Theaters or just chuck it in? More info please...
I believe he's a fictional character.
"Paul said he created Major Kruter to represent the average American who believes in 'America,'..."
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Not fictional...
but this character only appears in flashbacks... back when you could find an average American who still believed in 'America'.
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
Meanwhile in Istanbul's Ritz Carlton Hotel....
Copyright 2007 Financial Times Information
All Rights Reserved
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire
Copyright 2007 BBC Monitoring Service , Source: The Financial Times Limited
BBC Monitoring International Reports
May 31, 2007 Thursday
ACC-NO: A200705313-14E14-GNW
LENGTH: 342 words
HEADLINE: TURKEY ISTANBUL TO HOST BILDERBERG MEETING
BODY:
Text of report in English by Turkish news agency Anatolia
Istanbul, 31 May: The 55th Bilderberg Meeting will begin in Istanbul on Friday [1 June], with the participation of 135 leading figures from different countries.
Bilderberg is an annual conference of the global elite, the location of which changes every year. The event gathers high-level officials from the world business, politics and media circles.
Issues such as new world order, Turkey, the Middle East, Europe, the United States, democracy and populism, prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, information technologies and climate change will be discussed during the three-day meeting.
The Turkish state minister and chief negotiator, Ali Babacan, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Administrator Kemal Dervis, the Association of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen (Tusiad) Chairwoman Arzuhan Dogan Yalcindag, Koc Holding Executive Board President Mustafa Koc and the Bogazici University rector, Prof Dr Ayse Soysal, will attend the meeting on behalf of Turkey.
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Sofia of Spain, Crown Prince Philippe of Belgium, Greek National Economy and Finance Minister Yeoryios Alogoskoufis, former Prime Minister Francisco Pinto Balsemao of Portugal, former Foreign Minister Michel Barnier of France, Foreign Minister Carl Bildt of Sweden, Finance Minister Anders Borg of Sweden, Foreign Trade Minister Frank Heemskerk of the Netherlands, Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen of Finland, former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, Agriculture Minister Christine Lagarde of France, Justice Minister Michael McDowell of Ireland, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato, the EU commissioner for enlargement, Olli Rehn, and the US ambassador to Turkey, Ross Wilson, are among foreign guests of the meeting.
Meanwhile, tight security measures were taken in and around the Ritz Carlton Hotel, the venue of the meeting.
Source: Anatolia news agency, Ankara, in English 1057 gmt 31 May 07
BBC Monitoring
LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2007
Just once I'd like to
Just once I'd like to Kissinger NOT on one of those lists. That man is human cancer.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
does Heinz get a veto on BB meeting location?
They have to choose carefully; he'll be arrested if he visits certain countries.
Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"
Dr. Strangelove himself.
Kissinger is sapping my precious bodily fluids.
...wait, let me rephrase that...
LOL!!!
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
There was another promising 9/11 "fictional" film....
....about 9/11 that had a trailer about 6 months ago, that also looked very promising....
As I recall, the plot concerned itself with following a skeptical journalist, who went around investigating, gathering evidence....
Does anyone remember that film?
yes! about the Russian
yes! about the Russian journalist right? i thought that one looked extremely promising.
edit: yes, it is Reflecting Pool. im not sure of its current status.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7887
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Reflecting Pool is listed....
....as of 4/13/07, as being in "post-production"...that's all I've found out as of yet....
Here is the home page: http://reflectingpoolfilm.com/index.htm
Unfortunately, no contact info.
Thanks Chris.
no problem. hopefully this
no problem. hopefully this film wont die, looks interesting.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
I would buy this movie...
Perhaps he should just sell it himself from his website. I'd buy a copy. Wouldn't you?
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
call me paranoid
I just get a little weary when movies pop up out of nowhere. Especially with information regarding the Pentagon, I have concerns that the Pentagon materials have not been the most solid research.
I'll watch it first.
I'll watch it and then see if I'd reccomend it.
Just cause you're paranoid...
doesn't mean they ain't out to get us. Actually you make a very good point. This movie did just pop up out of nowhere. And they said the director was in the whitehouse on the 11th doing "documentary". Them kind of credentials aren't just tossed around.
Unless of course you are a gay porn escort with a military fetish.
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
Nothing in the poster...
....contradicts the government's CT.....
Nice gratuitous Gannon reference.
It all boils down to...
No Planes.
This is a no plane argument. Not our strongest evidence.
I'm highly skeptical at this point.
One witness testimony...
and the guy has a head injury. Great.
This apparently only deals with the Pentagon
'No planes' at the Pentagon ought not be confused with 'no planes' at the WTC. To jumble together questioning of planes at different sites on 9/11, as if to deny one is to deny all, only confuses debate.
Flight 77 did not hit the
Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon . Proof you say.
Try the flight data recorder. The plane was 800 ft off of the ground when it was supposedly striking the building.
Eye witness testimony is notoriously bullshit. Rely on science and we can't go wrong.
More Details- Response to Comments
Carol Brouillet
http://www.communitycurrency.org
Thank-you for all the responses! I must say that I HATE to look at the evidence surrounding the Pentagon- because it has been so divisive within the movement. I'd rather discuss the points which I feel comfortable about which strike me as our strongest points of evidence. However, the Pentagon is what woke Paul Cross up, so of course he feels that it is the aspect that will wake other people up and he concentrates on that. He tried to include more stuff- and tested it on audiences, but had to pare it back to make it comprehensible. If you listen to the interview- you can hear me argue with him about purtting the third story out of the Commission Report into the mouth of the investigative journalist. He disagreed and urged me to watch the film again- it is complex and he tried to include the best and most compelling evidence and thinks I was confused following the narrative- and I do intend to watch the film again and review it for him. I didn't want to include too many details about the film- because I don't want to give the plot away, and at the same time- I think he wants people to think for themselves and to reach their own conclusions. He certainly wants people to begin questioning what they have been told about 9/11. He does want to have a theatrical release- to make some noise and get some publicity about the film- before releasing the DVD. I have no idea what his production costs are nor how much he has already invested into the film, but I do know that film-making is expensive and that film-makers shouldn't go "belly up" losing all their investment and just giving their films away for free- it is not sustainable. (Actually, my grandfather was a Hollywood producer in the 40's and he actually lost a fortune once on a film called the "Flying Tigers"- about the predessor to the CIA's activities in China prior to World War One- it was banned in the United States and my grandfather lost every penny he put into the film.) Barrie Zwicker, Ken Jenkins, Mike Berger, Penny Little, all are friends of mine- and I don't pirate their stuff- I get it wholesale from them and sell it retail- or we make an arrangement so that I can get review copies to press- but I try to help them recover their investment, sustain their work, and continue to produce films and continue with their important contributions towards raising consciousness. One has to respect film-makers and let them figure out what they need to do to cover their costs, and what they want to do in regards to getting their message out. I do know that Paul's film has the highest production values of the 9/11 Truth films out there. How popular it will be- I don't know- it's not one of those "happy ending" fuzzy, joyful escape fantasies. It will make people question their beliefs and themselves deeply. Obviously, a lot of people don't want to do that and will shy away from the topic, reality, and self examination.
DC is interested in showing it- and we will try to premiere it in August in the Bay Area. If you want to premiere it in your local theater contact Paul. He can be reached through his website- which also has the trailer and more info on the film.
G'day Carol....
Looks good and sounds interesting!
The bloody Pentagon is a pain in the backside and it's the thing that woke me up first too!
Just a few hours on this blog arguing about it, sorry about that, civily of course.
Still waiting on those deception dollars? Any idea?
Kindest regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
Pentagon, DDs
Carol Brouillet
http://www.communitycurrency.org
I just watched the film again- there is a lot of information in it- some hard, some theory, some speculation.. I do need to interview Paul Cross, again- and find out just "when" he woke up to this issue. One pilot that I know was in denial for years and then spoke to other pilots- and finally decided to go public. Robin Hordon waited until there was a movement and the Vanity Fair article prompted him to go public with his info.
John I mailed you the Deception Dollars at the end of April- please let me know when they arrive- if you are out now- I can send you another fast airmail packet to tide you over til they get there- but I didn't send them via air- since you said you weren't in a hurry. (Australia- isn't a hop skip and a jump from here.)
No worries I was expecting 6 weeks, could be stuck somewhere!
Probably will be here this week!
Hope you and family are well.
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
I think this is an important issue in itself worth discussing.
Hi Carol, thank you for bringing this film to our attention. I had seen the trailer online for some time and am looking forward to seeing the actual film.
The "important issue" here has to do with social responsibility on one hand vs any expectation of monetary return on the other. Not that these two things need be antithetical -- but this needs further discussion.
In this instance we are dealing with an unprecedented emergency -- a matter of national security. Not the security of our government and those who believe they own and control it -- but our constitution and all that it is meant to safeguard -- including our very lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is a national, international and global crisis. The criminals responsible for 9/11 are still at large which indicates they are very powerful people with significant influence at every level of society, government, military, media and private sectors. They've gotten away with mass murder and war crimes -- and there is no guarantee at all that they won't do the same or worse again if it suits their purposes. In any case, they have used 9/11 as a provocation for war which has killed thousands more of our own citizens and untold hundreds of thousands of citizens of other countries. And, apparently, they would like very much to extend this war to subdue the entire Middle East -- costing who knows how many more lives.
So there is, to me, first and foremost the question of social responsibility. If one begins to question and begins to see the truth and the significance of the truth, then one is faced with a moral obligation to not only learn more but to speak out and make the attempt -- while such attempts are possible -- to wake up one's neighbor from the government/media induced hypnotic trance. Since we can not expect much, if any, cooperation from corporate owned media (at least at this point and probably for the long haul), then it is up to us -- you and I and every other person who has glimpsed the truth.
To me, despite its many faults, this is one of the most compelling aspects of Loose Change. One young man began to see something, see its meaning for us all, and felt compelled to bring as much information as he could together and present it in a way that would reach as many of his peers as possible. What is interesting in this case is that, largely due to the internet, this effort was met with far more success than Dylan (and subsequently Cory and Jason) could have anticipated. I don't think it has made them 'rich' but it certainly has brought a lot of attention their way and has probably brought them some economic benefits as well (more power to them).
Personally, I think the Loose Change strategy is telling -- and has lessons for anyone who is trying to deal with this issue and, at the same time, mindful of the monetary costs. I certainly understand that making this movie cost thousands of times more than Dylan Avery's expenses with his time and lap-top. But what we are dealing with here is the need to get information out to the masses as quickly as possible -- and so far as I can tell to date the only effective way to do that is via the internet and word of mouth. People making movies and not putting them, or parts of them, up on google or youtube are truly missing the boat here because THAT is how promotion works now, especially for anything dealing with issues like 9/11. I'm one of those people who tries to purchase at least ONE copy of every 9/11 documentary made (and in many instances purchase many more to give out to friends). At the same time, I also confess to copying at least some of these and distributing them by hand -- and I do this not with the intention of ripping anyone off but because I feel the information contained in them is so vital that everyone in our society needs to see this information. I also encourage people to purchase copies of these DVDs for themselves -- and, thus, to support the producers.
I guess what I'm getting at here is the idea that we are in an unprecedented situation on a lot of levels -- both in terms of 9/11 itself and also in terms of where our society may be headed in regards to creating alternative distribution networks for information, necessary because the corporate networks no longer have any moral compass what so ever. For the first time in human history we are able to share information horizontally (rather than hierarchically) via the internet -- and that is why we've been able to 'wake up' as many people as we have. But we are a long way from being out of the woods. So many things could yet happen which could lead to a far worse situation than what we have now -- and now is far worse than it appears to most of us.
Perhaps I'm just rambling. I don't have an answer -- I'm just saying this is a vital question. I respect the producers need to cover costs -- but I think one has to balance that against the needs of the society at large for whom, one assumes, the presentation was produced. What good is any of that going to do him or us if, for whatever reason, the nation falls into chaos and potential martial law under the direction of those with dictatorial powers? Given recent news items one can hardly say that such concerns are any longer mere paranoia. All the legal infrastructure is now in place. We have to get the word out to as many people as we can possibly reach NOW because tomorrow may very well be too late.
The "Flying Tigers"
Thanks Carol... sounds like your grandfathers experience and the subject matter of his film would make a damn fine documentary.
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
Thanks Carol, you're one of my heros in the truth movement!
Carol, your dedication and hard work for the last 5 years in the truth movement blows me away. Thanks for all you have done and are still doing for the cause.
You bring up a very important issue regarding balancing emergency information distribution vs sustainable qulity media production. I have personally burned and freely distributed thousands of 9/11 DVDs, mostly of ones that the authors have given permission to freely distribute, though most of those had much lower production costs than Severe Visibility apparently had. As we continue moving into this new horizontally distributed/democratised media paradigm, we'll have to grapple with how best to compensate artists/producers through this new medium in a fair way.
By the way, I had so much fun with you all at the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 truth last November. You were a natural in the colonial dress and would have probably won a fashion contest!
damn right, that woman
damn right, that woman confronted Zelikow, if for nothing else i'll always remember her for that. keep kickin ass Carol!
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Yes, she is very cool!
She also does some excellent political work, which not many others do or even try to do! This is an important part of this struggle we must be ready for the collaspe of power with something new. The Greens are the only alternative at this stage.
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!
3rd rail syndrom
Aside from PDX911 Truth Alliance, a handful of ardent supporters and one impassioned critic, we've had very little interest in this film www.thefall01.info - an epic art piece from a live multi-media performance on terror, war and torture - essentially an artistic archive of the empire at the precipice of its fall - we have to produce all our own screenings and no presenters have stepped up for the US premiere, which we're trying to do this fall after the European premiere in August - movie is from the world premiere last Sept. 11-12-13 in Mexico, where there was great interest, leading to 6 radio interviews during the week we were there for the live world premiere.
USA needs to see that film !!!
Yeah .. I, too, heard
mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0705/20070528_Mon_Brouillet2.mp3
you got a healthy giggle, sister! Somehow makes everything light-hearted.
Maybe that's our role in this world... We give life and we can make light of death.
Your grandpa's film was nominated for 3 Oscars. http://imdb.com/title/tt0034742
How come it was banned? It starred s John Wayne!
How can a war-movie fail in USA? Everything is militaristic here.. despicable!
I really enjoyed listening to you two.
He repeated the 2006 poll question:
Do you think Saddam Hussain, the former Iraqi leader, was personally involved in September 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center
53% NO
38% YES
At 49:25 he says the poll is a Time Discovery Channel poll from Time Magazine Sept 11, 2006 edition poll was taken August 22 - 24 - 2006 ... more of this: http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/06/chomsky-hedgehog-cartoons.html
anyway, is the film any good? We have seen lots of boring films. I remember the one about the sinking of the Estonia .... my guess it's comparable rubbish.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2276600854122640473
Remember, PLUTONIUM in the shallow sea, encased in a concrete sacophargus, 800 murdered, some killed afterwards... CIA and russian nationalists involved... and it is imaginable that russian SPACE WEAPONS were involved. (oops, there twitch the button pushers!) ... and it's a deadly boring film.
Honegger has written Pentagon Attack Papers
Have you read it? Its available here:
http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf
I'd like to see the discussion that follows include her writing.
It's 12 pages. She says that pre-planted explosives were detonated before the official plane impact time (which has shifted over several minutes). A missile, or drone also impacted the building to cause damage to inner rings, but certainly not a 757 and certainly after the initial explosion. Then a military jet was sent to pentagon to view the damage and made the 270-deg turn and rapid descent. This flight was then used to describe the behavior of flight 77.
Barbara Honegger who was author of 1989 bestseller, The October Surprise, is featured on www.patriotsQuestion911.org where link to above paper can be found. The paper contains original investigative research and well footnoted.
From watching the trailer this movie looks pretty horrible
Reminds me of those cheesy religious movies about the coming apocalypse or Armageddon that I've seen advertised on late night Christian Cable TV shows.
Just my opinion, though.
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening