Saturday, September 23, 2006

9-11 Press For Truth Analysis Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 Comments:

At 23 September, 2006 16:54, Blogger CHF said...

The Payne Stewert "21 minute" claim is a good representation of the whole twoof movement.

They're so sloppy that they don't even notice a time zone change.

And they wonder why the MSM doesn't waste more time on them.

 
At 23 September, 2006 17:51, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I will agree, there is alot of typical "Michael Moore" style documentary ploys in this film. I agree they are dishonest about alot of things.

This is part of what seperates this documentary as a "smart" doc, in many ways much more smart than LC, in terms of winning the general public. It doesnt throw outrageous claims in your face, it uses music and Victim Families for heart appeal. the makers were EXTREMELY wise to the gen public perception of the CTers, and i think purposely avoided most of the trappings.

That is why I feel, this is a more dangerous film. Some of it, such as the need to have questions on the pakistani involvement etc...that I believe is valid component. Most of it, however, leads the public quite easily, down a path filled with "small lies" that in the end may convince alot more of middle america that LC ever will.

TAM

 
At 23 September, 2006 18:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10 minutes into the film and they've already demonstrated they don't understand time zones.

Can't wait to see the comedy in the next 10 minutes.

 
At 23 September, 2006 20:58, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"it uses music and Victim Families for heart appeal"

maybe they really feel that way. ever thought of that? they were victims after all, not once but twice. once when they lost loved ones and once when they're demands for an investigation were rebuffed. would you be mad if your family member was killed and the police told you any lingering questions were not important enough to be investigated?

"small lies"

it's dangerous to state things without backing them up ... after all someone might think you are making it up!

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:02, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"That is why I feel, this is a more dangerous film"

what's so dangerous about it? do you actually approve of the way things were/are handled? don't you think people should be made aware?

i mean, what president in his right mind receives a warning of a terrorist threat and does NOTHING about it. that's worse than incompetence. that's negligence.

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:03, Blogger M5 said...

Just curious if you guys have examined (a) the number of MIL ATC sites (military air traffic control) that were in the multiple 9-11 incident zones (b) the number of joint military/civilian ATC facilities in the same multiple incident zones.

In addition, factor in the # of MIL RAPCON (radar approach and control facilities) in the multiple incident zone. How many are there? And where are they located?

How many of you are completely familiar with MIL ATC SOP - the military air traffic control -standard operating procedure? A good percentage is classified minimally w/a FOUO (For Official Use Only) - so I propose that unless you have served in that capacity and/or have an associated clearance - you probably have no clue.

So while you guys spend your time pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the 9-11 movies - I find it interesting that you ignore (perhaps out of pure ignorance) the above questions - that would likely indicate that the military was fully aware of one or all of the planes as soon as it went off transponder.

Additionally, many of the corridors in the incident area - require constant hand-off & coordination between civiilan and military ATC. On a daily basis the Air Force and other branches have thousands of planes/helos intersecting civilian and/or shared air corridors - which require seemless communication betwen the various centers.

For example, many military ANG (Air National Guard) faciilties are located at civilian airports - there are typically military ATC assigned to those facilities as well.

My simple proposition to you - as well as to folks who question 9-11 is to employ further depth around the analysis. Sadly the govt./military thrives off of the ignorance of folks such as yourselves.

Fundamentally, they (truthers) are on the correct path. They are fullfilling their Constitutional duty to question their govt. with what little facts and scattered details they have..A comparison of what happened to Payne's plane and what happened on 9-11 is a legitimate question...Additionally, I believe you can find inconsistencies in the times of planes responding etc..in the govt. reports and various media reports....

Not exactly sure what you guys are doing - in your quest to disprove or batter anyone who questions the govts. story...The administration (almost from day one) has begged citizens "not to engage in any wild conspiracy theories" - and has spurred on the supposed anti-conspiracy movement - with our tax dollars. The position could have some sense of legitimacy had it not come from the very people who are being sought out as being involved in said conspiracy.

I've asked this question several times - what is it that you gain (as a tax paying citizen - presumption) if the truth movement is wrong? Wow they were a bunch of stupid crackpots and nobody cares the next day...What happens if you are wrong? You certainly don't have history on your side...corrupt govts. duped, compliant and defensive segments of the population has been the downfall of many societies...What has changed?...When has it become acceptable to give the govt. the benefit of the doubt? Oh I forgot - dumbed down American thinks it's when the govt. has made a case that the bad guys are coming to get us...Since the beginning of the latest Iraq War the head of Halliburton has earned $100 million dollars - meanwhile many Marines were sickened by contaminated water from the same comp....The chump who privately interrogated prisoners at Abu has made $23 million...Yeah keep waving that flag and fighting the good fight.

Perhaps some of your questions will help refine the case that is growing against the govt...Last night I watched a news clip from a local affiliate in Louisiana - where a popular dentist (the familiy alleges he was poisoned) died- after producing a manuscript about his meeting three of the hijackers well before 9-11...they were lving near Barksdale AFB..he talked to FBI etc...but like the other leads of this nature the case was pushed aside...The are one too many stories of this nature to be silly CT or coincidence...Still haven't heard you guys talk about Michael McCormick - 9-11 Hero- who was SWAT teamed after - getting the news out about the fake EPA report - that has left many first responders fighting for their lives - yeah I know more CT...

 
At 23 September, 2006 23:32, Blogger James B. said...

I don't get why the conspiracy theorists are pushing this movie. It is about a group of women who are arguing that we didn't take the threat of Islamic terrorism in the US seriously enought. But these are the same people who are arguing that there is no threat of Islamic terrorism!

 
At 24 September, 2006 02:34, Blogger roger_sq said...

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


Curious as to where you got your information regarding NEADS?

Hope it wasn't from.... fictitious testimony presented by the 9/11 Commission.

Because that would be a lie.

(source: Thomas Kean)

I know, I am outta here...just couldn't pass it by.

You can now go back to pissing on the widows now in your typical hypocritical style.

m5, thumbs up, but you're wasting your time. These people are beyond brainwashed.

 
At 24 September, 2006 04:40, Blogger 911coverup said...

Lol I agree!!

Oh jeez, now they're attmepting to debunk "9/11 press for truth", a nonconspiracy theory documentary.

Not only the report of neads contacting faa are implausible, there have been numerous changes of the contact times between neads, faa and norad over the years. They've created the time lines in the report to give it some plausibility but it still doesn't make sense. Mineta testimony omitted? Confusing AA77 for AA11?? Only one mentioning of wargame when there were 5 or 6 scheduled? What a joke.

 
At 24 September, 2006 04:57, Blogger shawn said...

These people are beyond brainwashed.

How I do love some good irony in the morning.

You might want to stop projecting, as well. You didn't know there was a Roman Republic, you don't think the Cold War was real, you think there was a plot to kill Kennedy...not really helping you here.

 
At 24 September, 2006 05:52, Blogger shawn said...

that's worse than incompetence. that's negligence.

What of conflicting reports? Do you know how many reports they get it?

It's like you geniuses think the only information the government has ever received about an attack is "guys are gonna hijack airliners and crash them into buildings".

And yes, wouldn't it be grand if every suprise and/or terrorist attack ever could be stopped?

a nonconspiracy theory documentary.

Michael Moore has proven that any kind of documentary can be debunked.

 
At 24 September, 2006 06:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

9/11 mysteries:

I personally am not debunking the movie piss head. I have stated numerous times that it doesnt really require debunking, as it is the furthest thing from the CT nutcases mainstream of thought.

The biggest issue I have is why all the nutbars are claiming this is the "Big Movie" for their movement, when it is infact the furthest thing, next to a debunking movie, from what the majority of the CT idiots believe.

If all it does is make the general public question why more wasnt done, then fine...I am all for that. My fear is that it will be the marajuana (gateway drug) into the stupifying, utterly nonsensical world of "No Planes" "Controlled Demolition" and "Missiles Hitting the Pentagon". That is why I feel it is a dangerous movie.

If the end result is that the majority of americans request another investigation, fine, but I fear it will lead people down a path, without solid facts or evidence, and their emotions will take over.

And are you going to stand here, and openly say that Paul Thompson does NOT believe in "Controlled Demolition of WTCs" or "No 757 Hit the Pentagon" or "9/11 was an inside job"?

"it uses music and Victim Families for heart appeal"

maybe they really feel that way. ever thought of that? they were victims after all, not once but twice. once when they lost loved ones and once when they're demands for an investigation were rebuffed. would you be mad if your family member was killed and the police told you any lingering questions were not important enough to be investigated?


I was referring to the filmakers use of the emotional testimony of the jersey girls, not the emotions themselves you idiot. Of course the emotions were real, of course they were victims, multiple times. As usual, as a CTer you are all about twisting my words.

Do you think the use of the gentle music under their testimonies and the angry sinister music under the USG sections was unintentional...give the filmaker a little more credit than that...I did.

"small lies"

it's dangerous to state things without backing them up ... after all someone might think you are making it up!


I agree. Most of the "lies" in the film, are minor in nature, but they over all create some false perceptions. This is why I have said the creators of the film were smart, unlike the creators of LC.

As for your comment about statring things without backing them up. That is what the "truth" movement does with almost EVERY SINGLE CLAIM they make. That is the reason why we do all this, because they make claims and either do not back them up, or they back it up with sloppy articles from rediculous sources, and virtually no solid evidence.

Here, I believe is where Paul Thompson is different. Most of what he has in the film does at least have decent article sourcing.

"That is why I feel, this is a more dangerous film"

what's so dangerous about it? do you actually approve of the way things were/are handled? don't you think people should be made aware?

i mean, what president in his right mind receives a warning of a terrorist threat and does NOTHING about it. that's worse than incompetence. that's negligence.


If that is ALL that the filmmakers want to come of this, fine. I suspect, based on the movement they are apart of, and what the mainstream of that movement promotes, that this film is to be used to get the public to look at their "other" evidence, so the CT brainwashing of the general public can begin.


m5:

Just curious if you guys have examined (a) the number of MIL ATC sites (military air traffic control) that were in the multiple 9-11 incident zones (b) the number of joint military/civilian ATC facilities in the same multiple incident zones.


I personally haven't, but I am sure others here, or at JREF have. Without involving a paranoid comment, tell me the relevance.


In addition, factor in the # of MIL RAPCON (radar approach and control facilities) in the multiple incident zone. How many are there? And where are they located?


once again, I persoanlly have not.


How many of you are completely familiar with MIL ATC SOP - the military air traffic control -standard operating procedure? A good percentage is classified minimally w/a FOUO (For Official Use Only) - so I propose that unless you have served in that capacity and/or have an associated clearance - you probably have no clue.


For me personally, you are right, I am ignorant on the particular angle you are addressing. I am 100% positive that 99% of the "9/11 truth" movement has no clue either, so make sure you send them this info as well.


So while you guys spend your time pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the 9-11 movies - I find it interesting that you ignore (perhaps out of pure ignorance) the above questions - that would likely indicate that the military was fully aware of one or all of the planes as soon as it went off transponder.


I spend little of my time dealing with the "movies" unlike 90% of the "Truth" movement, which are obsessed with them. Almost everytime we speak with a "Truther" they will immediately respond.."Watch this film", or "but this video clearly shows", so I think you should be lecturing them to start looking at the hard evidence, not found on "videos". m5, if you want to seriously debate these issues with people who think like you, come over to JREF and bring this stuff up. Of course, i am sure if you havent already been brainwashed, they will get you now that I have mentioned "The Evil" JREF.


Additionally, many of the corridors in the incident area - require constant hand-off & coordination between civiilan and military ATC. On a daily basis the Air Force and other branches have thousands of planes/helos intersecting civilian and/or shared air corridors - which require seemless communication betwen the various centers.

For example, many military ANG (Air National Guard) faciilties are located at civilian airports - there are typically military ATC assigned to those facilities as well.


I am not afraid to claim ignorance here. Just like almost every single CTer has no clue of this, I am sure their lots of people who argue with them do not either. I hope it makes you feel better to point out this.
What more do you want me to say. IF you want to debate on it, find someone who is knowledgable in that area. JREF, and likely some here, can discuss this point with you...not I.


My simple proposition to you - as well as to folks who question 9-11 is to employ further depth around the analysis. Sadly the govt./military thrives off of the ignorance of folks such as yourselves.


Now your ignorance comes out. The vast majority of people who Debunk the astronomical amount of shaite that the "truth" movement puts out, actually are very knowledgeable in many more areas than the "truthers". You are obviously bias toward their side of the argument, as you have not done your research on what the Debunkers do or do not know. Go over and bring this stuff up with people on JREF, where most of the Debunking goes on, and I am sure you will find their degree of knowledge MUCH GREATER than that of the "truthers".


Fundamentally, they (truthers) are on the correct path. They are fullfilling their Constitutional duty to question their govt. with what little facts and scattered details they have..A comparison of what happened to Payne's plane and what happened on 9-11 is a legitimate question...Additionally, I believe you can find inconsistencies in the times of planes responding etc..in the govt. reports and various media reports....


Not one single Debunker will state that it is wrong to "ask questions". If that was ALL the "truthers" were doing, it would be a non issue. The trouble is that saying there were "No Planes" hitting the buildings on 9/11, and saying the buildings were brought down by "Controlled Demolition" is far from JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.

I think the Debunkers are doing their civil duty to provide solid evidence and expert opinion, to seperate the wheat from the Chaff, so the general public can be PROPERLY INFORMED, not led down a path of half-truths and speculation. I feel sir, you are speaking from ignorance wrt the Debunkers. If you took the time to read most postings, you will see we are trying to use logic and solid evidence, along with reading papers by true experts, to render opinions, and then to try and show this information to those who request it.

The reason this blog was created was due to the fact that the movie "Loose Change" was so full of errors, speculation, and half-truths. It falsely claims it is "only asking questions" yet it is doing far much more, with insinuations, and in many cases they come right out and state opposing opinions...that is not "just asking questions".


Not exactly sure what you guys are doing - in your quest to disprove or batter anyone who questions the govts. story...The administration (almost from day one) has begged citizens "not to engage in any wild conspiracy theories" - and has spurred on the supposed anti-conspiracy movement - with our tax dollars. The position could have some sense of legitimacy had it not come from the very people who are being sought out as being involved in said conspiracy.


I sir, am not even american, but 25 people from my country lost their lives on 9/11. I am not a paid CIA operative or disinformation agent. I do this because I believe in using logic, and solid evidence to make a decision on something. I also believe the internet has become a dangerous tool for those who would want to have people follow them without said logic or solid evidence. They post all these half-truths and speculations without any solid evidence. They claim all experts, or 99% of them are govt shills. They accuse hundreds of professionals, most of them dutiful americans, of working to cover up for the USG. They mock the victims of the flights that crashed openly in public.

I've asked this question several times - what is it that you gain (as a tax paying citizen - presumption) if the truth movement is wrong? Wow they were a bunch of stupid crackpots and nobody cares the next day...What happens if you are wrong? You certainly don't have history on your side...corrupt govts. duped, compliant and defensive segments of the population has been the downfall of many societies...What has changed?...When has it become acceptable to give the govt. the benefit of the doubt? Oh I forgot - dumbed down American thinks it's when the govt. has made a case that the bad guys are coming to get us...


If we are to call it sides, which I guess is not far off, then "our side" gains the knowledge that we have provided refuting evidence for crackpot theories that have no solid evidence behind them. We will have left, in cyberspace, a catalogue of facts and expert opinions so that the average person has both at their disposal, not just one side. If by some chance, it turns out the CTers are right, than all we have done is provided evidence based on the facts at hand.

However, the CT movement accuses hundreds of people of participation in the murder of 3,000 americans and people of other nations. If they are wrong, they have been mean, slanderous, and have been on a witch hunt of innocents.


Since the beginning of the latest Iraq War the head of Halliburton has earned $100 million dollars - meanwhile many Marines were sickened by contaminated water from the same comp....The chump who privately interrogated prisoners at Abu has made $23 million...Yeah keep waving that flag and fighting the good fight.


Nobody here is defending big business or Haliburton, so quit with the false accusations. Stick to the topic.


Perhaps some of your questions will help refine the case that is growing against the govt...Last night I watched a news clip from a local affiliate in Louisiana - where a popular dentist (the familiy alleges he was poisoned) died- after producing a manuscript about his meeting three of the hijackers well before 9-11...they were lving near Barksdale AFB..he talked to FBI etc...but like the other leads of this nature the case was pushed aside...The are one too many stories of this nature to be silly CT or coincidence...Still haven't heard you guys talk about Michael McCormick - 9-11 Hero- who was SWAT teamed after - getting the news out about the fake EPA report - that has left many first responders fighting for their lives - yeah I know more CT...


These are interesting questions yes, and they are addressed over at JREF. There is a thread on the Dentist being posted on now. But I would have though someone unbias would have known that...right.

You sir are the worst of all, you come in here trying to claim neutrality, when it is clear through your comments, that you have a stance, and are just trying to chastise us here for ours.

TAM

 
At 24 September, 2006 08:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not exactly sure what you guys are doing - in your quest to disprove or batter anyone who questions the govts. story...

It's very simple: the government's story - based on the evidence - happens to be right. I can't speak for anyone else, but I like being right. That's why I argue against the conspiracy theory.

I've asked this question several times - what is it that you gain (as a tax paying citizen - presumption) if the truth movement is wrong?

I have to have something to gain to argue against the fallacies of the CT movement?

When has it become acceptable to give the govt. the benefit of the doubt?

I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. After examing the evidence, listening to what credible experts had to say, and applying a little common sense I decided that the government was right.

It's interesting how much of your comment you devote to attacking our (debunkers) motives and how little you devote to presenting actual evidence.

You're going to have to better than a dead dentist to convince me.

 
At 24 September, 2006 09:00, Blogger Pat said...

Roger, did you try clicking the link that was there just before the times given? It's from the Vanity Fair article that exposes the generals as having lied; they lied that they knew about the hijackings earlier than they actually did.

M5, if you have information to present present it. Don't ask if we know about military rapcon stuff--that "just asking questions stuff" is as useful as nipples on men. Oooh, you've got sooper sekrit information that we don't; I'm impressed!

 
At 24 September, 2006 21:47, Blogger M5 said...

Okay thanks for your responses - I am biased in the sense that I believe that the govt. was involved...Sure I lean in favor of the "truth" movement - I lean towards those who present the hard questions to the govt..

I can pick on a lot of the work - but I believe the folks are on the right path.

At the same time I realize there are tons of disinfo - some are likely in it for personal gain. You have the entire spectrum of motivations on both sides.

I could extend the question exercise presented earlier - I could extend it to NORAD and other facets of air base operations - but I may save it for JREF.

I do however, have another line of questions. The prevailing thought is that al-queda could not have possibly carried out 9-11 without inside help (once a CIA asset - always a CIA asset?)..but that's another topic.

When we speak of inside help - I can't help but think of the unacceptable line of GI's and agents who have been caught selling out the US.

This is a bitter pill for most Americans to swallow. To seek the truth, one has to factor complicity (from a historical perspective) into a true analysis of 9-11...A relatively short history tells us that complicity was likely.

Simple research will reveal a frightning trail of Americans - in highly sensitve positions who sold out this country - it continues to this day in some form at every level of govt. Loss of American blood and/or country is not a consideration.

It's a bigger problem than I think many care to realize...A case that shook us up pretty good in the 80's was the Walker Spy case - highlighted in the book "Breaking The Ring" - a family of Navy guys selling us out to the alleged enemy..."

We come up a few years to Robert Hanssen - 20 yr FBI guy - he was working for the other side - the types of things he was involved with, coupled with the duration of his crimes - strongly suggests that he could not have acted alone.

His time in service, the likelihood of complicity of others in the agency - ties into many of the allegations of complicity around 9-11, levied against said agency.

Check out the case of Air Force Sgt. Brian Reagan - this guys was giving out secret data to sources in the Middle East - he was busted at Dulles and worked at the NRO (National Recon Office) - ... in August 2001!! - Not much talk about this guy. What was he giving away? Who was involved - internal/external? No one is talking...

Inside action against our country - the likely scenario during 9-11 is not an odd CT.

There are unquestionably, yellow blooded US GI's and folks in govt. who have absolutely no problem selling out this country - as our history painfully points out. ..Below are the profiles of some of the more significant cases of US espionage....How many have never been outed? And how many are still in our midst? 9-11 has complicit Americans written all over it...Americans have been selling out Americans for as long as I can remember.

We are talking about nuclear secrets, critical infrastructure stuff (interestingly enough the current admin dem *repub cannot sell off critical US interest to foreign bidders fast enough - shipping, planes, taxpayer funded highways, water systems, etc.)- that may eventually cost millions of lives - so the notion of folks killing 3K people and knocking a few buidings down is childs play...


http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/spycasesustoc.html

 
At 25 September, 2006 05:16, Blogger shawn said...

once a CIA asset

They were never a CIA asset.

 
At 25 September, 2006 05:51, Blogger Alex said...

Once again it's time to blame the white guy, eh M5? To racist pricks like you, the notion that some brown guys in some dinky little country you never heard of before 9/11 could have possibly been smart enough to pull off something like that is simply inconceivable, isn't it? In your world, it takes Americans to screw other Americans. Or at least westerners. Only us white folks are smart enough to do it, right?

 
At 07 October, 2006 16:37, Blogger John Duffy said...

Hey guys, my name is John Duffy, and I am one of the producers of the film in question here. I'd just like to say Im glad that the movie has become a topic of conversation.

I'm all for people trying to find holes in the information, because upon putting together the movie, we did our damndest to make sure there were none.

Every single claim or statement made in the film is based off of mainstream reporting. We aren't conspiracy theorists, and we wanted to make sure our film never speculated about anything. In fact, when we were developing the film concept, we wanted it to be mainly a media criticism. We wanted to know why so many important facts that made it out in one or two media sources, never made it into the mass conciousness. We thought highlighting these facts would make an interesting film.

As far as the earlier point made about the amount of time the Air Force had to respond, the blogger here is using the times that he says the military was warned, versus the crash times.

First and foremost, the times given to us by the government have changed since 9-11. So that information is a little difficult to work with. But it's also important to note the time at which planes had their transponders turned off, and diverted from their flight paths. In the case of the first plane, this happened at 8:13 a.m.

Beyond that, if the Bush administration had been receiving intense, detailed warnings all summer long, why after the first plane crashed into the WTC, did they not scramble fighters to protect Washington DC? They had forty minutes to do so before a plane would hit the Pentagon.

Over all, what we try to point out in the film, is that the government had received many detailed warnings about coming attacks via hijacked planes. They were even given potential targets such as the WTC, and yet as the attacks unfolded, they were completely dumfounded. Bush claims that he thought it was an errant plane that first hit the WTC. How absurd is that? He'd been warned multiple times of a plot to use hijacked planes to attack the US, and he looks at this incident as it happens and thinks, "What a lously pilot?"

Beyond the film, this is just my opinion, if they weren't letting it happen, then they are far too incompetent to be serving in office. In fact, that kind of idiocy, which led to the deaths of almost three thousand people, is what we here in the sates call "Gross Negligence," and members of the administration deserve to stand trial for that, if not high treason.

Anyway, continue with your "debunking." All of us here at the film are reading it and enjoying it. Thanks to everyone who sees the film, we think it is important, and we are all very proud of it.

 
At 08 November, 2006 03:22, Blogger BuckDevlin said...

I actually agree with some of your overall views regarding the various sects of the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement”, but much of your own research is equally flawed and, more importantly, your approach is counterproductive.

There is absolutely no reason or justification for ridiculing members of the Family Steering Committee. They are simply searching for answers regarding the deaths of their loved ones, and they have presented several legitimate questions.

Trying to ‘shut them up’ with personal and poorly researched counterpoints is futile, and, dare I say, wrong.

Instead of wasting your efforts portraying the Jersey girls and other American citizens as brainwashed conspiracy theorists, why not spend some of your time actually analyzing the origins and motivations of the Family Steering Committee and the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ as a whole?

If you take the time, you will discover that many so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ are actually highly respectable and well-researched individuals that, in many cases, have uncovered explosive information.

By solely concentrating on any given social movement’s flaws and fringe elements, it is easy to convince oneself that the social movement is delusional and wrong, which is apparently your specialty.

This, of course, accomplishes nothing…except to provide a slight boost to your own self-confidence.

You want my advice?

Instead of blindly attempting to refute every conspiracy you come across, try objectively analyzing the evidence and picking out the ‘gold from the garbage’. Instead of stomping the Jersey girls into the ground, offer constructive criticism that could be used to improve and refine their cause.

Fight for the people, not for the institution.

Now for the facts…

"Why had the US military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?"

Contrary to your viewpoint, this is a perfectly legitimate question.

You have the audacity to label Lorie Van Auken’s statement as a “lot of crap,” but you blatantly misinterpret her comments. As you yourself state, Van Auken said, "That's almost two hours that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

From the first hijacking (about 8:13) to the downing of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania (10:03-10:06) is indeed nearly two hours.

Your contrasting viewpoint is based on inaccurate military notification times, along with the omission of ATC and FAA notification times, and the subsequent delayed responses to those notifications, all of which have yet to be explained by any government investigation.

You write, “The notion that our air defenses could have intercepted any of these planes with that little warning is completely unrealistic.”

But even General Ralph Eberhart testified before the 9/11 Commission that the Air Force could have intercepted and shot down all of the planes, that is, if the FAA had immediately alerted the military as standard procedures require. Eberhart was asked by the Commission…

“…would it have been physically possible, if everything had gone right in terms of communication of information and communication of orders -- would it still physically have been possible for the military pilots to have shot down either the plane that hit the first World Trade tower, or the plane that hit the second World Trade tower, or the plane that hit the Pentagon?

GEN. EBERHART: …if that is the case, yes, we could shoot down the airplanes. …”


So what exactly interfered with “communication of information and communication of orders”?

For one, all of STRATCOM, in coordination with several military and civilian branches of government, including the FAA, were participating in a massive military exercise, which included the use of an alternative communication/command system, a fact the 9/11 Commission avoided completely.

The exercise, known as Global Guardian, was conducted in conjunction with several related exercises, such as NORAD’s Vigilant Guardian, which included at least one hijacking scenario roughly scheduled for the same time as the attacks.

As for the military notification times you have listed, they are all in dispute, and some have been proven wrong, which is exactly why a new and independent investigation is warranted.

If you wish, I can elaborate further on any of these issues. I also welcome your criticism, but please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks.

As for your bit on Payne Stewart, standard scramble and interception procedures were and are executed on a regular basis, as documented in 9/11 Press For Truth and omitted from your review. Payne Stewart is just one example.

NORAD maintained 14 ‘alert sites’ in the United States, each with two fighters that could be scrambled within five minutes notice, but standard procedures were not followed on 9/11 and, consequently, not one of the hijacked flights was intercepted.

More to the point, you neglect to mention the fact that the information presented in 9/11 Press For Truth regarding the Payne Stewart incident is provided by an ABC news clip, which states, "just 25 minutes into the flight, controllers lost radio contact with the pilot and an Air Force F-16 on a training mission was sent to take a look.”

You claim to refute ABC’s above statement, citing an NTSB report and an apparent time zone discrepancy.

The fighters referred to in the ABC report, however, were from Tyndall Air Force Base, while the fighters you are referring to (and referred to in the NTSB report) were scrambled from Eglin Air Force Base.

As Knight-Ridder reported, “according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.”

This is corroborated by a separate ABC report, which states, “According to an Air Force summary, after contact was initially lost, two F-15s from Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., were sent to track the Learjet.”

The AP timeline confirms the Tyndall scramble order at 10:08, Eastern Time, “Two F-16s from Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., were airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.”

Further confirmation comes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which reported, “At 10:08, Eastern time, at the FAA's request, two F-16 Air Force fighter jets scrambled from Tyndall Air Force Base to overtake and visually inspect the unresponsive Learjet.”

Note that some reports place the loss of contact at 9:34, while others place the time at 9:44. Regardless, your analysis is, to barrow a phrase, ‘a lot of crap’.

I do not know why the NTSP report does not mention the Tyndall fighters, but a measure of time and distance makes clear that the scramble order was indeed placed much earlier than you claim.

Furthermore, loss of contact with a commercial passenger airliner is considered far more serious than loss of contact with a private Learjet, and there are and were standard procedures for dealing with such a situation—procedures that, for whatever reason, were apparently not followed and/or obstructed on 9/11.

This issue certainly deserves further scrutiny.

Your third point regarding President Bush is nothing but a half-witted shot in the dark, so I won’t even waste time going into detail regarding the Secret Service’s and Bush’s lack of action, but there is one point worth mentioning.

You say, “And as for that "power to do something", what exactly does she think he (the President) could do, run outside and shoot down the hijacked planes with a SAM?”

If you dedicated just a fraction of your time to research instead of crafting sarcasm you would have quickly discovered that the only person with the authority to order a commercial aircraft shot down is the President. That is his “power to do something”.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home