Tuesday, September 26, 2006

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part IV

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

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

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

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

5 Comments:

At 26 September, 2006 11:22, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Yes over all, this movie makes alot LESS claims than LC, and the ones it does make are not nearly as contraversial...but that is the trick. they know, if their "movement" is to have a chance, beyond the fringe, they must hold back on the lunacy claims, until they can hook joe public and reel him in...This is why it is dangerous.

TAM

 
At 07 October, 2006 16:56, Blogger John Duffy said...

This whole section of the film demonstrates that the idea of planes being used as missiles did exist prior to 9-11. We're not claiming that the 1995 Bojinka warning shouldve kept increased airport security in and of itself for ten years. We are showing this information because it flies in the face of Bush, Condy, Cheney, etc. all claiming that "No one could have ever imagined planes being used as weapons."

That is a lie by the government, and the media never called them on it, even though they had the goods to do so.

 
At 08 November, 2006 16:46, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

Does it make you feel sad that you don't have as much sarcastic debunking to do with this film as all the others?

 
At 11 January, 2007 07:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol, nice try. i'm sorry to say but its not quite complete yet, your "debunking". lol. that stupid attack on Paul Thompson is just laughable. better stay silent than try as hopeless as this.

 
At 14 May, 2011 20:57, Blogger htdy2001 said...

Wow what a disappointing review! You were brilliant in your debunking of that ridiculous LC movie.
This film, in my opinion, is completely unrelated to the conspiracy lunacy you are so used to debunking. I think you have encountered one too many nutjobs. Now you have the attitude that anyone (including victims families) are part of some 'denier' movement for simply asking questions. If it wasn't for the Jersey Moms the 9/11 commission would never exist.
Are you of the opinion that no one, at any time should ever raise an eyebrow to what the government says? Are you a fucking fascist or something?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home