Saturday, May 13, 2006

Reviews from Both Sides

There haven't been a lot of good reviews in the real press of Loose Change, but here's one from Tucson Weekly:

There was a pretty good crowd for that sort of thing, about 100 people. Most were the usual lefty suspects (no doubt accompanied by a couple of Bush spies keeping tabs on terrorist sympathizers). But judging from the inflated crowd, there was likely a handful of the uninitiated as well, people who don't believe the government's Sept. 11 theory and were looking for one that contains a little more common sense.

In Loose Change, I'm sure they found it. It is a level-headed, clear-minded analysis of Sept. 11, synthesizing reliable, publicly available sources to reconstruct the reality of that day and the circumstances surrounding it.

It provides a chilling example of how the government, in the words of Karl Rove, was able to "construct (its) own reality" over time. What was reported in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 so differs from the eventual legend constructed by the Bush administration that you would think we live in two parallel but quite different realities.

Yeah, I think this reviewer lives on the Bizarro World.

On the other hand, Jack Cashill:

To understand what did happen on Sept. 11, please do check out the flawlessly executed new movie, "United 93." This real time presentation shows how even smart people and sophisticated systems can misinterpret an event that is unprecedented.

For those who want specific visual answers to the various 9-11 conspiracies, take a look at the March 2005 edition of Popular Mechanics. For a deeper understanding still of the misconceptions surrounding the war on terror, pick up a copy of Richard Miniter's excellent book, "Disinformation."

For those, however, who have no greater goal than to nurse their cynicism or preserve their biases, be aware that "Loose Change" has a second edition.


At 13 May, 2006 06:11, Blogger nes718 said...

The Popular Mechanic's piece misses a lot of key information like the war games planned on 9/11 but additionally it is presented by Ben Chertoff, nephew I believe, of the "Homeland" security director. Can we say "biased?" Of course we can.

At 13 May, 2006 06:18, Blogger nes718 said...

Funny thing about the United93 film. They had a message board up on their site for a few days after release of the film but had to take it down because of the sheer volume of post detracting their version of it. The ratio was something like 10 to 1 in favor of alternate theories and calling the movie propaganda in a time when the Iraqi war is loosing massive support.

At 13 May, 2006 06:36, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The Loose Change crowd basicly piled on the U93 board with large amounts of cut & paste. This wasn't some public uprising against the accept events, this was a bunch of net vandals being such a pain that some underpaid web monkey just pulled the plug.

As for Chertoff. What you say is not true. Even if it was, are you accusing his 300+ consulted experts of being wrong?

At 13 May, 2006 07:11, Blogger nes718 said...

I was wrong. Chertoff is the COUSIN of the Homeland security director, LMAO. Here's a piece by Alex Jones:

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's "senior researcher," directly.

Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who never answers the phone.

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."


And those "300+ experts," if the identity of the "chief" and senior researcher is in question, why would the so called experts used also not be a complete lie? Has anyone contacted each to corroborate? Do they even all exist? This does NOT pass the smell test.

As for the U93 board, there were not "net vandals." The board was simply linked on various 9/11 truth sites and is pretty much a general consensus of what's really going on in people's minds. Even when polls are posted on CNN or MSNBC that ask if government complicity or cover up occurred on 9/11 fully 70+ percent of the respondents say that is a correct assessment.

As of for the "Loose Change" crowd, that is an incorrect statement. Loose Change is part of the entire 9/11 truth movement and comes from that. Loose change is a simple compilation of various aspects of 9/11 that have been uncovered by MANY 9/11 researchers along the way.

At 13 May, 2006 07:56, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Alex Jones is lying. Chertoff's mother never said 'of course he's a cousin'. Ben C. has flatly denied any such relationship, and his mother stated he might be a cousin, but could not be certain. Chertoff might well be cousins, many times removed. Everyone in the USA with my last name is a 'cousin' of sorts, many times related. Heck, even George the Elder was a distant cousin of his incompetent VP, Quayle. It means little.

If what Alex Jones claims is true, it should be easy to prove. Go ahead. We'll be waiting.

Your dismissal of the PM article depends on this relationship, therefore you must establish it. Otherwise it is low-rent well-poisoning.

I saw what happened at the UA forum. It was screed followed by screed. If anyone counter the arguements the replies from the Loose Change crowd was just more screed. The only counters made by the Loose Change was blanket denials without supporting evidence. This was not something to be proud of.

Loose Change is actually being rejected by a lot of other 911 CTers. Some are even calling it government propaganda. Not surprising when there are 81 errors of fact alone (not counting errors of interpetation or omission) in the silly video. Not that the other CTers are much better.

At 13 May, 2006 08:30, Blogger nes718 said...

Sorry, that was C. Bollin of AFP on the Prison Planet site not Jones. My bad.

However, Shouldn't PM clear the air publicly now that the issue has been raised?

I briefly read though a few of the articles on the 911myth site and many conclusions there have the "maybe it was mistaken identity" or "maybe he go the names of the (war game) wrong" type of coincidence theory that a lot of the 9/11 official supporters believe. And now we are to believe that "they" emailed Chertoff and he denied it on the emial? Where is it, the headers, IP's, everything. I want to either see a public clarification on PM or the email complete with headers. Until that time, the relationship whit Chertoff and Homeland security stands.

BTW, the PM piece also has a lot of errors and omissions. Even going by the 911myth site, the various war games DID in fact happen as quoted on THEIR site:

Problem #2 is that there could easily be an alternative explanation for these quotes. **Maybe** Norad include unexpected events during war games, for instance, as well as a main, preplanned theme. (After all, you don’t fully test staff and procedures if they know exactly what’s coming up). Therefore, if you're in the middle of an exercise, and you receive a call that relates to something unusual, then plainly it'll be natural to wonder if this is just a part of the war game.

This isn’t just conjecture, either. Here’s Major General Larry Arnold testifying before the 9/11 Commission (our emphasis):

As you know through previous testimony from Gen. Eberhart to Congress, we were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at that particular time. Which means, that basically our entire staff was focused on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do. We had just come out of a video teleconference with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time when I was handed note that we had a possible hijacking in Boston Center. And it had come from the Northeast Air Defense Commander Col. Bob Meyer (phonetic) who is commander up there and he had requested that I call him immediately. And I was upstairs in our facility. I immediately went downstairs and picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, is this part of the exercise? Because quite honestly and frankly, we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time-to-time. But I realized that it was not – that this was real-life.

He wondered if this might be a part of the exercise because, occasionally, hijackings are. However there’s no evidence it was a planned element in this case.


So we have established that the war games did indeed happen, weather they included hijackings or not is unimportant in this case as the Gen. Arnold testified that their was confusion over the fact. Why then does the PM piece not EVEN make a single mention of the exercises in their peiece? Seems this is one aspect that is especially being actively concealed by mainstream media, WHY?

At 13 May, 2006 09:48, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Jones or Bolin, either way they are wrong. I challenged you to prove otherwise and you have obviosuly not picked up the gauntler

As for PM not acknowledging it, its not a concern. Just because a few whackjobs beleive their own lies undermines an article is rarely a concern for major journalists.

Why doesn't PM cover the wargames issue? Well, first of all, this is classic moving the goalposts. PM dealt with the myths they considered to be the most persistant and pervasive. That their judgememt of the issues does not match your concerns merely mean that you are playing the 'If I ran the zoo' game.

To date, all criticisms of the PM article are like this: "They didn't cover *my* concern". This, again, is moving the goalposts. With minimal experience with conspiracy nutter this game would be played forever: Answer point A and someone calls you names for not answering point B, if you then answer point B then they switch to talk about point C, answer point C and they jump back to point A. This is typical CT behavior. In the meantime, what gets lost is that fact that no evidence has been produced supporting the CT claims. Instead one is playing whack-a-mole much as a evolutionist must do to counter creationist claims. Same game, different topic.

At 13 May, 2006 10:09, Blogger nes718 said...

I don't have to prove anything on the Chertoff issue, they already have *sort of* admitted it. Read the 911myth's email, it's that's really authentic, and he'll say that he "might" be related to the Homeland security director leaving the door wide open if in fact someone does any digging. He and his father "think" and his mother says yes so why can't you see the rest as purely protective spin. But an official PM retraction or clarification would go a long way and put this issue to sleep, why hasn't that been made yet?

As for the war games, it is a key issue in the reason why the military was stood down! That's why PM avoided it! This issue is fully documented and is a big part of 9/11 truther's argument. I mean, Loose Change even covered it! While the debunkers are busy worried about "pod people" and "tin foil hats" the real issues like who ordered that many "exercises" (Cheney) on that specific day and days leading up to it is NEVER questioned.

At 13 May, 2006 12:01, Blogger telescopemerc said...

don't have to prove anything on the Chertoff issue, they already have *sort of* admitted it. Read the 911myth's email, it's that's really authentic,

Wow! Do you selectively read much? Here is what was actually written:

"I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him. "

That's pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

and he'll say that he "might" be related to the Homeland security director leaving the door wide open if in fact someone does any digging.

Then why don't you do some digging instead of being deceptive about what he said?

Military Exercises are not proof of anything. Again, you demand what you decide to be the important issues should have been debunked. That's not the way the world works and it is childish.

At 13 May, 2006 12:33, Blogger nes718 said...

Military Exercises are not proof of anything.

Very wrong. If you read Mike Rupert’s analysis of the events, he names Dick Cheney as head of the chain of command that was partly in charge of the war games as they unfolding into the actual 9/11 terror events. As we all know, Bush was out of the loop and did nothing as the terrorist attacks unfolded, who was in control? That's why these "war games" or "exercises" planned specifically on this date are so important. It is highly suspect that these events have not been widely reported on major news outlets.

At 13 May, 2006 12:35, Blogger nes718 said...

Kane/Rupert on Cheney:

Crossing the Rubicon - Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney


Post a Comment

<< Home