New Video Hot Off The Press!

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

No controlled demo, no plane swaps, no holograms, no no-plane theories. Apologies for the false dichotomy, but it is a LIHOP masterpiece.

Medium resolution stream here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688
High resolution download here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=92

I'll save it for after my kid's violin recital.

It is very well done. The research in this piece to me is more convincing than Loose Change.
It avoids getting bogged down in examining debateable physical evidence which despite being very compelling, often hurts
this movement more than it helps. I don't think it is necessarily a LIHOP piece but it lays a great foundation
of serious questions from many mainstream sources and once again Paul Thompson's work shines through.

This one I'll feel good about passing around.

...ways than things like Loose Change which present a great deal of factual and visual information but who do not, in my opinion, tie those elements together in as cohesive manner as this video did. It is not as visually interesting as some of its counterparts but for a piece which early-on admits it is "just scratching the surface" it presents a web of facts and shows, without much back-bending, their inter-relatedness.

Thanks for sharing this,

PB

In some ways it is less focused on just giving a stream of facts the way that Loose Change was. It does go through sequences where it does spit out a set of facts, but I think more than Loose Change, it tries to tie them thematically together and at times it steps back from it's "fact presenting" mode, and asks the viewer to think a certain way. Examples would be the sequence of video outtakes from Network, V for Vendetta, and then Star Wars, and the last part of how it repeats "America is Under Attack"... I think I like the way it does try to give the viewer time to pause to think in these ways and reflect back to the other facts just given them instead of racing on to something else.

Loose Change does touch on many things that I'd like to see have been gone into in more depth, like the allegations that many of the terrorists are still alive today. Maybe the third edition of it will do something like that...

Both films are good in their own way, and in some ways I think are complementary to each other, as they both tackle different subtexts well, and watched together will impress on the viewer that much more needs to be looked at that hasn't.

I quite liked it. I'd disagree on a few points, but most of what he says is fairly sound. Compared to Loose Change, it's not as interesting in terms of the footage shown or the soundtrack, but it's much better factually. Well worth 70 minutes of anybody's time.

not able to go. These kind of films are so vitally important. I will be passing along these links to everyone I know. You have to be brain dead to think 911 was not an inside job.

Very good.

I've not seen Loose Change (it's on my list of things to do), but did see the C-Span lecture by David Ray Griffin in Madison, Wisconsin. That's what changed my mind to a MIHOP or LIHOP.

And, is anyone certain the boy king was told "we're under attack"?

When I first heard it, ever, on CNN, around Dec. 2001, in an interview with Card, the narrator said on his behalf that Card had told Bush "four stunning words":

"America is under attack."

Remember, this supposedly when the Bush entourage knew nothing about what was going on - only that a plane had hit the first tower, and that this was assumed to be an accident (total bullshit). So at 9:05, the President hears this. And keeps sitting. And sitting. And sitting.

Someone figured out a problem with this version ("America is under attack? How? Where?!") and so the new improved story became that Card said:

"A second plane has hit the Towers. America is under attack."

Now, please look at a video of this moment and measure how much time Card has to say this - to whisper this. Try it yourself.

"AsecondplanehashittheTowersAmericaisunderattack"

If you can do it, congrats.

I call bullshit.

Now. just to hypothesize, here is something Card could have said in that amount of time that would actually make sense, in terms of the reaction that Bush displays:

"Game delay. Don't move."

That would explain the baffling wait. Waiting for the Pentagon plane perhaps?

That makes sense. It also explains to me better Bush's demeanor. He looks to me
calculating and agonized. I think he's thinking "Am I being set up?"

To carry that observation a bit further, I want to share this way-out speculation.
A guy on the yahoo boards who was never much intersted in 9/11 shared the info
that Osama's brother Shafig bin Laden was meeting with Poppy Bush in the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel in Washington on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business.
This guy offered the theory that Shafig was some kind of hostage for the duration
of the attacks.

Later I took a look at the map of the Booker School.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=27.378066~-82.539846&style=h&lvl=14

I noticed that its location (at the "683" label) lined up almost exactly with
the runways at Sarasota Int'l, and was easily found from the air by its proximity
to a large golfcourse, the first major e-w thoroughfare south of the airport,
the railroad tracks just w of the school, and that peculiar paddle-shaped
subdivision street layout.

The school was presumably almost right in line with planes approaching the airport
to land pursuant to FAA orders.

Considering the possibility that Shafig and W were both hostages makes me wonder
about the nature of the complicated deal that would involve that feature.


Congratulations, Jack, on the "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime" video. Good work!
And I appreciated the fact that it brought a wider view involving the stolen election,
PNAC, The Grand Chessboard, and Atta's FL connections.

Considering the possibility that Shafig and W were both hostages makes me wonder about the nature of the complicated deal that would involve that feature.

Any speculations at this point on what that nature could be? I'm trying to wrap my mind around anything that could be the question that that answers, and having a hard time.

You might want to note that I'm seeing the Bin Laden brother's name coming up on searches as both "Shafig" and "Shafiq," pretty much in equal numbers.

Josh Marshall quotes the Washington Post as saying Shafiq with a Q, and that would fit the more common transliteration conventions of Arabic names.

Better then Loose Change.

lost prior to the 9-11 event.

... 11 of the 14 visas issued in Jeddah were issued by the same guy.

"Two of the hijackers were issued visas in Berlin; two were issued visas in the United Arab Emirates. The remaining 15 were issued a total of 18 visas in Saudi Arabia, 14 of which were issued in Jeddah (11 by the same consular officer), and 4 in Riyadh."
Terrorist Travel, p. 33

Only one of the visa applications submitted in Saudi Arabia was rejected (because the officer thought the applicant was intending to immigrate) - it was submitted in autumn 2000 by a guy called Mushabib Al Hamlan, who then dropped out of the plot. Another candidate hijacker got a visa and then dropped out.

Three of the Saudi hijackers got two visas: Ahmed Al Nami and Saeed Al Ghamdi (whose passports were allegedly damaged during doctoring in Afghanistan - but how did they get back to Saudi with damaged passports?) and Khalid Al Mihdhar, who got a new passport on 1 June 2001 and a new visa on 13 June 2001, although at this point he was a known terrorist in both Saudi Arabia (apparently he tried to smuggle arms into Saudi in '97) and the US (which conducted a major surveillance operation against him in January 2000), so how did he manage that?

For the quote from Terrorist Travel - "(11 by the same consular officer)"?
Link: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf

You can also buy it in book form, apparently.

You can find it on page 33 of the Monograph, which is page 41 of the .pdf. If you want sources for anything else, just ask.

yes I was talking about Terrorist Travel.
I'll have to check that out.

I'd like to see them use a better narrator. It sounds too homemade; with a more professional voiceover the project would immensely more powerful.

Also, they sit too long on Bush in the classroom without building any drama. There are a couple of other "dead" spots in it that I can't specifically recall.

Overall, it is an excellent approach to the subject and one that I much prefer to the missing planes, WTC implosion etc. Better to focus on the factual stuff and identify motives than to sink into the endless debate about physics and engineering. That stuff gets tedious for me and I imagine is a turnoff for many people who genuinely want to know what really did happen.

A good VO would do it wonders. I think I read there will be another version coming out?

!!!

As I recall, I hated the opening (please spare me from one more soppy WTC montage set to sad guitar music!). But other than that, I didn't see anything I recall being stupid. I will watch this all the way through tonight.

But I will...eventually.

I give it a C minus. Definitely places to rework, or omit completely. But on the whole, the information is pretty solid.

However, this movie is clearly softening people up for MIHOP. It tries to be a LIHOP production, but MIHOP is clearly on their minds. There's no other way to interpret Controlled Demolition talk, and though advertised as no controlled demo, there it was right at the beginning in the list of viable topics. It wasn't developed at all, but it's something the filmmakers consider worth pursuing. Take out all that kind of reference, and also the already debunked things like put options and the destroyed ATC tape, and it would be up to a borderline C/B. Some definite framing issues (I hate manipulative devices like music montages and that goofy guy looking both ways). Some confusing sequences (notably the Huffman Aviation section.

Still can't recommend without great reservations.