ZAHN: Well, the nation remembered the victims of 9/11 yesterday. This rally took place near the site of what was the World Trade Center. A group of conspiracy theorists gathered to demand an investigation of who was really behind the terror attacks. It's all because of an Internet film called "Loose Change" that is challenging the official version of 9/11. Deborah Feyerick set out to find out more about the people behind it.Brotherman, Sisterwoman, Nephew (different one from my California vaycay), and I sat and watched the thing Labor Day night. Each of us, jaws dropped, were simply blown away, such that a half-hour into the video, the computer crashed, requiring us to reboot and watch the thing from the start all over again. And so we did.
Do check it out!
The producers make assertions of events even I didn't know about; e.g., Osama actually denied involvement with 9/11. Did anybody else know this? I was always under the impression he was proud of his handiwork; must be that video the Loose Change producers show was likely phonied. Another very important point, also of which I was unaware: the airplanes that crashed in Pennsylvania and into the Pentagon left behind no wreckage!! Usually -- okay, always!! -- airplanes that crash leave behind tons of metal debris. So I have to ask: Is it true about there being no wreckage? And where in Hell is the corporate media not asking these questions? Maybe Jon Benet Ramsey could tell us.
This documentary, which was created amazingly on a laptop and w/but $2,000 in, uhm, loose change, is comprehensive in its detail on the events and how they allegedly did or did not transpire. Every assertion is plausibly backed-up and is on-point.
And now I am made to wonder if ABC has plans to air it anytime soon before this November's elections.
Actually, I'm not.
Sidebar... Here's another conspiracy, not so much a theory as a gut hunch, of which I would be loathe to dismiss: The Bin Laden and Bush families, having such a well-documented and chummy relationship, have agreed not to disagree anymore; or more simply: Why haven't they attacked inside the United States since 9/11, and why haven't we gone and gotten Osama in that province in Pakistan as if we didn't know precisely where he cops a squat?
Quid pro quo? You think I'm nuts? Ask yourself this, then: Is Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, in any way, not capable of this kind of carnage? (Editor's note: Beware!)
One imagines the Dems, should they win back the House in November, must thoroughly investigate how the administration conducted itself in the run-up to 9/11 and also in their subsequent rush to war in all the wrong places -- as though it's never been done before... because, y'know? -- it hasn't.
Aww jeez, I forgot about my other conspiracy theory: the Dems won't win because the fix is in!
11 comments:
More proof that the world is upside down -- Democrats are taking Hollywood to task for making them look bad in the ABC 9/11 movie. Think about this. It's Hollywood. Now, Dems, if you can't trust Hollywood, who can you trust?
Even more proof the world has gone insane. I agree with the Dems on this point (or at least on the more egregious misrepresentations).
The "Loose Change" film you recommmend clearly suggests that your administration perpetrated the 9/11 events. Not so clear, to me, is whether the makers of the film claim that this purported subterfuge was a function of the administrations's own invidious reasons or for the greater good of your country. Assuming the current administration is, indeed, behind the attacks, which is it, G, evil or tough love? And what are your arguments and support therefor?
You ever read The Big Book of Conspiracies?
I recall Osama initially denying involvement... along with Yasser Arafat. Bin laden praised the result but I remember that he initially did not claim responsibility. But, think about how this whole mess has gone? After 9/11 we had the world at our feet, clammoring against the radicals who took innocent lives. Now we've become one of those radicals, complete with torture,fascism and propaganda.
I'll be watching Loose Change tonight. Thanks for the head's up.
naahm: not hollywood being taken to task, but the disney ntwk for giving the "public interest" airwaves over to a right-wing fact-challenged diatribe by an evangelical group who produced "path to 9/11" (look it up)...
sightseer: "greater good"... ?? if you actually believe dubya's conducting "tough love," then you're logic is bent beyond repair... as for "evil," i don't bother in the metaphysical semantics; but more observeable in this administration is its sociopathy... they are indeed sick!!
johan, haven't... is it good... ?
-spared-, le'me know what you make of it...
Saw the video and posted it on ramble.
It was an excellent hour's or so worth of footage and info G. Some of it is a little "out there"... one odd fact I looked up was the whole Condie calling her friend so he wouldn't fly on the 11th factoid. Apparently, that actually did happen... and the bets against AA and UTD were very interesting as well. Not to mention that the third building that collapsed (which is rarely mentioned) housed the criminal (or civil?) cases of a bunch of wall street types under indictment for various crimes.
The thing with the planes though... do you believe all that? I mean... this administration couldn't get people out of New Orleans in a week. Do you really think they had the brains to coordinate this in the span of six hours and not have one person fess up five years later?
i wasn't clear on the significance of four planes carrying a total of 86 people -- i think that's what was said? (i hadn't seen it since labor day) -- or what the implications were or are...
and i admit i'd like very much to have a point2point refutation by reputable people under direct and cross examination, with a greater scrutiny than what the pathetic 9/11 commission conducted (tom keans, that pratt, participated in the ABC dog-turd "path to 9/11" debacle; they were "afraid" to hold rudy g's feet to the fire during interrogation; letting bush & cheney testify together???, etc)...
What I understood was that the planes that crashed into the WTC towers were... empty? That the one that supposedly crashed into the pentagon, was no plane, but a missile?... and that the one that crashed into the field was also not a plane, and if it was it was empty. The real plane landed in Ohio after the airport was evacuated, eliminating the possibility of witnesses of the passengers exiting the plane.
One more thing, did you understand the part about two of the planes being listed as active, and two being destroyed?
I think I'm going to have to watch it again...
all of which begs the question of why dubya sat on his stupid ass for 6+ minutes while all hell was breaking loose... those sonsabitches knew what, where, when, and WHY!!
Ok... see THAT, I disagree with the dems on. He's in front of little kids... and it's a very serene, secure type of setting they're in. Schoolroom, reading , etc. I really think he sat there that long thinking of his next move without affecting the children, trying not to waste time and just coming to terms with what was going on and he happened to have cameras on him.
I know you'll want to kick me for that but I maybe it was just poor acting on his part. Then again, we had another bad actor as president. Things didn't go so bad for him, I guess.
due respect: fuck the kids, america was under attack...
Post a Comment