MUST SEE DOCUMENTARY: Loose Change: 2nd EditionConsidering the myriad varying opinions about whether or not Stephen Colbert was "funny" at the recent White House Correspondents' Dinner (he was dead-on funny and sniper-precise in his delivery and content), ideas about what really happened on September 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington and Pennsylvania, are exponentially divergent. I watched the WTC towers fall in real-time from an office in Southfield, Michigan; my nervous went incandescent with horror at the sight.
Having read widely on the subject of 9/11 and having viewed several documentaries expounding upon different theories or aspects of those attacks, I'm familiar with much of the current thinking (pro and con to the "official" version of events). Still, this documentary revealed details I had never before heard. Such as:
* graphically demonstrates with computer models some of the "war games" coincidentally scheduled on 9/11 that diverted military resources away from NYC and Washtington, D.C.
* visual comparisons of the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11 with airplane wreckage from Texas on November 22, 2004 when a private jet intended to pick up George Bush senior flew so low that it, too, struck lamp posts before crashing. Although the situations are very similar, the amount of wreckage and physical damage to surrounding landscape are not remotely the same.
* FBI Director Robert Mueller's admission (of which I had never heard) that authorities really had no proof or concrete idea about the identities of the alleged highjackers who overtook the doomed planes on 9/11.
* eight and-a-half minutes into the film a telephone interview with Hunter S. Thompson plays as footage of the damage to the WTC is shown. I own more of Thompson's book than any other contemporary author. I've seen him interviewed numerous times, and am loath to admit that I usually found him very disappointing, sometimes to the point of incoherency. However, he is sharp and bang-on during this interview. In fact, I didn't realize it was Thompson's voice (distinct though it was) until a full minute after the interview commenced.
* not only reports of a secondary explosion at the Pentagon, but actual film footage of a fireball coming from the damaged area of the Pentagon following the initial attack.
* satellite photos of the Pentagon four days before the attack show white markings on the front lawn marking the almost exact trajectory of whatever hit the building on 9/11.
* most startling are the copious transcripts of firefighters radio transmissions from within the WTC on 9/11 describing explosions going off within the building after the planes crashed into it.
* comparisons of other steel frame buildings that suffered catastrophic fires, burning for hours on end, which did not collapse. One of these comparisons involved the plane that struck the Empire State Building in 1945, and how limited, contained, and minor its damage was to the building.
* Letter from Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (who underwrote the insurance on the WTC buildings) stated clearly and unequivically that the steel components in the WTC were certified to "ASTM E119" -- writing, "... I think we can all agree that even under-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. This story just does not add up..." Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his job.
* interview with Willie Rodriguez, janitor in the WTC for 20 years, in which he describes an explosion occurring deep in the lower levels of the WTC just before the first plane hit.
* the most startling information, for me, were the reports that Flight 93 -- supposed to have crashed in Shanksville PA -- is known to have actually landed in Cleveland OH, at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport under the pretext of a bomb-threat aboard. The 200 passengers were evacuated from the plane and taken to an empty NASA building nearby on the airport's premises. What happened to them from there, no one knows -- other than the fact that none of them are alive today.
* also, the Flight 93 plane was spotted at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in 2003 by flight attendant David Freedman of United Airlines who kept track of all the planes on which he worked.
What impressed me most about this documentary is that its maker does not grasp at straws. When he comes upon an unanswered question, he states it as such. He does not guess, does not venture outlandish theories. He puts the onus where it belongs -- on the Bush administration to provide the information that is still required in order to shed light onto the areas of 9/11 that remain shrouded in mystery and inconsistency
There's no question this documentary will no sway everyone. Maybe it is only preaching to the choir. However, for anyone willing to listen to a rationally wrought, soberly presented set of facts and questions, set aside what you think you know about the 9/11 attacks and the issues of forewarning and involvement, and watch this documentary. If you know something the documentarian doesn't know, tell him. I think he's willing to listen. As it stands, 9/11 is the Kennedy Assassination of this generation. The 9/11 Report is its Warren Commission Report. The tattered old catch-all veil of "national security" needs to be swept aside in this case and the truth come to light and the perpetrators and planners of this obscenity prosecuted. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the PATRIOT Act have been the direct result of the 9/11 attacks. Who has benefited more substantially from these events? Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush? We sure don't hear Halliburton screaming for justice for those killed in 9/11.
10 comments:
And dismissive, arrogant shit like your reply certainly isn't an answer to any questions either. I know it's rough having your dreamworld rocked, but the price of illusions and delusions is rising daily.
There are legitimate questions that have yet to be answered, and labelling these as "conspiracy theories" is lazy and irresponsible. But, that's why we have Fox News, I guess.
After briefing looking through your document, I see you raise some good questions, as well. Sorry for my snap judgment! And no one could accuse you of being lazy!
Matt,
I agree there may be some unanswered questions but in instances like these we have to be cautious. I remember playing the 'telephone' game in Kindergarten. Where one person whispers a phrase into anothers ear and it goes down the line until the final person stands up and says it out loud. And of course it's nothing like what it started as. Events like 9/11 can spawn this phenomenon on the grandest of scales.
I'm always cautious of hearing about 'Reports'. Using the word makes it sound official, but is it really reliable? There are a lot of people who will say anything if it gets them attention, especially from a camera.
The current Da Vinci Code blooming bizarre stories is a perfect example. The Da Vinci Code is ludicrous, from the imaginative creative history to just outright B.S. But half the people believe it, and the other half are ammused by it and admit the possibility.
Admitting the possibility is how many of these stories get started and FOX etc... is always happy to feed the fear as long as it makes the President look like an ass.
Denying that aircraft were to blame would be a conspiracy of monumental proportions involving thousands and thousands of witnesses who saw a jetliner impact the Pentagon(several of which I have spoken to personally here in D.C., but I was not here for the attacks). We have phone recordings from Flight 93, independantly corraborated by numberous people. I'm not convinved some pilot who swears he saw the plane is nearly enough evidence to even make me question weather or not the plane crashed in PA.
Just my 2 cents,
Oh, I agree with you -- no one should be quick to believe, outright, in either direction. What I'm saying is documentaries such as Loose Change raise good questions and flag avenues for further investigation.
We live in an "all or nothing" culture, where people feel the need to either completely dismiss ideas or completely embrace them -- usually the moment the ideas are aired.
I don't live or think like this. It's an incremental process. I take a documentary like Loose Change and simply note areas of a subject I'd never thought about before. I certainly don't take as fact, for instance, that a flight attendant saw or worked on a plane in 2003 that was involved in the attacks in 2001. But it's an interesting point that's worth having a look at.
Particularly with the Internet, critical thinking has never been more important. I've read the sites by people easily swayed by any outlandish theory and frankly, they bore me. They're superficial and the lapses in logic are often insulting.
In my reading on the Kennedy assassination, I've run into some terrible books that were ridiculous in their research and writing. A.J. Weberman's Coup d'etat in America is a perfect example. Its premise is interesting -- were the 3 tramps in Dealey plaza later involved in the Watergate break-in? -- but the book really doesn't deliver on any of the promise of its thesis.
Anyhow, my approach to such things is one of extreme caution. Yes, I titled this blog posting "Must See..." because I think it's important people hear more than the "party line" as touted by our completely comprised corporate media.
But do I believe, outright, all I saw in Loose Change? All I say in my blog is that the doc raises good questions, the documentarian didn't strike me as a groping at straws (merely my opinion), and that some of the material is not only interesting, but compelling. But that doesn't mean I'm entirely on its bandwagon. It's really just a starting point of investigation.
As for "conspiracy smasher" I was too quick to dismiss his points, and succumbed to my own juvenile defensiveness before looking at his material. That, too, is very interesting and worth looking at.
You're definatly correct about the all or nothing, good or evil, truth or lie concepts in our culture. We often go from one extreme to the other and see everything as mutally exclusive when it's really not(creationism and darwinism for example).
And sometimes theories are presented with making money as the only goal. You can sell anything if it's presented properly(i.e. pumping fear).
The reason why the "all or nothing" mentality is so counter-productive is that the most effective lies often have strands of truth in them. Or, if you're Michael Moore, truth will have strands of misinformation in it. I have a terrible tendency that way and that's why I'm a fiction writer and not a journalist. My writing has many elements from my actual life and experience, but in order to get the story I'm after down on paper, I often have to morph in stuff I've heard from friends and strangers, stuff I imagine, and weave it together with real instances from my life, with a heavy dose of editing.
When it comes to things like 9/11, I try my best to keep things simple. To wit: the official government story about what happened does not add up. From that point I will not stray.
Okay I finally had a chance to sit down and watch the film. I'm thinking about it...
Mr. Truth, from what I saw of your work, it's pretty meticulous. And I couldn't agree more with you about not needing to skew anything to indict BushCo.
I'm going to read to your critique through more thoroughly.
Since it's about a 150-page document, is there any chance you could give a quick overview about a few of the points Loose Change got wrong?
I've read about half the document so far, and it looks like Loose Change got about everything wrong. The film is a constant attempt at photographic slight of hand tricks, bungled 'reports', random conjecture, and creative interpration that doesn't seem to let it's own evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy theory(and I didn't even need the debunking article to determine that). The article just goes more in depth with what I already seriously suspected as bullshit. But it's definatly a good read.
and so is this article - used to educate people from just such occurances of creative non-facual interpretations. Body Rituals Among the Nacirema
Post a Comment