Some Info about the New 9/11 Documentary

[paulthompson]

As you may have heard, there's a new 9/11 documentary coming out in the next few weeks. I'm a frequent interview subject in it, as are the Jersey Girls and other 9/11 victims' relatives.

Here's the website about it:

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/dvd

There's a two minute clip from it you can see here to give you a flavor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCjbmImBa6w

Also, I mention the documentary in this interview I did on the Randi Rhodes show a few weeks back (the interview mostly talks about some new NORAD revelations):

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/RandiRhodes_PaulThompson_NORAD_080206.mp3

And here's a more recent interview I did last week on the Randi Rhodes show where the documentary is more of the focus. Randi saw the documentary and called it "phenomenal."

http://911pressfortruth.com/file_download/7

The DVD will be coming out September 5, and there will be a number of showings in theaters around the same time. You can preorder the DVD here:

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/dvd

As you may be able to see from the above, this is not another Loose Change-type controversial thing. The movie sticks to more commonly accepted points but I think it puts them together in a compelling way. I like to think of it as a movie you could take your parents to to start to open their eyes that the official 9/11 Commission story is not all it's cracked up to be.

[medienanalyse]

1. Just listened

to this one:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/RandiRhodes_Paul...

The moderator has the precise informations and contradictions.

Paul Thompson judges the official informations as "ridiculous". The most criminal act seems to be in his his presentation that they contradict one another. "Imagine the confusion" he argies concerning the wargames.

Paul Thompson knows very well that air-policing is not at alll affected by wargames. Air policing and standard operational procedures are not at all dependent on "not knowing whom to phone at", "mystious blips" or whatever. The chains of command are not changed just for simulations or games.


So the simple words: "This is all made up as a cover for the stand down" are not uttered.

Thompson who has no place to use the word "allegedly" in his timeline,

Thompson who describes several alleged suspects as "hijackers" (like "hijacker Mohammed Atta"),

Thompson who says in the interview that the planes were hijacked and forgets to say by whom (or at least that that is unclear),

Thompson installs the defense line for the Bushists: It was all chaos and they try to hide the chaos.

Confusion talks are the same as "We could not connect the dots"-theories. It is "intelligent Bushism" - and we may laugh about the contradictio in adjecto (like military intelligence). But it is years behind the facts already in the open.


Edit
And now I heard the second one:
http://911pressfortruth.com/file_download/7


Thompson declares it criminal negligence worth enough to impeach Bush. Not bad. But even here the moderator goes further and utters "it was a Let-it-happened".

For Thompson "it is inexplocable what Bush is doing". Okay, why not. But he could have said: there are people who are able to understand it. Who have read PNAC papers.

Thompson tells a lot of Sunnis and other Muslims and that security measures must be put up. The only admission is: the money for these measures should not be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan where they are spoiled. Spent resources.

I understand very well that Mr. Thompson will get a lot of official attention - it is the modern turn.

Make money by that, have fun.

[JackRiddler]

2. The film is great

Saw an early version of about 50 minutes in Chicago in June.

Covers: Jersey widows, lobbying for commission (stonewall phase), commission conflicts of interest, Cleland resignation, using these as jumping off point to timeline, open questions, FBI obstruction, air defense/wargames. Also has some Seven in it, if I recall correctly (I may be hazy on this since so many things have some Seven in them).

Very professionally done and a sober as well as great introduction to 9/11 skepticism. Definitely the right gateway film.

[medienanalyse]

3. Do you really think ...

that in times

- when Bush has to recruit Marines because he has no volunteers anymore
- when the Iraq war is not accepted anymore in the public
- when more than one third of the public is convinced the U.S. government is involved somehow in 9/11

it is a breakthrough to tell the public it might be better to prep up security measures instead of making war ? (I refer to the two interviews and not to the movie which I have not seen yet). Impeaching Bush by telling him, he should do his "war on terror" better at home than abroad and that he lied here and there concerning the confusion on 9/11 makes Mr. Bush only grin. But maybe I am wrong - only I do not know why.

[medienanalyse]

4. I have just seen the trailer now

and it makes cristal clear that the Bush administration knew very well about the "threat" of planes being used as a weapon.

Great. So every viewer learns that Bush did not act adequately to this implemented "threat".

Why do I use ""?

Becaause it was unssubstantiated hysteria in that time to "know" about such a threat. How could anybody ever know in 2001 that Osama had such plans to fly planes into buildings or the ships in genova ? How ?

It implies that

a) Osama had such plans,
b) that several secret services knew about Osamas plans in times when he was searched by the CIA (allegedly) because of the embassy bombings
c) Osama was the perpetrator of 9/11 in fact

Under the line: pure Bushism. The only critical annotation that Bush somehow "ignored" what was coming up and that he lied about that. What a crime !

This film was made when since years it was clear that i.e. the Pentagon was preparing for the impact:

"Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May."http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=272&issueID=3




How the hell could they know that the Pentagon would be hit ? We do not know about such a MASCAL plan for the Congress i.e.

How the hell could it happen that just the wedge was hit which was not yet inhabited because steel beams were implanted there in the PENREN program.

And how could they know it woul be usefull to make exercises just for a Boeing 757 - how could they know Osama would not use an Airbus, a MD machine or whatever ?

All this and a lot more taken together is not a conspiracy theory. It is hard facts. Constantly ignored by those who want to make money by producing Bushslamming-light.

[paulthompson]

12. MA...

I really think you don't understand US politics. Perhaps you understand German politics and you assume the situation is the similar here. Not so. Things here are very strange, and very different from even 15 years ago. Basically, the way I see it, the populace is divided into three groups of about even numbers. One third are the Christian fundamentalists. They support Bush no matter what. His poll numbers never go below the low 30's. Another third are the solid Democrats. These are the people who are the 33% believing in some level of US complicity in 9/11.

These two groups have never been so divided. One group absolutely hates Bush no matter what and the other group loves Bush no matter what.

Then you have the other third, the people in the middle. One thing about this group is that they're not really that interested in politics in the first place. They are very unknowledgable. Thus, you have recent polls showing that about one third of the US people don't even know what YEAR 9/11 took place in! About 50% still think Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks. I'll bet very few people in this country could name many of the hijackers or what countries they came from. The ignorance of many in this group is stunning. I met a taxi driver the other day who didn't know who the president was.

So, when you present something like Bush being in Genoa and being aware of planes as weapon attacks to this middle third of people, many are completely amazed. I know, because I watched some early views of this documentary with people in this group. You, of course, would yawn. That's very very old news to you. But this movie is not aimed at you. It's aimed at that middle group. They are the ones who need to be impacted if politics is going to change in this country. That middle group will determine the future.

The FIRST step is to show these people that the official 9/11 story as shown by the 9/11 Commission is not correct. Then, from there, people can gain a futher understanding and dig deeper with other books and movies. But it's like learning to walk before you can run. Once you learn to walk, it doesn't make it harder to run, it makes it easier.

I have tried to explain this to you several times, but you never seem to understand. If you continue to fail to understand, don't lecture Americans from your place in Germany how best to present information to the US public.

I should also point out that I had no editorial control over what is in the movie. I was an interview subject, not an editor or director. In the most recent rough cut I saw, there was a section about PNAC. Unfortunately that got cut in the final cut and I'm very sad to see that. There was a lot that had to get cut. (There will be a director's cut DVD released later that will have all this cut information, I am told.) This is a SHORT movie aimed to hold the attention of someone who knows next to nothing about 9/11. The goal is to inform the uninformed about some of the very basic and uncontested facts and get them interested in learning more. For someone like you with a very advanced knowledge of the facts, I think it will be very hard to appreciate something with a target audience like this.

[medienanalyse]

14. It is as simple as that

- you are the great teacher of the American public who tells WRONG things (not insufficiernt) to be better understood

- and I do not understand. Not America, not politics.

"I should also point out that I had no editorial control over what is in the movie. I was an interview subject, not an editor or director.", and they cut PNAC out. What a ridiculous confession of what we might be confronted with.

"
The goal is to inform the uninformed about some of the very basic and uncontested facts..."

as for example that the "hijacker Mohammed Atta" hijacked the planes with his comrades and was not stopped because of confusion, negligence and so on. What a real success in information ....!

Again: I did not see the movie. My comments were based on the material provided here in this thread.
"

[JackRiddler]

5. Please wait until you see it, okay?

As I remember, the issue of substantive advance preparation (not just foreknowledge) including the MASCAL are highlighted. Never mind the trailers. Although my memory may not serve perfectly, I do believe the film takes a more skeptical approach than what you are describing.

[medienanalyse]

6. Good if so

Jack,

I take care and I am concerned enough to underline explicitely that in my words above I did NOT refer to the movie but to the two interviews by Thompson and to the trailer. This is what was available here.

If you memorize the movie correctly: good. I have no problem to applaud in the same clearness as I brand litter as litter.

[mirandapriestly]

7. This is so good because

it uses mainstream footage of the administration lying and the victims' are involved. That gives the project so much credibility.

[medienanalyse]

8. Fine. But

MASCAL is official stuff too, part of the Pentagon websites.

Credibility is nice and fine - hope it does not turn out to stabilze the "it was the 19 bad guys and we were so confused" theories.

[medienanalyse]

13. Just stumbled

who might be the author of these critical sentences ? Have a guess:

"By 9:00, if not earlier, NORAD knows at least 3 planes have been hijacked. Standard procedure would have been to send up fighters long before that. But if the commander of NORAD is in on a let it happen on purpose scheme, he stalls for time, and when he finally scrambles planes, sends them from far off bases so they have no chance of catching up (which is exactly what happened).
What this Time magazine news is about is all the other fighters that should have been scrambled across the country, but weren't. In such a situation, when noone knows how many planes have been hijacked and where, the natural thing would be to have every fighter than could get in the air get in the air ASAP. Presumably, these base commanders are kept in the dark,and with the first one you could claim it was just an accident, but by 9:03 there's no denying there's a major terrorist attack underway, cos its all over the TV. So that's when they start calling. Had these fighters started to scramble even after the second WTC hit, some of those planes could have reached Washington DC before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. For instance, we know a commander in Syracuse New York told NORAD just after 9:03 that he could get fighters in the air in ten minutes. They would have been waiting around a long time over Washington before Flight 77 got there (it would be about a ten minute flight, Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon between 9:43 and 9:45), but they mysteriously end up not taking off for another hour.

Now we know why that kind of thing didn't happen. A specific order was given for such fighters to not even take off until after 10 AM."


This was 4 years ago. When well educated young men were able to find the archimedical point.

[mirandapriestly]

15. Not sure I know what you are saying...

Is that from the timeline? and it is not denying the existence of the "hijackers" and their plot, just the "let it happen on purpose ", so it is still accepting the story.
. Archimedical point - religion taken as fact? not sure I verstehe what es bedeutet -
"This was 4 years ago. When well educated young men were able to find the archimedical point"

[medienanalyse]

17. Thompson and OCT light

“But if the commander of NORAD is in on a let it happen on purpose scheme, he stalls for time, ….
there's a major terrorist attack underway ..."

Quotation from the remarks by Thompson 4 years ago here in DU.

This was very okay, classical LIHOP, open to further research in direction MIHOP, but it could be densed to LIHOP++ too.

You write: “and it is not denying the existence of the "hijackers" and their plot”

Exactly. It is not denying. He did not deny it and I do not deny it too because I do not have evidence to do so. I strongly assume we should deny, and that is what I say.

But what the difference is between Thompson in these former years and Thompson today that he openly speaks about the “hijacker Mohammed Atta” and so on. When he could not deny in former times he makes a decision today. What is most concerning is that he allegedly knows who did it and so how the planes were hijacked in times when NOTHING of the official theory is proved but the evidence is on an enormous amont that the identities of the alleged “hijackers” are unclear. And that possible evidence was not provided by the government.

To make it short and simple:
MIHOP is the decision who the culprits are.
LIHOP is open to the “who did it” question but sees responsibility in the Bush administration.
OCT light makes the decision who are the perpetrators ( the 19 and ObL ) and criticises Bush for underacting to stop them and overreacting in war.
OCT makes the decision who are the perpetrators ( the 19 and ObL ) and claims “we were too lame before and not cautious enough but now we are on the right way”.

Thompson tries to be praeceptor Americii in OCT light. He is antiwar, that is good but not enough and not adequate to his knowledge and abilities. Most Americans are antiwar now, so this performance is low.

[Grateful for Hope]

9. Very much looking forward to the DVD becoming available

Thank you for bringing this info to the forum, Paul.

[petgoat]

10. This is Fucking Great!

The Jersey Girls' unanswered questions, and Paul Thompson's unquestioned answers.

Both sides converging. Does anyone remember the I Ching hexagram of "Biting Through"?
The hexagram of justice.


Woo Hoo! :bounce: :toast:

What happened to the clapping smiley?

[Grateful for Hope]

11. It's still there

I'll clap for you:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[mirandapriestly]

16. Oh no, you're using smilies!

A certain late departed member has been reincarnated through you???? If you start calling everyone one "tin hatters" and "cters", we're done for!

[90-percent]

18. The Jersey Girls

These people are great!

Courageous and patriotic Americans!

I applaud their heroic efforts! (And I got my email confirmation for my order for this dvd last Saturday!)

Oh goody, I'm going to see this vid in a few days!

-85% Jimmy