Observer Semi-Hit Piece

[Andrew Johnson]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1749799,00.html

Chaos and c***-up always trump conspiracy

Alongside Hurricane Katrina, the tragedy of 9/11 is providing fertile ground for conspiracy theorists and the film industry. But this should hardly be surprising, says Mark Kermode. After all, conspiracies are comforting

Sunday April 9, 2006
The Observer


I recently found myself on Radio 5 Live's Simon Mayo show with film-maker Spike Lee. Discussing his forthcoming hurricane Katrina documentary, When the Levees Broke, Lee revealed that it will include testimony from people who don't believe that what happened was entirely accidental. 'Speaking to the black citizens of New Orleans,' he said, 'many of them told me that they will swear on a stack of bibles that they heard explosions and they think that the levees were blown up.'
Although he stopped short of endorsing the suggestion that the poverty-stricken Ninth Ward was deliberately flooded to spare the French Quarter, Lee insisted: 'As a documentary film-maker, I think it is my duty to let these people voice their opinions. All these things are in the air and people do not put it past the government to do some crazy stuff.'

Coincidentally, around the same time, I received an anonymously mailed package containing a DVD which purported to tell 'what really happened on 11 September 2001'. The DVD, entitled Loose Change: 2nd Edition, began with a warning that I could be arrested 'under section 802 of the US Patriot Act' for 'possession of this information' and a plea that I 'distribute this to friends, family and complete strangers before it is too late to do so'.

The film argued that the World Trade Centre was blown up from inside, that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile and that United Airlines Flight 93, in which terrorists were officially reported to have been overpowered by passengers, did not crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, but landed safely in Ohio.

This all sounded like baloney to me. But just to be sure, I contacted respected British film-maker Paul Greengrass, who's putting the finishing touches on his thoroughly researched, fact-based docudrama, United 93. Greengrass's film made headlines last week when trailers were reportedly pulled from New York cinemas. But controversy surrounding the movie was first sparked by conspiracy theorists who insist that flight 93 was actually shot down by the US air force and who dismiss the 'official version' of events as a lie. '9/11 has replaced the Kennedy assassination as the epicentre of this great upsurge of conspiracy theories,' concedes Greengrass, 'and flight 93 is right at the heart of it. Do I believe those conspiracies? No. The stuff about the plane being shot down is simply not true. But you have to ask why a document as exhaustive and accountable as the 9/11 Commission report has failed to dispel these myths.'

Indeed, the body of people who deny the official version of what happened on 11 September, the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement', is growing by the day. Several celebrities have thrown their conspiratorial hats into the ring, with Charlie Sheen telling America's GCN radio network last month: 'Nineteen amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory.' He added that the plane that hit the South Tower 'didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life' and that it appeared to him that 'those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'. Strong stuff.

Yet a worrying number of people still believe that the Apollo missions were faked, a claim which finally earned diehard conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel a punch on the nose from astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who did not take kindly to being called 'a coward and a liar'. The claims of the Apollo conspiracy theorists clearly owe less to reality than they do to the plot of the Seventies cult movie Capricorn One in which an American mission to Mars is faked here on Earth by Nasa stooges.

Conspiracy theories do provide great plots for movies - and vice versa. John Frankenheimer's 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate may have been based on a potboiler by Richard Condon, but among conspiracy theorists, its central brainwashing premise is taken as barely disguised fact.

Similarly, most of what the public knows about the Kennedy assassination is based on a string of excitably dramatic movies, from David Miller's Executive Action (1973) to Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), which viewers have mistaken for verifiable truth. The real reason people believe in such wild conspiracies is simple - it's more reassuring. In the case of 9/11, there is something perversely comforting about the idea that, behind all the chaos, the American government was always in control, carefully orchestrating the events of that terrible day. A similar desire to impose order on chaos may underlie those hurricane Katrina theories. If the levees were deliberately detonated, then at least the government did something, even if that something was malicious. How much worse to accept that the citizens of New Orleans were simply abandoned by the authorities and left to fend for themselves.

'Conspiracy theorists are not to be sneered at,' says Paul Greengrass. 'They're interesting, thoroughly engaged and they're responding to a profound unease. But they do tend to simplify very complex situations.'

I used to take solace in Gail Brewer-Giorgio's bonkers books Is Elvis Alive? and The Elvis Files, which argued that a fit and healthy Presley had carefully planned and faked his death in 1977, fled Graceland in a helicopter and restarted his life in privacy and seclusion. I embraced this story simply because it was less depressing than accepting that my hero had got too fat, sloppy and drug-addled to live.

In the end, the facts won out and I had to abandon my adolescent fantasies. Others should do the same. It is chaos, rather than conspiracy, which really rules the world.

Why we need pencils

The Pixar Exhibition at London's Science Museum not only provides a rollicking day out for the kids, but it also proves that the alleged schism within animation between the art of drawing and computer graphics is utter bunk. As the exhibition beautifully demonstrates, a wealth of sketches, drawings, paintings and models lies behind the creation of the so-called computer-generated heroes and backdrops of Toy Story, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.

While purists may complain that CG has sounded the death knell of traditional animation, at Pixar the pencil and paintbrush still rule. Indeed, the centrepiece of the exhibition is a magnificent recreation of a zoetrope, a carousel which uses models viewed under a simple stroboscopic light to recreate the magic of the earliest moving images. Pencils and pixels, computers and clay - in the end, they're just different elements of the same creative palette.

review@observer.co.uk

[paul wright]

Sent, in response
"So, Mark,
Did you actually watch the film LooseChange 2, or did you half-watch it whilst preening yourself on your urbanity and wit? So that you only managed to catch three of the central conclusions of the film,which your article presents as baseless assertions
You fail to mention that the film occupies about two hours in time, and provides reams of documentary evidence and argument to back up its conclusions

You sound to me totally disingenuous, when you say that "This all sounded like baloney to me", as though someone's just outlined the movies conclusions to you without offering you any evidence, and I presume the effect you want to produce in your readers is the thought, "well it sounds like baloney to me too"

You then turn to Paul Greengrass, whose film is absolutely dependent on promoting and adhering to the Governments version of events, in terms of its substance and his career.. One could expect no other response from him than "the stuff about the plane being shot down is simply not true"
He wasn't going to say that the story of his film was based on a load of government baloney, was he?
The reason the 9/11 Commission failed to dispel the "myths" about 9/11 is because it was neither exhaustive nor accountable, and simply failed to address the hard questions about 9/11 or distorted them to fit in with the official story. If you wish to follow up on this, then I suggest you read Prof David Ray Griffin's excellent account "The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions"

The rest of your article then tries to conflate the arguments of the 9/11 Truth movement with those of other 'conspiracy theories',which have various degrees of validity, ending wonderfully with the most outlandish (I presume) Elvis is alive, which is where you want to align the 9/11 evidence, and Spike Lee's stories on the blowing up of the levee's in New Orleans.

Your article is itself full of ommissions and distortions, and sounds a lot like others of those 'smart-ass' articles that manage to trickle into the mainstream press. If you are not guilty of deliberate dissembling, then I suggest you check out further the evidence on the UK and Irelands's own 9/11 Truth Campaign
at http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/
You might also like to seek out some academic and expert testimony on the Scholars for Truth website at
http://www.st911.org/
and follow up some of the leads and links from these websites

Once you stop thinking baloney and start paying attention, there's a different article you might want to write

This constant drip drip of mentions of which you are now a part, is sooner or later going to force the truth about what happened into the open, and you wouldn't want the embarrassment of having once been part of the cover up.

Thanks anyway for your article, it's good to see these issues being presented in the main media, if in a scornful manner
Best Wishes
Paul Wright
(Supporter, 911 Truth Campaign, Britain and Ireland)"

More time wasted on an email to a cynical twat I suppose

[Andrew Johnson]

Here's mine...

FAO: Mark Kermode,

 

Dear Sir,

 

I read the online version of your article "Chaos and c***-up always trump conspiracy" with some interest. Actually, it may just be the case that the "Loose Change 2" DVD to which your article referred was burned by me and possibly a friend of mine sent it to you anonymously. You can check to see if this is correct by looking on the disk to see if it has this e-mail address on it (ad.johnson@ntlworld.com).

 

In any case, I believe you may have had some e-mails from fellow members of our British 9/11 Truth Campaign. I am not sure whether your article was intended to be light-hearted, nevertheless it is clear that some very significant facts were omitted (á lá Kean Commission Report). Here are a few:

 

1)      In September 2004, an event, organised by Florida Millionaire Jimmy Walter called “Confronting the Evidence” was held in New York City where researchers presented to the public some of the facts which were not addressed by Kean Commission.

 

·        Facts such as the collapse times of the World Trade Centre Towers 1, 2 & 7 being close to those for “free-fall”.

·        Facts such as the collapse of WTC 7 happening at 5:30 in the evening when no plane had hit this building.

·        Facts such as the WTC Owner Larry Silverstein saying building 7 had been “pulled” by the FDNY, even though the FDNY do not “pull” buildings.

·        Facts such as the FEMA report about WTC 7 saying (essentially) the cause of the collapse was “unknown” (despite the *owner’s* comments above)

 

2)      In November 2004, a group of people presented a Citizen’s Complaint to the Attorney General of New York (Elliot Spitzer) regarding the Unsolved Crimes committed in New York City on Sept 11^th 2001 (including those committed by the EPA stating that the air was safe to breathe).

3)      In May 2005, Jimmy Walter organised a number of public hearings in London and other European cities discussing the evidence raised above.

4)      A new group has formed (of which I am privileged to be a member)  called Scholars for 9-11 Truth.

 

These facts are all easy to check and have nothing to do with Elvis being alive. As regards our Scholar's Group, I would be glad if you would check out the people involved (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html), look at their biographies and then decide whether they are all "weak-minded conspiracy nuts who lack credibility and intellectual rigour". It doesn't really matter what your opinion is, however, because it will not change any of the facts mentioned above.

 

And people do want the facts - I have now sent out about 500 copies of Loose Change and other disks - people have sent me the money to cover the cost (I sell them at cost price or give them away). People are giving them away - because they *know* how important the information is and they now have realised that our mainstream media is unwilling or unable to print the truth about these issues. So we now choose to take on ourselves the mantle of what the media should be doing - giving people raw information, without spin or gimmickry. People are making their own minds up. I think the momentum is building up.

 

I have been campaigning regarding the 9/11 Truth issue for over 12 months. I could write an article for you, if you like, and you can claim all the credit for it - and even get paid for it - I won't mind. I am even available for interview for free just about any time you like, so that we can discuss and debate specific points of evidence. No mainstream media people have yet taken any of us up on this type of offer. I wonder why.

 

Thanks for reading this message.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

 

[ian neal]

Great responses. We shouldn't forget the Observor is part of the Guardian stable

[Jim]

[ian neal]

My twopenneth worth

Dear Mark

In response to your abysmal if predictably lazy review of Loose Change II, here is a link to a review in the American Chronicle.

Read and learn how to review a factual documentary by (1) first watching the film (a novel concept I’m sure) and (2) summarizing some of the key evidence and questions that the film throws up. If you would then like to explore the evidence behind the documentary's claims in more detail, then the network of British campaigners found here (www.nineeleven.co.uk) will gladly put forward someone to debate the evidence with either yourself or Paul Greengrass.

Yours sincerely

Ian Neal

[Justin]

I think Mark Kermode has just the right sounding name for his writing - because that is where I would use it!

[Annie]

Hi all

If anyone else feels moved to contact Mark, he can be reached at review@observer.co.uk.

Just sent this off:

I am writing in response to Mark Kermode's ill-founded comments in yesterday's Observer in his article "Chaos and Cockup always trump Conspiracy Theory".

There is a rapidly growing body of academics, scientists, celebrities and concerned members of the public questioning the events of 911. They take the view that the basic laws of physics mean that the events of that day could not have happened in the way described by the US government.

In focusing on the fate of Flight 93, there are three key points which question the official story:

1)There was no air crash investigation to examine the fate of Flight 93, as required by both US and international law.

2) The debris found at Shanksville, which was scattered over an area of many miles, was consistent with a plane exploding in mid-air and falling out of the sky. If the aircraft had crashed into the ground, the debris radius would have been much smaller, recognisable segments of the plane would have been visible, and the engines would have left large craters. None of this was seen at the sight of the crash.

3) Col Donn de Grand-Pre of the US military has publicly stated that he and his colleagues took the executive decision to shoot down the plane heading towards Washington. His comments can be found at prisonplanet.com.

Regards

Annie Machon

[Jayhawk]

And another....

Dear Mark
As a fan of your Radio 5 film reviews I was disappointed by your article about conspiracies, particularly because I agree that there are some very wacky ideas out there on the internet. In general I am very level headed and not at all prone to wishful thinking, but the issue of 9/11 is very different. You give the strong impression that you have not really investigated the facts on this one, something which I have spent a lot of time on in the last year, and my scepticism has been trumped at every turn by the sheer impossibility of things having happened as the US government would have us believe. You have to look at it for yourself, but do look, because the implications of it being true that the US administration were involved in the planning of 9/11, as I'm sure you would agree, are staggering. Just one example, the thing which made me sit up: watch the film of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and notice how fast (10 secs) and neat and similar the two collapses are, considering the towers were hit in different places. Then watch the collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane. Notice any similarities?
9/11 is not something we should make entertaining copy out of. This is a deadly serious issue and I'm astonished that our press are treating it in this way. Please think about it some more - it doesnt give me any comfort, believe me.

[brian]

Annie, are you sure that is what de Grande Pre stated?

My understanding is that he claimed this is what happened, not that he was part of the decision.

I have not checked but thought it would be advisable not to give Kermode etc any ammunition if it is innaccurate.

[ian neal]

Good point Brian

When giving specific evidence to our critics it is vital to be 100% accurate and to use our strongest evidence.

According to prison planet he said "It was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93."

Plus "Colonel, before we take these four final calls, go over that a little bit slower for folks. That's a big deal. You talked to the pilot, a friend of yours, who shot down Flight 93 that was going for the Capitol or the White House. And go over that for folks.

DGP: Okay, quick rundown. They were out of Hector Field, Fargo, North Dakota. A bunch, this 119 Fighter Group and they are called the Happy Hooligans. They are probably the best interceptors that we have in the country. They were moved to Langley Air Force Base from Hector Field down to Southern Virginia. And when the klaxon horn went off at 9:35, those two pilots put down their coffee and shot into their aircraft and took off. They didn't know where they were going initially but by 10:00 hours, they had rendezvoused over Southern Pennsylvania. That's about 250 miles in just a matter of minutes and engaged 93 with two side-winder missiles. And they accomplished their objective. Now Hector Field, I use to fly out of Hector Field some time ago. I know most of those pilots. I could name names. I know the National Guard Adj. General. And they were decorated about a year later and I have the full write up of that story in my book."

So I believe you are correct Brian that DGP did not claim to have taken the decision to shoot Flight 93 down. Specifically he claims to personally know and to have spoken with the pilot that shot the plane down (but I stand to be corrected by others if I'm wrong).

[Annie]

Hi Brian and Ian,

Yes, you're right - it's sloppy drafting. My computer crashed 3 times during the course of my composition and when I was trying to send the message, so I don't think the final version was as finely crafted as my first. And, boy, was the air blue!

Regards

Annie
NB "Must do better"

[paul wright]

[TimmyG]

some really well written and rational letters that that echo my feelings precisely.

nice one

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

My guess is that Andrew's letter is closest in tone to what is effective. Echoing the sarcastic tone of the original writer only encourages them to retaliate with sarcasm, even just in their mind if they don't reply.

Some good letters though - congrats to all for taking the initiative.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

Yes, some great letters. I very much liked Jayhawk's too - it is important to point out, if it applies to oneself, the original belief in the official account.

Cheers all!

[paul wright]

[Andrew Johnson]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1754549,00.html

They published Annie's letter more or less in full - as it was shortish! Mine was edited (full version earlier in this thread - it would've been too long to include in full anyway).

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


At the bottom of the page:

Crash course

In response to Mark Kermode's ill-founded comments ('Chaos and c***-up always trump conspiracy', last week), the rapidly growing body of academics, scientists, celebrities and members of the public questioning the events of 9/11 take the view that the basic laws of physics mean that the events of that day could not have happened in the way described by the US government. There are three key points that question the official story:

1) There was no air-crash investigation to examine the fate of Flight 93, as required by both US and international law.

2) The debris found at Shanksville, which was scattered over an area of many miles, was consistent with a plane exploding in midair and falling out of the sky. If the aircraft had crashed into the ground, the debris radius would have been much smaller, recognisable segments of the plane would have been visible, and the engines would have left large craters. None of this was seen at the sight of the crash.

3) Col Donn de Grand-Pre of the US military has publicly stated that he and his colleagues made the executive decision to shoot down the plane heading towards Washington. His comments can be found at Prisonplanet.com.
Annie Machon
by email

Loose with the facts

I think the 'Loose Change' DVD to which your article referred ('Chaos and c***-up always trump conspiracy', last week) was burned by me, and possibly a friend of mine sent it to you anonymously.

A new group has formed (of which I am privileged to be a member) called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I would be glad if you would check out the people involved (Scholarsfor911truth.org/whoarewe.html), look at their biographies and then decide whether they are 'weak-minded conspiracy nuts who lack credibility and intellectual rigour'.
Andrew Johnson
by email


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

[andrewwatson]

Warmest congrats to Annie and Andrew for getting in print today!

[brian]

It would have helped if Annie had managed to correct the mistaken claim the de Grande Pre had been involved in the decision to shoot down flight 93.

It is possible and preferable this mistake is pointed out to the paper by Annie herself before anyone else. As one of the more upfront and prominent of the movement her credibility is critical.

[ian neal]

All publicity is good publicity. The evidence as presented by David Ray Griffin, Ian Henshall, Loose Change and many many others (whilst not infalliable) presents an overwhelming case to answer and we should not overly concern ourselves with one understandable error that has already been acknowledged here

Well done Annie and Andrew

[brian]

I disagree.

Whilst those who have taken the time to look at all the evidence can agree the case is overwhelming, those being presented with the issue for the first time may be unwilling to give further consideration if leaders of the group can be shown to be presenting false claims.

I am not interested in making an issue of this particular case, it is minor, only that when dealing with the press accuracy is critical.

[Garrett Cooke]

[uselesseater]

Great stuff getting in print guys!

Kermode is right about one thing. Reality makes great fiction plots - wonder if he's seen the pilot of the 'Lone Gunman'.

Btw does anyone know where I can get a copy of this?

[Annie]

Hi all

Once again, sorry for the slip. My computer problems are frustrating and ongoing, and I never know if I should be paranoid or not!

I would say that at least the issue was in the paper, so people can go and look at it for themselves. If they then want to take up that error with me, I can point them in the way of even more overwhelming evidence! And journos are in no position to cast stones. With a few honourable exceptions, in my experience they are a slipshod bunch who rarely check their facts, as we see time and time again.

One lesson from this is (apart from improving my accuracy) that letters to newspapers should be short in order to get them published in full. Get three key facts out there, and let people take them on board and do their own digging. Long letters which are cut down can always be misrepresented if the editors so choose. Although I have to say, Andrew's contribution looked great, as ever.

Hey, Brian - less of the "leaders of the group" please. We're all very much in this together. We come from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of perspectives, and they are all equally important. We're fighting for the future.

Regards

Annie

[John White]

I am of course most impressed by the responses Ive just read through above: really good campaigning, I salute all of you

The thing that puzzles me the most is:

How can anyone draw the conclusion that conspiracy theories are comforting?

I have to admit, flexible as my perceptions often are, I just cant see how that one passes by the left brain of anyone claiming it....

[Andrew Johnson]

The "you want to believe it" type arguments are the weakest. It comes in various shapes and forms and stands out a mile. The person saying it often doesn't realise the reason why they are saying it.