This is excellent - a film for advanced students of 911

[Craig W]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=347655064407137426

This 1-hour film is excellent and very thought provoking. And is certainly among the most intelligent and sophisticated 911 films I have seen (and I've seen a LOT!).

I'm sure most of us are well familiar with the numerous standard 911 truth films, showing the usual shortcomings in the official story. This is different, definitely worth watching and I recommend it highly.

Its strength is its in depth analysis of the psychology of the real perps and their MO. And it proposes plausible answers to some of the most perplexing questions surrounding 911.

For example, why were the perps so apparently "sloppy"? Why was there so much "bizarre and seemingly deliberate self-incrimination" (in the mantra of the film)? Why did Bush twice tell obvious lies about having seen the first plane strike when that was impossible? Why were the "five dancing Israelis" so obvious in their celebration (they could scarcely have attracted more attention if they had tried)? Why did Urban Movers disappear so suspiciously? And why did any of that news get aired at all? Why did Silverstein say those damned words ("pull it", etc)? Etc, etc.

This film provides plausible and enlightening explanations for these and other glaring oddities.

If you want a clue as to where the answers lie, ask yourself what memes in the American and global psyche might these examples of apparent 911 complicity trigger... And why might the perps want to invoke such reactions...

The answers are revealing.

[Stefan]

I posted this here a while back.

I'd say it's definatley interesting, and all truthers should watch it for food-for-thought... but I'm really not sure if it qualifies as anything other than an interesting idea.

[Craig W]

Sorry (keep up, Craig!).

Do you have the link? Was there much discussion of their theories?

I agree all should watch it.

Personally, it explained somethings I had found perplexing.

[Stuart]

Craig

Thata a great link, and not a video that i have seen doing the rounds before.

We all know conclusively that there is much more to 9/11 than the official story and the people of the world should know this. My interest has moved to who is running the show and how do they control the media and government and what is the long term plan. Therefore i found this video of great use in understanding hwo they have potentially managed to gain the complicity of such a wide ranging group of people. Know doubt theres alot of back scratcing going at various events liek the Bilderberg meetings and the component people involved aren't always told the full truth until its happened but this is a great slant on how they are sold into it once its happened.

Even if you only watch the last 20 mins i reccommend to this to anyone whose followed the leading families and organisations of this world as an intelligent theory.

Stuart

[Stefan]

Craig-
No not much response, in fact you're already beating me on responses

It's obviously the way you sell it

Link:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8413&highlight=anato my+++coverup

[Craig W]

Glad you enjoyed it, daretocare.

Yes I agree that the second half of the film is particularly strong and useful.

I found the ideas on the "bizarre and seemingly obvious self-incrimination" very interesting.

Pointing the finger of suspicion at Israel, for example, with the "Five dancing Israelis" ruse (an obvious lead to anyone investigating the attacks), means that anyone who doubts the offical story can be smeared as anti-semitic. As we have all been programmed to view anyone tagged with this term as being one-step above a paedophile, most people are easily made to dismiss 911 scepticism as just another form of anti-semitism.

Similarly, Bush's virtual admissions of complicity invoke denial in patriots (afterall it is patriotic to support your president, right?) who will think such a suggestion ridiculous, again repelling people from investigating the attacks or considering alternatives to the OCT.

Very clever.

I also found the background evidence of Israeli espionage and spying on the US intelligence agencies fascinating. I mean the NSA contract an Israeli software firm to write their encryption software for them. WTF??? There seems to be very high level collusion going on here...

[Craig W]

[Wokeman]

Stefan,
I'm very surprised at your cool reaction. I think for 9/11 veterans that video answers lots of questions that no other researcher has so far produced. None of us has been able to work out why Bush did nothing that day, after the news of the attacks was whispered to him by Andrew Card, why the five Israelis were high-fiving it on the roof of a van in so public a place, and why Larry Silverstein let loose on "Pull it!". Like so many intell operations, we were all looking the wrong way for answers. I believe this video provides the information we've been looking for.

[MadgeB]

A very novel and interesting film, but I didn’t find the pact-of-complicity stuff convincing.

I think the strange Bush behaviour is better explained by Thierry Meyssan/Webster Tarpley and others as a sort of neo-con ‘palace coup’. Bush discovered at Booker school that the rogue network had ‘done the deed’ and that he was now their political prisoner. He lied about seeing the first hit on TV in order to propagate the planes-hit-the-towers myth, as part of getting the pretend 'revenge' bandwagon rolling.

Pushing that hijacked-planes meme also explains the put options and the uncollected profits. Everyone fusses about insider trading, no action is taken after ‘investigation’ (as usual), and the idea that UAL and AA lost planes is reinforced. If there were no passenger planes involved, then you need to take every opportunity to make planes-theory the common currency. So a very helpful red herring for the perps.

[Stefan]

[Craig W]

[londonsound]

I don't see the bush statement that he saw the first plane as anything but poor phraseology.

To me a perfectly rational explanation is that he meant he saw *that* the first plane *had* hit the WTC. I'm sure that's what the white house would say, and with his famous rep for mangling our language, who could argue?

I seriously think that much too much has been made about that comment.

Mykal[/b]

[Craig W]

Possibly so, Mykal.

But he did lie about having acted immediately to do something (another claim highlighted in the film). And the behaviour of Bush's Secret Service didn't fit with a country being attacked. Why the total inaction - he was known target on a publicly known visit to a school. Yet they let him stay their for over half an hour...? Why?

Did you watch the film? If so, what do you think of the theories in it?

[Craig W]

Another idea which I found useful was that the nods and winks to the audience by those involved in 911 mean that those in the intel community who suspect the truth become criminally complicit by not exposing it.

Look at how much most of us know about the truth of 911. Some of those employed by intel must know a lot more. Can you imagine having to work for people whom you know did this?

Of course, they can choose to blow the whistle but their careers will be over and there is little chance of their story having much impact in the MSM and every chance they will be attacked by establishment peons.

So the leaks act as a sort of test of allegiance. They help the real perps and filter those in intel who can be trusted, from those who can't. Those who play the game and keep schtum are identifying themselves as co-conspirators, and can be selected for advancement as "one of them".

Any thoughts?

[John White]

I felt the film dealt with the Israeli angle as well as anything else I've seen so far: its exactly the kind of careful line we are constantly urging members to be aware of here

I also felt that the "mutual complicity" angle was worthy of consideration, as was the "deliberate incrimination" angle: but I'm cautious as to, ultimately, how useful its going to be. At the end of the day, we are still running ahead into speculation, and if we do that too much, we are going to fall flat on our faces

[Craig W]

Fair points, John.

I agree regarding the dangers of speculation. The inadequacies of the official fairy tale must remain our focus, not any speculative alternatives, however convincing. But there is also a need for the mind to try and fill the vacuum left by the official fairy tale and this film fleshes out some of these speculations well.

[MadgeB]

[londonsound]

[Witchfinder General]

and Bush lies about everything

He did not see a plane because there was no plane

When hannitty and colmes emphasise the point "we all saw the planes on 911" again you know they lie about everything

No planes on 911 and video fakery is what needs to be exposed

Wake up those of you who are not masquerading as truthers

[londonsound]

[chek]

[egw]

Thanks for pointing this video out. I seriously cannot fathom what the hell the perps were thinking when they decided to go through with 9/11, nor how much they are being made sweat today, but the vid stitches the whole thing together enough so that one might hope one day to get a handle on these kind of questions. Food for thought.

[londonsound]

[MadgeB]

[londonsound]

[MadgeB]

I can't be arsed to look for the footage right now, but in the clips I've seen I'm sure Bush says he was waiting to go into the classroom, and the TV was obviously on, and he saw the plane hit the tower and thought that's one lousy pilot, etc. But from his schedule, the timing was not possible for a TV showing of the pretend hit. So maybe he was being set up.

[Micpsi]

Occasion 1:
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
[CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

RealMedia video download of comment

Occasion 2:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
[whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]

"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..." [whitehouse.gov]

WMA download of comment
-------------------------------------
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

There is NO ambiguity either about what he said or what Bush meant. He said that he saw ON TV the first plane crash into the first building when he was at the school. Which is impossible.

Did Bush just wrongly remember, confusing his memory of watching the Naudet footage aired by CNN later that day? Even for someone as mentally challenged as Bush, I find that difficult to believe. Flight 17 crashed at 8.46am whilst Bush was on the way in his limo to the school, arriving about 9am. If he had said "...I saw a plane HAD hit the tower," there would be no problem, because he would have been referring to the TV live coverage AFTER the plane crashed into the tower. Did Bush misspeak in omitting the crucial word 'had'? Quite possibly. However, on the second occasion, he says that "I had seen the first plane fly into the first building." Here he uses the word 'had', so misspeaking and being misunderstood are not possible explanations. The fact that he confirms what everyone thought he had said on the earlier occasion in a way that cannot be misinterpreted as misspeaking because his statement is very clear is what creates the problem. Did he let slip that he had really seen the crash on a TV feed to his limo during the journey to the school? I cannot think of any alternative explanation other than that he is too stupid to realise that he is not remembering things correctly. Given his long-term drinking problems, perhaps that is plausible.

[Craig W]

Thanks for that useful clarification, Micpsi.

From that it would seem that he was definitely lying. The qustion then becomes, was it a conscious lie or an unconscious lie? Perhaps lying is so normal to him that he didn't realise the possible importance of it. Or perhaps it was a result of the difficulty in remembering the official lie he was meant to be espousing. Or perhaps it was some form of coded admission of complicity...

[Pincher]

The central claim of the film that the plotters deliberately incriminated themselves so that they had to defend themselves collectively is both paradoxical and a non falsifiable hypothesis (a statement that cannot be scientifically tested).

Moreover, the written quotation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (and we all know about the doppelganger currently in US custody) displayed in the last few seconds of the movie (that the United States' ongoing support for the State of Israel was the main reason for 9/11) is a reafffirmation of the offical cover story that Al Qaeda carried out the attack. Are we meant to view this section with irony?

Somewhere in this interesting but grossly deceptive, amateurish effort I smell the putrid fingers of Lyndon LaRouche...

[ian neal]

The film's website and forum

http://www.a2planet.com/aa911truth/index.php

The video collection is very good

http://www.a2planet.com/video/