Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

History Channel 9.11 Conspiracies program (12 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    Haven't seen it yet, but I'm reading the responses on 911blogger.

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/10772

    Webster Tarpley calls Thierry Meyssan, "the founder of our worldwide movement" and repeatedly forwards the "no-plane at the pentagon" hypothesis. He also mentions Fetzer as a supposedly worthwhile researcher.

    But look at all the important factual material they had to present. The viewers got to see the squibs coming out of the twin towers. They got to see building 7 coming down, with ample comparisons to controlled demolition cases. They got to hear and see the infamous Silverstein. They got to see the singed hole in the internal rings of the Pentagon. They got to see the Shanksville crater. They got to hear about false flag operations from a chorus of authoritative voices, and for that there was no refutation. They also got a good source list for further research: Loose Change was prominent, as were Alex Jones and 9/11 Mysteries. Thierry Meyssan, the founder of our worldwide movement, got more recognition tonight than he has ever received in this country, and it is about time – his book the Big Lie is and remains a classic. They go to know David Ray Griffin, Bob Bowman, Jim Fetzer and many more. There was even a plug for my own 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Any serious, intelligent person – and there still are some – knows exactly where to go to find out more, and that can only be a big plus.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Arabesque
    Member

    Yes, these comments really bothered me, and it is tempting to respond to them on 911blogger... but I wouldn't want to bring up "wedge" issues or something.

    His writing style is quite biased towards those who are already conspiracy theorists (as separate from 9/11 truthers).

    In fact, I almost finished reading his book and I have a few comments:

    Although it has some interesting insights into false flag terrorism, it makes a number of dubious claims.

    1. That the world trade center possibly could have been destroyed with DEW
    2. That flight 93 could have been destroyed with DEW
    3. The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile
    4. The Pentagon section is almost completely filled with misinformation arguments

    The Angel is Next Claim is highly speculative. We need an investigation to figure what this means. In my opinion the best explanation is that it was a cover story to explain why Bush was a coward on 9/11. The source for the claim was Karl Rove--a highly dubious source if there ever was one; someone who politicizes every statement. I don't know what Bush knew or didn't know about the plot on 9/11.

    These are major defects in the book which in my opinion detract and discredit its overall message. I'll likely make a review of it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    I typically try to post stuff like this on blogger and it never appears. I hope no one minds but I'll copy these onto the STJ and ae911 forums, without attribution or sources, which I can add later if someone likes. Please do review the book!

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Arabesque
    Member

    What's interesting about Webster Tarpley is his connection to Nico Haupt.

    Nico Haupt's review is quoted on his book (his review has his name and website address on the back cover), and in fact, Haupt is quoted as a reference at least 5 or 6 times in the book.

    Of course, Haupt was also referenced in Crossing the Rubicon a few times, so it might not mean anything.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    When Rubicon was written, Haupt was still functional (working at INN) and involved with but also disrupting the groups in NYC, and hadn't yet outed himself -- everyone made excuses for him over and over. He just seemed eccentric to most, a character. He became connected to Barbara Honegger when she unloaded the war games info onto the movement and he started advocating that, which was picked up and run with by Ruppert, who then investigated it. But pretty quickly he was pushing WING TV, Woody Box and other nonsense, yet still everyone made excuses for him.

    I think that there are only 2 explanations for Haupt. Either he has a brain chemistry issue and cannot help himself, or he, like others, goes along relatively functional and just doing small stuff, until something happens - a trigger, an anniversary, or a preset agenda - whereby the worst hoaxes can then be distributed openly, or the worst disruptions can be caused. Then they are outed and rejected by everyone, but the damage is done. Now, the new generation of disinfo, hype promoters, or just those who don't yet get it about all this, come along and re-embrace him, re-activate him.

    Take a look at the new Pop Mech reponse to Jim Hoffman's Straw Man argument (the outcome of DRG's refusal to reject nonsense) -

    Q: Did you deliberately focus on some of the more ludicrous conspiracy claims in order to make the conspiracy community look ridiculous?

    This objection surfaced within days after we published our original article: "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its '9/11 Lies' Straw Man," read the headline of an article by conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman. His claim was that PM chose weak theories in order to discredit conspiracy theories in general . . . Interestingly, when the popular movie Loose Change appeared in 2005, it featured many of the same claims Hoffman had denounced, and included an image of the seismic spikes article in American Free Press. Although several theorists have criticized the film, Loose Change has generally been embraced by the conspiracy community. By the same token, the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, by David Ray Griffin, quotes both Christopher Bollyn and Jim Hoffman as authoritative sources. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    Just FYI, both Tarpley and Griffin remain as members of Fetzer's group. This only allows doors to remain open for Fetzer.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    I haven't read Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Does it spend much time trying to "refute" those who argue that there is no evidence that a missile and not flight 77 hit the Pentagon? If so, that is sad.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. Arabesque
    Member

    I've read D911D, and he's actually pretty fair on the Pentagon, acknowledging that there are 9/11 researchers (he cites Hoffman, and Pentagon research) who have concluded a 757 impact.

    The purpose is to debunk the debunkers, but it turns into a straw-man because Pop. Mech. does a poor job of defending the official story when even the part they are defending is true.

    He points to perceived anomalies such as the hole size (ignoring the analysis done by Hoffman), lack of seismic signal (all other planes apparently left signals including flight 93), and lack of debris as problematic, among other things. However, he also specifically points out that there are many problems in the official story besides the question over what hit the Pentagon.

    I have read about 4 9/11 books, and I'd have to say that Griffin is the best writer, although there are some occasional flaws in his work (voice morphing and the Pentagon chief among them).

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. Arabesque
    Member

    History Channel - 9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction? A Review

    Formula: Conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theorists claim... Conspiracists say... Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy!!!

    Cue Music: "Expert", "No that's not true" (Begging the question), That's silly (We're smarter than the conspiracy theorists!), The government is too incompetent!, We're an EXPERT! See the Graphic!,

    After some twenty dozen mentions of the word "conspiracy", we come mercifully to an end.

    The History Channel's "debunking" efforts were frequently so bad, that I couldn't help laughing. Popular Mechanics continues its lame, and pompous efforts at defending the official "conspiracy theory".

    Some obvious lies in the film: Loose Change is not backing away from Controlled Demolition, NORAD's radar are NOT focussed outside of the US (Outrageous lie by Popular Mechanics!),

    Some obvious omissions: Conservations of momentum is not acknowledged by defenders of the official story (speed of collapse of Towers), Family Members who support a new investigation, Family Members who supported NIST correction by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Thermate, Serious discussion of Stand Down/NORAD, Insider Trading, Destruction of Evidence, World Trade Center First Responder Illness due to toxic air (and the lies by the government that it was safe to breathe)

    Like all good hit pieces, there are some good smears in it like: Fetzer and his faked Zapruder film book mentioned (Guilt by association), No Plane at the Pentagon Hoax (Many credible 9/11 researchers do not believe this), The highly dubious and family member alienating Voice Morphing, "The 'Jews' did 9/11",

    In the final analysis, it's so bad it will actually help the Truth movement because it is so obviously condescending to the intelligence of the viewer, and brings up so many questions that it might lead some to actually research the facts--and not just listen to what the Popular Mechanics "experts" have to say.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    Curious

    Got a message from someone who said they heard about us on this show. Can anyone confirm that TruthMove was mentioned or not? I'm assuming she got confused.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. mark
    Member

    There are not ANY "credible 9/11 researchers" who still believe the "No Plane at the Pentagon hoax."

    While there are still some people who sincerely believe it, that sincerity doesn't make them any less wrong.

    Given his aggressive promotion of "no plane" and "no phone calls," David Ray Griffin isn't really a "credible researcher." He's a good writer, but not careful in his "research."

    Griffin's article for Tikkun magazine earlier this year gave positive reviews for the work of white supremacist neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers (American Free Press and Eric Hufschmid), which is about the most offensive thing one could insert into a liberal Jewish publication.

    It is not a coincidence that ALL of the media coverage of 9/11 truth focuses on "no plane" and "demolition," but never, ever talks about the plane-into-building exercise during 9/11, the other war games, the numerous warnings that 9/11 was imminent, the fact that Flight 77 was steered into the nearly empty, strengthened sector of the Pentagon, and other evidence that is well sourced and not subject to "dueling experts."

    It suggests what is and what is not a useful strategy for the 9/11 truth movement.

    www.oilempire.us/media-strategy.html

    www.oilempire.us/griffin.html Debunking David Ray Griffin and The Truth and Lies of 9/11 Truth

    "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." - Nietzsche

    On November 28, 2001, journalist Michael Ruppert (www.fromthewilderness.com) gave an incredible presentation at Portland State University that documented that the Bush administration had complete foreknowledge of 9/11. This lecture was turned into the film “Truth and Lies of 9/11” and subsequent book “Crossing the Rubicon,” and the core of the evidence has withstood more than five years of examination. While From the Wilderness has shut down as a business and is no longer selling the video, a bootleg copy of it is available at Google Video, and the basic information in the lecture is available at the FTW archives which are still on that website. In summary, Ruppert's presentation established beyond any reasonable doubt that the highest echelons of the federal government had complete foreknowledge of the events

    On May 21, 2007, theologian David Ray Griffin spoke about 9/11 in the same auditorium where Ruppert gave his first 9/11 speech. Griffin’s books on 9/11 have good summaries of the evidence for complicity, but they are also marred by some false claims that he has accepted uncritically, the most important of these is the idea that the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon did not happen. When the Washington Post reviewed his first 9/11 book “New Pearl Harbor” in October 2004, they only focused on this false claim and ignored the rest of the book.

    There was very little overlap between these two presentations, as if they were about events in parallel universes.

    Ruppert spent a lot of time discussing the financial and "deep politics" background that led to 9/11: ties between Wall Street and the CIA, the role of drug money in the US economy, how the coup d'etat against President Kennedy was covered up, detailed evidence for specific foreknowledge of 9/11, and the underlying factor of Peak Oil as a primary motivation of the Cheney/Bush regime for allowing the attacks to happen. None of these points were made during Griffin's presentation - indeed, the word OIL was not mentioned at all, which is the same curious omission that the major media and the "left gatekeepers" make when discussing the War on Iraq and the broader so-called War on Terror.

    Ruppert's "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" doesn't need corrections more than five years later, although subsequent research found additional material about the war games that day that were not yet public in November 2001. One of the questions posed to Griffin after his speech was about the war games (which were not even hinted at during the lecture). Griffin replied that he did not think there was anything to them, and that they were a form of limited hang out. In other words, David Ray Griffin essentially says that the fact the CIA and National Reconnaissance Office ran a "plane into building" exercise in Virginia as 9/11 unfolded should be ignored by 9/11 truth activists in favor of the claim that phone calls cannot be made from airphones on commercial jet planes.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. truthmod
    Administrator

    Thanks Mark,

    You're one of the few people out there who has the courage to point out these inconsistencies--especially by such a revered leader as David Ray Griffin.

    This is important work, but I'm afraid there will continue to be many people who don't want to hear the discerning approach to 9/11 truth. It's just too rigorous a process for most; it's like they want to settle down and trust certain people or pieces of evidence and it's very hard for them to keep questioning.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.