Joshua said:
These two films present very different aspects of the events of 9/11. Both are solid
and lack, I think, any sort of dis-info narrative and while nothing in either of these films
will be revolutionary to those that participate in this forum I thought you might like
to know of them.
See what you think.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=911+press&hl=en
-Solid reporting on controlled demolitions, and the physics of the buildings collapse
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
-Story of widows dealing with the Federal Gov. in the aftermath and depiction
of 9/11 Commision's stonewalling and lack of effort at getting at any truth as
regards what really happened on 9/11.
Minor thing, but the links above and their description are reversed.
I have to thank you for taking the time to mention these. I had seen "Quest for Truth" before, but not the other. Both are the two top films I have
ever seen that demonstrate open issues that display the interplay between belief, perception and open questions of what happened in reality.
The film featuring the "Jersey Girls" has something that most people would discount as nothing. The original 9/11 commision (and I have not undertaken personal verification of this) was alloted only $3 million dollars, and later, for some reason, $14 million. The biggest terrorist attack against the U.S. (while no major war was afoot such as WWII) and they allot $3 million to find out what happened. Six simultaneous drills that took most of the Nation's Air Force protection away from the eastern seaboard, and the terrorists happen to pick that day to strike. Wow. Looks like they had good Intel. The Starr commission, apparently, cost $100 million. Priorities.
What can one infer from this? Is there a valid explanation that doesn't involve HUGE incompetence (as some people I've spoken to think, which I opine is a self-calming measure), or premeditation?
On the issue of incompetence: if a 1000 or so guys, mostly living in caves somewhere in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan can mastermind such a surgical strike on the U.S., exactly what is the Pentagon doing with all those billions? Trillions over the last 30 years. If they are so incompetent, how did the Russians miss their "chance" to strike? In hindsight, shouldn't people feel lucky having survived the 70 and 80s under the false perception of advanced defense? These are minor arguments I bring up to those who think the U.S. defense system fell down, all of a sudden. Tom Clancy must have REALLY been writing fiction when describing some of the measures in place. He must be a genius that no one in the Pentagon reads, hey?
The thread from perception to reality is necessarily contextual to people's exposure to information, their own personal Matrix filter. Trying to wake people up is a nasty affair: it is a crucible. The benefits are immesurable from a learning point of view.
The other film is the
BEST treatment of the issue of structural integrity and unexplained eye-witness reports of "explosions" and other anamolies. The most telling part is where they show steel beams in freefall (presumably ejected sideways) that are still many, many stories HIGHER that the "pancaking" floors collapsing beneath them. That alone is enough to show that something is amiss, or that physics needs to be revised.
Again, thank you.
