9/11 Press For Truth...

[dc1971]

I wanted to ask you guys what is your take on Paul Thompson and the 9/11 Press for Truth movie? Personally, I have found the 9/11 Timeline website to be very informative and a great base for finding factual information on the events of 9/11. Some REASONABLE people (by reasonable I mean the type of person that hasn't been reeled in hook line and sinker into the Truther movement) who have been emailing me on Youtube concerning 9/11 Truth have explained to me that 9/11 Press for Truth is what really got the ball rolling with the Truth movement. My argument is I thought Loose Change was what turned everything into a conspiracy theory. I don't see any of the "Truther" theories being a subject in the 9/11 PFT movie.

I wouldn't think that Paul Thompson or the Jersey widows would even want to associate themselves with 9/11 Truth.

What do you guys think?

dc

[defaultdotxbe]

i would give loose change 2nd attempt more credit for getting the "ball rolling" in the truth movement (came out a few months before PFT and was certainly more influential) PFT actually had very little effect IIRC since it avoided CTs

i do know at least of the jersey girls has since gone full-on truther, not sure of thompson or the others though

[Edx]

I wanted to ask you guys what is your take on Paul Thompson and the 9/11 Press for Truth movie? Personally, I have found the 9/11 Timeline website to be very informative and a great base for finding factual information on the events of 9/11. Some REASONABLE people (by reasonable I mean the type of person that hasn't been reeled in hook line and sinker into the Truther movement) who have been emailing me on Youtube concerning 9/11 Truth have explained to me that 9/11 Press for Truth is what really got the ball rolling with the Truth movement. My argument is I thought Loose Change was what turned everything into a conspiracy theory. I don't see any of the "Truther" theories being a subject in the 9/11 PFT movie.

Press for Truth is a very tame History Channel style of conspiracy film. As its 5am Im too tired to write anything else right now :)

I wouldn't think that Paul Thompson or the Jersey widows would even want to associate themselves with 9/11 Truth.

You'd think that, wouldnt you? But they go to their meetings and are usually guest speakers. They are truthers.

[dc1971]

Press for Truth is a very tame History Channel style of conspiracy film. As its 5am Im too tired to write anything else right now :)



You'd think that, wouldnt you? But they go to their meetings and are usually guest speakers. They are truthers.

That really breaks my heart. To some degree I could understand them getting involved in the Truth Movement considering how the media treated them and really didn't take them seriously. Also how they acted on emotions considering the loss of loved ones.

Is there any source you can refer me to that shows the Jersey Girls are attending these meetings?

dc

[JamesB]

Timeline isn't bad for a truther site, but it is hardly "complete", it is cherry picked to support conspiracy theories. For example it cites the excellent book Firefight for one minor side note which is made to sound ominous, but completely ignores the hundreds of pages which describe the evidence of flight 77.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/10/incomplete-911-timeline.html

[Brainster]

The timeline is terrific for sources, when it has them. Unfortunately, many sources have gone offline, and Thompson and company delink those sources, apparently having never heard of Archive.org, so you end up with "evidence" that is completely unsourced. And the contributors are mostly fruitcakes, so the interpretation and analysis of stories toes the Troofer line. In addition, they change things around so you can't rely on linking and quoting; you'd better get a screen cap as well because otherwise you may find your source material has changed.

As for the Jersey girls, three of them (Kleinberg, Van Auken and Casazza) have pretty much gone Troofer; only Breitweiser has retained her sanity over the years.

Press for Truth is a piece of garbage; you can see that it's pushing Troofer buttons without quite going over the line into CT land. "Truther Lite" is how I think of it.

[dc1971]

The timeline is terrific for sources, when it has them. Unfortunately, many sources have gone offline, and Thompson and company delink those sources, apparently having never heard of Archive.org, so you end up with "evidence" that is completely unsourced. And the contributors are mostly fruitcakes, so the interpretation and analysis of stories toes the Troofer line. In addition, they change things around so you can't rely on linking and quoting; you'd better get a screen cap as well because otherwise you may find your source material has changed.

As for the Jersey girls, three of them (Kleinberg, Van Auken and Casazza) have pretty much gone Troofer; only Breitweiser has retained her sanity over the years.

Press for Truth is a piece of garbage; you can see that it's pushing Troofer buttons without quite going over the line into CT land. "Truther Lite" is how I think of it.

Well... I don't know...

I do feel Paul Thompson is one who has stepped up and taken it upon himself to provide a point of reference for those who have questions and for those who realize that Alex Jones or Loose Change are not going to provide any type of credible resource. I have referenced his site to Truthers on occasion. In fact, most recently when I had finally realized that Alex Jones was nothing but a fraud I had posted a message on the Alex Jones Youtube Channel that if there is any truth to be told you should reference any 911 Debunking site or Paul Thompson's website. Don't even listen to Jones because he's nothing but a less-than-adequate actor. Before the Alex Jones Channel blocked me, I had actually convinced another subscriber that the channel was a total fraud and he got blocked as well... very funny, it was like as they blocked me I took one with me! LOL

Anyway, I just wanted to get you guys' take on 9/11 Timeline. Not that what you say is going to necessarily change my mind nor keep me from referencing the material on the site. It does make me cringe to know that the Jersey Girls have turned to the dark side though. Although it is somewhat understandable considering they lost family members on 9/11.

dc

[beachnut]

I wanted to ask you guys what is your take on Paul Thompson and the 9/11 Press for Truth movie? Personally, I have found the 9/11 Timeline website to be very informative and a great base for finding factual information on the events of 9/11. Some REASONABLE people (by reasonable I mean the type of person that hasn't been reeled in hook line and sinker into the Truther movement) who have been emailing me on Youtube concerning 9/11 Truth have explained to me that 9/11 Press for Truth is what really got the ball rolling with the Truth movement. My argument is I thought Loose Change was what turned everything into a conspiracy theory. I don't see any of the "Truther" theories being a subject in the 9/11 PFT movie.

I wouldn't think that Paul Thompson or the Jersey widows would even want to associate themselves with 9/11 Truth.

What do you guys think?

dc
Paul Thompson’s timeline is useless if you don’t use knowledge and sound judgment to form rational conclusions. In some cases the articles must be checked and you must find the rest of the story to avoid being like nut case conspiracy theorists and quote mine the timeline to support moronic delusions.

An example here gives conspiracy nuts the idea the WTC can survive a 600 mph impact and the idea Robertson is making up lies. The truth is Robertson calculated a 707 at landing weight and 180 mph would do no major damage to the WTC. On 911 the planes were going 470 and 590 mph which is 7 to 11 times the kinetic energy over the design limit!~
The truthers will argue Robertson said 600 mph, or Skilling said 600 mph, but they never did. The port authority did in a white paper, but they were not the engineers who designed the WTC towers structurally.
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Robertson&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805074287/centerforcoop-20); Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71 (http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm)] The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001 (http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Robertson&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on#a090301robertson)). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf)]

The part Paul Thompson left out! The whole truth...

the chief engineer on the WTC said slow speed...

187 pounds of TNT impact of a slow speed 707 would not do significant damabe to the WTC. At 600 mph the 2200 pounds on of TNT KE impact would damage the core big time! A kid in a physics class with some initial conditions could figure this out.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB)

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S?OpenDocument)

pdf file http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement)


http://www.beachymon.com/photo/707energy.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg

I use the timeline to debunk 911 truth by going to the sources and correcting the errors and ignoring the bias and the stupid commentary.

[MikeW]

Beachnut has it right: the timeline is fine if you know what you're talking about, and just want to find additional information for some reason, but otherwise it can be highly misleading because items are chosen, written up or omitted to suit the truther cause.

The piece on how some of the hijackers may still be alive (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601stillalive#a091601stillali ve) is a good example, and I believe one of the reasons why this nonsense claim has persisted. Look through it and you'll find they frequently post one side of the issue only, so for instance they include initial Saudi government doubts over the list of names, but don't include the later acceptance that these were accurate. They include Mueller where he's expressing doubt or uncertainty, but don't include the statement in November when he said he was now certain of the hijacker's identities.

Another example: Thompson is often called upon as some great authority on Sheikh Saeed (the UK citizen who supposedly sent $100,000 to Atta at the orders of the ISI). In Press for Truth he gives us his old theory that Saeed was named first as a paymaster of the attacks, then this was covered up after the ISI story broke. He supports this with stories that appear to show a sequence: Saeed named tentatively, definitively, ISI story breaks, Saeed not mentioned again. But when I looked into this, I found issues and stories he'd entirely ignored. The first person named for this was Sheikh Saeed al Masri, not Saeed Sheikh at all; he was named before and after the ISI story broke, no evidence that the story changed at all; there's reason to believe that CNN's story where Saeed Sheikh is named is mistaken; and Saeed Sheikh's supposed 9/11 connections wasn't ignored after the story, there's no reason to believe this was a coverup. More at
http://911myths.com/index.php/Forgetting_Saeed_Sheikh

[BigAl]

Well... I don't know...

I do feel Paul Thompson is one who has stepped up and taken it upon himself to provide a point of reference for those who have questions and for those who realize that Alex Jones or Loose Change are not going to provide any type of credible resource. I have referenced his site to Truthers on occasion. In fact, most recently when I had finally realized that Alex Jones was nothing but a fraud I had posted a message on the Alex Jones Youtube Channel that if there is any truth to be told you should reference any 911 Debunking site or Paul Thompson's website. Don't even listen to Jones because he's nothing but a less-than-adequate actor. Before the Alex Jones Channel blocked me, I had actually convinced another subscriber that the channel was a total fraud and he got blocked as well... very funny, it was like as they blocked me I took one with me! LOL

Anyway, I just wanted to get you guys' take on 9/11 Timeline.
dc

As a fan of Thompson, his book and the web site, I agree with the others here, it's a good way to find articles in the MSM if they can be found, but the thumbnail descriptions are not to be trusted.

Thompson's book is an interesting read and shows how far back the origins of the Islamic terror go.

[KDLarsen]

Hey Mike, thanks for the great job you do over at 911myths, or as one of the truthers I'm currently "debating" put it: "Ah 911myths.com, the debunkers faithful compendium of bias reenforcing [rule 10] (n/t)" :D

[~enigma~]

Thompson's 'dot's' are fine, it is when he decides to weave them into a truther version that he earns the title truthotard.

[Edx]

More at
http://911myths.com/index.php/Forgetting_Saeed_Sheikh

I keep finding pages I've never seen at your site! wtf!

[dc1971]

Beachnut has it right: the timeline is fine if you know what you're talking about, and just want to find additional information for some reason, but otherwise it can be highly misleading because items are chosen, written up or omitted to suit the truther cause.

The piece on how some of the hijackers may still be alive (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601stillalive#a091601stillali ve) is a good example, and I believe one of the reasons why this nonsense claim has persisted. Look through it and you'll find they frequently post one side of the issue only, so for instance they include initial Saudi government doubts over the list of names, but don't include the later acceptance that these were accurate. They include Mueller where he's expressing doubt or uncertainty, but don't include the statement in November when he said he was now certain of the hijacker's identities.

Another example: Thompson is often called upon as some great authority on Sheikh Saeed (the UK citizen who supposedly sent $100,000 to Atta at the orders of the ISI). In Press for Truth he gives us his old theory that Saeed was named first as a paymaster of the attacks, then this was covered up after the ISI story broke. He supports this with stories that appear to show a sequence: Saeed named tentatively, definitively, ISI story breaks, Saeed not mentioned again. But when I looked into this, I found issues and stories he'd entirely ignored. The first person named for this was Sheikh Saeed al Masri, not Saeed Sheikh at all; he was named before and after the ISI story broke, no evidence that the story changed at all; there's reason to believe that CNN's story where Saeed Sheikh is named is mistaken; and Saeed Sheikh's supposed 9/11 connections wasn't ignored after the story, there's no reason to believe this was a coverup. More at
http://911myths.com/index.php/Forgetting_Saeed_Sheikh

Ahhhh!! You're the infamous Mike Williams! Pleasure to meet you my friend! I have to give you credit where credit is due, it's because of you (maybe more your website than you personally) that I have been rescued from this so called "truth" movement. People such as you and Mark Roberts are doing great work and a great service to your community. Gee, I have so many questions for you I don't know where to start. Oh yes, why don't I start by referring you to my previous introduction and we'll go from there... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5167285#post5167285

Absolute pleasure to meet you, Mike!

dc

[MikeW]

@KDLarsen: No problem! (And I get emails like that, too.)

@Edx: Yeah, aesthetically I like the idea of a website where you keep finding new areas, but as I'm supposed to be revealing information rather than hiding it, this probably isn't a good thing! I need to spend more time on indexing, categories and navigation I think.

@dc1971: Thanks, and glad I could help! Though the credit is mostly yours for not taking the easy way out and ignoring uncomfortable realities, as so many do.

[Pardalis]

I wanted to ask you guys what is your take on Paul Thompson and the 9/11 Press for Truth movie?

It's as unimpressive in 2009 as it was in 2006.

[jhunter1163]

It's as unimpressive in 2009 as it was in 2006.

Actually, it's more unimpressive in 2009 than it was in 2006.

[Pardalis]

Actually, it's more unimpressive in 2009 than it was in 2006.

Correct. It didn't age well. ;)

[dc1971]

@KDLarsen: No problem! (And I get emails like that, too.)

@Edx: Yeah, aesthetically I like the idea of a website where you keep finding new areas, but as I'm supposed to be revealing information rather than hiding it, this probably isn't a good thing! I need to spend more time on indexing, categories and navigation I think.

@dc1971: Thanks, and glad I could help! Though the credit is mostly yours for not taking the easy way out and ignoring uncomfortable realities, as so many do.

I'll admit some of it was hard to stomach at first but I realized that I never fell as deep into the rabbit hole as most of these "truthers" have. I still refer to Paul Thompsons website from time to time and I do find him to have some very good info on the 9/11 Timeline and I'm sure I will eventually obtain a copy of his Terror Timeline book but I just feel that a good many of the young people involved in the 9/11 Truth/Infowarrior/We Are Change/Alex Jones arena are just misinformed and they don't want to take the time to do the research. They would rather take Alex's word for it.

I know you and some other members here mentioned that there a good many broken links on the 9/11 Timeline. That's typical. Although, Mike, I haven't checked on your site too extensively I have found a good many links on Mark Robert's site to be broken as well. Now that's not to say that maybe they're busy and not really paying attention to updating there site right now but it's always typical to find broken links on any website especially when research is involved. You guys are independent researchers who can't afford to hire a staff of fact checkers.

Anyway, good job with the 911myths site and keep up the good work.

nilly

[dc1971]

It's as unimpressive in 2009 as it was in 2006.

How so?

[George152]

How so?

In spite of evidence to the contrary the same old tired conspiracy claims are still being presented as new and 'exciting'...

[MikeW]

I have found a good many links on Mark Robert's site to be broken as well
It's a maintenance thing, really. Mark's not spending much time on this any more, so of course links will break over time. We're all faced with the same problem, of course, although History Commons do at least have the advantage of receiving significant donations.

[dc1971]

Let me turn this around and ask you guys what you think about Infowars.com, Prisonplanet.com and Alex Jones? I probably already know the response to this but I figured I'd ask. Yes, and don't reserve yourself when you answer this! LOL!

[T.A.M.]

Alex Jones - either (A) completely insane, or (B) Marketing Genius. Either way, I can't stand the *******.

Infowars and prisonplanet - biased, cherrypicking crap written by equally idiotic asswipes.

TAM:)

[AJM8125]

I don't have a problem with Alex Jones, I mean other than he's a talentless hack who has found his niche by stirring up the moonbats.

I've got a problem with the moonbats who enable him. That's why this forum is a valuable resource. Anything that helps reduce his audience works for me.

[dc1971]

I don't have a problem with Alex Jones, I mean other than he's a talentless hack who has found his niche by stirring up the moonbats.

I've got a problem with the moonbats who enable him. That's why this forum is a valuable resource. Anything that helps reduce his audience works for me.

I feel SORRY for the moonbats. A good portion of his audience are young and impressionable and it scares me to think that that generation is going to grow up believing this garbage. It's rather dangerous, don't you think?

[R.Mackey]

Only dangerous to the idiots who follow them. This kind of thing happens all the time, and is generally self-regulating. It's only dangerous if they become politically significant, and they are not, by any measure.

Don't worry about it.

[AJM8125]

The young and impressionable ones usually will grow out of it as they become older and wiser, which is why you don't have much of a 9/11 truth movement anymore.

The older ones? Well you can point them in the right direction, but who knows if they'll follow up. It's like an adult with mental issues self-medicating: That doesn't always happen or turn out as it should.

[~enigma~]

Only dangerous to the idiots who follow them.
The ones they killed would differ with that opinion.

[R.Mackey]

Nope. You have no evidence they wouldn't have committed those crimes anyway.

Alex Jones does not make people crazy. He resonates with people who already are crazy. If it weren't for him, it's not like his followers would be perfectly normal.

[~enigma~]

Nope. You have no evidence they wouldn't have committed those crimes anyway.
Reread the post, I said the people they killed would disagree. Guess you just don't like anyone disagreeing with you.

ETA - Yes, they would still be paranoid only less so.

[Brainster]

Nope. You have no evidence they wouldn't have committed those crimes anyway.

Alex Jones does not make people crazy. He resonates with people who already are crazy. If it weren't for him, it's not like his followers would be perfectly normal.

It is certainly possible that Poplawski was influenced by Alex Jones' frequent rants about the police. I'm not going to say Alex was responsible, but it's certainly not a stretch to say that he's irresponsible.

[R.Mackey]

:p Going for pith, eh..?

There's a slippery slope here. You start blaming Alex Jones for the acts of loonies, and pretty soon you'll start blaming Judas Priest for teen suicides. I think (singling him out as an example) their broadcasts are scurrilous, even at times bordering on hate speech, but I don't think they're criminal. I'm also unaware of arrests or even lawsuits to this effect, even unsuccessful ones.

[Brainster]

:p Going for pith, eh..?

There's a slippery slope here. You start blaming Alex Jones for the acts of loonies, and pretty soon you'll start blaming Judas Priest for teen suicides. I think (singling him out as an example) their broadcasts are scurrilous, even at times bordering on hate speech, but I don't think they're criminal. I'm also unaware of arrests or even lawsuits to this effect, even unsuccessful ones.

I don't think we really disagree here. But there is another level of punishment after criminal or civil proceedings, and that is the moral condemnation of the citizenry. And Alex deserves a full platter.

[R.Mackey]

Yup, no argument there. I fully support Alex's First Amendment rights to be a loud, obnoxious airhead. But there's little doubt that he is, in fact, an airhead.

[dc1971]

Also, WHO IS David Rockefeller? I know Alex mentioned him on his show so many times and having heard his show is the only time I had heard of him. I had a discussion with a former Jones listener who explained to me that besides being a banker, he's basically a NOBODY!

[AJM8125]

I like daffodils, they smell real good

SHHHH!!

Icksnay on the ankerbays kid! You trying to get us all transferred to the Latvian Field Office? Jeez!

[dc1971]

SHHHH!!

Icksnay on the ankerbays kid! You trying to get us all transferred to the Latvian Field Office? Jeez!

LOL!

What's wrong with dafodils? Mmmmmmm! :D