Reinvestigation into 9/11 are major plot lines in the first 10 episodes of Rescue Me

[seemslikeadream]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Dennis_Leary_firefighters_show_to_tackle_1204.html

Dennis Leary, famous for his biting, sarcastic comedy and his religious chain smoking, revealed to a fan at a Los Angeles book signing that his critically acclaimed FX show "Rescue Me" about NYC firefighters will tackle 9/11 conspiracy theories in the coming season.

"When asked by a hesitant fan as to whether or not the actor thought there should be a reinvestigation into the events leading up to and surrounding the 9/11 tragedy, Leary's eyes lit up as he revealed that conspiracy and reinvestigation into 9/11 are, in fact, major plot lines in the first 10 episodes of Rescue Me season 5, set to premiere in April 2009 for a 22-episode run on FX," Erin Broadley reported for LA Weekly.

Broadley continues, "But when another fan pushed it too far and asked Leary's personal opinion about the conspiracy surrounding Building 7's collapse, the actor and author was quick with his response. 'You guys don't want to get into that with me,' Leary said, suddenly serious as he explained that he 'knew several of the guys who had been there working to hold that building up.' Leary then paused, politely changed the subject and returned to meeting fans."

[Bolo Boffin]

1. As long as they spell the name right, eh? n/t

[noise]

2. Random thoughts

The "inside job" talking point is a great way of really pissing people off. So if the goal is to draw attention to the issue then I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's helpful to wear "Prison Planet inside job" t-shirts. Anyone calling for a new investigation appears to be admitting they don't know what happened which is a view in opposition to assured claims of knowing that 9/11 was an inside job.

One reason the official account is accepted to a degree despite all sorts of omissions is because the concept of foreign enemies isn't far fetched. Believe it not there are groups who don't like the US. Religious motives. Political motives. Desire for revenge. Take your pick. We had two al Qaeda suicide bombers crash vehicles filled with explosives into US embassies in Africa. Two more crashed a dinghy filled with explosives into the USS Cole. For sure 9/11 was on another level in terms of required personnel, skills, tactics, etc. There are all sorts of questions that have never been answered. Still it gets tiresome hearing the usual refrain that the 19 hijackers had to be patsies. The planes had to be drones. The calls had to be fake. People who advocate "false flag inside job" without reservation have backed themselves into an ideological corner. Why? What is so damn important about believing 9/11 was a completely manufactured attack?

Sure there is another side to the story. I have no idea how questioning 9/11 disrespects the victims. That is a bizarre talking point. If anything the coverup has disgraced the victims of the attacks. IMO, one of the most moving accounts of 9/11 is Peter Lance's account of Fire Marshal Ronnie Bucca in his book 1000 Years for Revenge. I would love to know how cheerleading for the GOP honored Bucca's life. The Bush administration exploited the victims at every turn. Their '04 convention was a 9/11-fest. Yet they didn't want the public to know what happened in the lead up to the attacks. How can anyone find their conduct honorable?

The coverup continues to this day. Three families are still pursuing civil litigation against the airlines in hopes of getting a better understanding of what went on. They are still waiting for a trial date. NOVA just broadcast Bamford's program about the NSA's conduct in relation to 9/11. As the NY Times noted in a review, Bamford wasn't able to find out why the CIA and NSA withheld intel. The National Archives finally declassified some of the 9/11 Commission's supporting evidence. Many key interviews are restricted from declassification or pending classification review. One can't help but notice the extreme secrecy that still revolves around the release of information even though the attacks were over seven years ago. The high level al Qaeda detainees have yet to be put on trial. President Obama sought to suspend the proceedings because the conditions of the prosecutions are not good enough for a country that ostensibly champions fair trials.

[Realityhack]

3. "What is so damn important about believing 9/11 was a completely manufactured attack?"

A couple of things come to mind.

1. Some people may be more comfortable thinking that terrorists couldn't do such a thing. They would rather believe that only the US could pull it off.
2. Some people need for a variety of reasons that the US government is conspiring against them in any number of ways.

[jakeXT]

5. I was looking at it yesterday and I don't get why firefighter testimonies are withheld

First Responder Fire Department, City of New York 2004-01-12 4 8 H 14
...
....
.
.
.
First Responder Fire Department, City of New York 2004-02-09 2 8 H 15

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html


Subject: interview summary; closed per agreement between 91
11 Commission and the City of New York

In the review of this file this item was removed because access to it is
restricted. Restrictions on records in the National Archives are stated in
general and specific record group restriction statements which are available
for examination.

[Bryan Sacks]

7. very good points, noise.

I have never liked the coinage "inside job", and I don't believe I've ever used it in a positive claim.

For one thing, it connotes a bank robbery or heist to me. For another, when one says "9/11 was an inside job" the easiest associations are to the Bush cabal, rather than to the world of intelligence where any complicity in the attacks would have first germinated.

[noise]

9. Some debunkers have argued

that 9/11 truth is cult-like. In certain respects I have to agree. IMO some of the "MIHOP certainty" viewpoints fit this characterization.

[jakeXT]

4. that's a lot

Does anybody know what he means?



Sept. 11 has been a touchstone for the series, which is set in a New York City firehouse. Denis Leary, who plays the lead character, said Mr. Sunjata’s character creates a rift among the fictional firefighters. Similar scenes have played out in actual firehouses in New York, he said, “where some of the younger members don’t even have to completely buy into the theory of 9/11 being an inside job, but want to discuss it.” BRIAN STELTER
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/business/media/02fx.html?_r=3&ref=business

[JackRiddler]

6. I wrote a treatment of the NY Times story elsewhere...

and respectfully submit it here, as I think it may be of interest.

.

Business is business. NY Times serves a business-minded readership. Anything that potentially turns money around is worth the occasional light coverage.

First coverage of 9/11 skepticism or truth movement activity in Times, ever, AFAIK, was in Oct. 2004. Subject? Jimmy Walter. My reading of the neutral to respectful coverage was that it allowed the NYT to use its favorite word: millionaire. (Those are the bulk of the readers and advertisers, after all, billionaires being so rare.) There were a couple of graphs on the original Zogby poll of New Yorkers and of David Kubiak (911Truth.org chief at the time), but what mattered was Jimmy. It was a standard, almost admiring profile of a man with money and how he likes to spend it, eccentrically, which is what America's all about. It didn't get into much detail of 9/11 skepticism, or of Walter's pet delusions like pod theory.



The next NYT article I know of covered the Chicago 911Truth.org conference of June 2006. This was even more explicit as a niche market profile. More sophisticated and neutral in tone than the standard hit piece. They made sure to mention that one of the attendees had lived in a cave for 10 years, but otherwise gave a fair if highly superficial census of the 500-plus "conspiracy buff" participants and their range of views. And if they were only going to run one picture of one person in the print edition, given the usual number of older hippie-type men in Chicago, they could not have made a friendlier choice:



The big question, clearly: what marketing opportunities does this foretell?

And now this (Brian Stelter, Feb. 2). A standard industry piece, structurally identical to hundreds of others profiling an actor's role in a show at the start of its new season, and delving neutrally into his passions. The implicit big question: How will it do ratings wise? How much more of this trend should be injected into the media production stream?

What do you think was going on with the CNN celebrity show and its one-week series back in 2006 after Charlie Sheen's comments? They were examining a potential trend in zeitgeist product sales. On the Monday show, Mike Berger did a great job of making a case for 9/11 skepticism that would persuade people who hadn't thought about it seriously. It would have fit very well on a political program -- which they would have never allowed. But Tuesday once they got Alex Jones on, they knew which was the saleable commodity. So they ran him again, a couple of times.

I've got to say something for Sunjata, however, having seen a preview of his character's monologue to the "French reporter": Word, man. As close to big picture of 9/11 as the intended opening for a planned global war as one may deliver, in the guise of a regular-guy fictional character, in under two minutes. No bogging down in the ooh-ah "Ripley's Believe" details of melting points or Pentagon holes, which no short treatment can ever afford. The word is Sunjata basically provided this plot point and the monologue. (I'm probably not watching the 10 episodes as this series never attracted me in particular.)

Sunjata also made a great Reggie Jackson in "The Bronx is Burning." Presence!



For all the good it's likely to do. At this point it's just providing a touch of PR controversy and opinion-confirmation for a niche market that the show hopes to lure in.

Such irony: Small mass protests for 9/11 disclosure of the 2002 or even 2006 vintage might have an enormous effect right now, in 2009, just when everyone thinks it pointless or is exhausted.

---

To conclude, a quick google:

911truth.org site:nytimes.com

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=911truth.org+site:nytimes.com&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

First page of results has the 2 older NYT articles I mention (repeatedly), plus a few nytimes.com blogger posts, where 911Truth.org apparently features only in the comments.

.

[goforit]

8. This may backfire and mihop 911 will forever be a Conspiracy theory only and

not The reality that it is.

Using drama in a fictional format will place this Bushco intentional dreadful event as only fiction.