|
Edited on Fri Apr-14-06 10:58 PM by Jazz2006
While the production is better done than most of the conspiracy nuts manage, it is still full of crap and is blatantly dishonest at times.
It basically repeats all of the same nonsense that has been debunked repeatedly elsewhere, but with music, voiceover and video. It conveniently misquotes, misreads, draws comparisons where none exist, and ignores inconvenient facts.
A few examples:
1) It says that "not even the official autopsy list for flight 77 lists the hijackers" - but the list it cites was not an "official autopsy list" at all.
2) It describes Larry Silverstein as "the man who purchased the WTC in July 2001" - but of course, he didn't purchase the WTC in July 2001 or at any other time.
3) The narrative says "at 11:43, WCPO local news reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport..." but the document allegedly backing up this assertion says no such thing (if you bother to actually read it). It says that ONE plane landed. But this doesn't stop the producers from going off into a lengthy, patently ridiculous and wholly unfounded theory about an airplane switch, secretive landings, passengers being shuffled off to a NASA research centre, and ultimately being killed, I guess, by the government. Totally off the wall and totally unsupported by anything so inconvenient as a single fact, mind you.
4) Hilariously funny is the bit about the gold stored in vaults in the towers. The narrative says "Reuters reported it was discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck along with several cars in a delivery tunnel under the WTC".
Then goes on to say, "Let me get this straight. Gold from the WTC was found under WTC5 in an empty delivery truck with an empty escort of cars. I think it's safe to say that they were running away from the south tower. Question is how did they know to flee with their stash?"
However, Reuters actually said no such thing. In fact, the graphic purporting to support this particularly ridiculous bit is an email from someone called "The Infamous Vinnie Gangbon" or something similar, forwarding a New York Daily News story. And even the NYDN story doesn't say what the narrative says.
What is actually says, if you pause the film to read it is this:
"Construction workers cleared a delivery tunnel that runs underneath the complex... Officials got to the gold through that tunnel yesterday after workers hauled out a 10 wheel truck, several crushed cars and mounds of debris. ...
(it then goes on to discuss the many, many hours of work undertaken until dawn to clear a path to the vaults)
"Workers built and graded a ramp into the delivery tunnel.. A small bulldozer knocked down a wall inside the tunnel and a Brinks armoured truck drove in... later coming out with the first load of gold."
As anyone with half a brain can see, the gold was NOT "discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck" and there was no "empty escort of cars", etc etc.
Moreover, anyone can read the other news stories at the time which make it clear that the gold was recovered from the Bank of Nova Scotia vaults, which they got access to through the delivery tunnel.
5) Another ridiculous bit: the narrator, in a conspiratorial tone, wonders what they are "hiding" at the Pentagon in a big "box" that a group of men are carrying, and suggests that it is a large piece of evidence being hidden.
It's obvious that it's a tent, for crying out loud, exactly like those seen in use all over the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into it, photos of which have been posted on other threads here.
6) In early scenes, the video shows copious amounts of paper and other lightweight debris being blown all over the place (when it suits the purpose of the video to do so) and yet in later scenes, the narrator expresses incredulity that something made of a "fragile material called paper" could possibly survive. Such a blatant contradiction that I'm surprised that even the conspiracy theory "believers" haven't noticed it.
And it just goes on and on and on and on, ad infinitum, full of nonsense and utter crap, just hoping that people will be sucked into the nonsense without actually looking at the facts and realities... and obviously such tactics work on people who do not look at the underlying "supporting" documents or the underlying foundation that the message pretends to rely upon.
That's enough for now. Like I said above, it's better done than most of the conspiracy theory videos in terms of production, sound, and such... but it's still complete and utter crap.
It, like all of the other conspiracy theory nonsense, takes attention away from the real questions that should be asked about September 11/01.
And that just helps Bush & Co. to continue not having to answer the real questions.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
