Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

9-11 Press For Truth Analysis Part I

This is the hot new video in the 9-11 Denial Movement, although that seems a bit odd as the film does not (according to those who've seen it all) include any mention of the popular conspiracy theories, like the Bumble Planes or the missile into the Pentagon, or the controlled demolition at the World Trade Center. I am going to analyze the film in short bits; today I'll look at the first 10 minutes.

The film starts with a brief intro of clips from 9-11, including the initial CNN report and the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower. It then jumps to President Bush. The music at this point is rather harsh and jarring in the background as the president gives his speech that evening. The image splits into two, then four then 9 and so on, distancing us from him.

We are introduced to three of the four Jersey Girls, 9-11 widows from the Garden State. Note particularly the soft music as they are introduced. The voice over notes that these widows had questions. At the top of their list is the question of "Why had the US military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?"

Here the film engages in a little casual dishonesty. First we are shown a clip that the first hijacking was reported to the military at 8:38 AM (true). Then the announcer intones, "The last plane was reported to have crashed in Pennsylvania just after 10:00 AM (true enough, but the screen says 10:06, which is false; the 9-11 Commission concluded that the plane crashed at 10:03). One of the Jersey girls laughs and says, "That's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

And that is a lot of crap. First, even if we use their times, that's not even an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

As you can see most advance warning that NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector, a unit of NORAD) had for any of the hijacked planes was seven minutes for Flight 11. The notion that our air defenses could have intercepted any of these planes with that little warning is completely unrealistic.

The movie then goes on to contrast this supposedly slow response by the military to the 1999 incident where air traffic controllers lost radio contact with Payne Stewart's plane. But in that incident air traffic control (PDF) got no response at 9:33 AM EDT. A Cubana Air flight tried to raise the plane at 9:38. According to the NTSB report on the plane crash the a military plane intecepted Stewart's jet at 9:54 CDT. That may sound like 21 minutes, but note the Time Zone change--it's actually an hour and 21 minutes. So the notion that the military did a crackerjack job with Payne Stewart, but was sluggish in response to 9-11 is just not borne out by the facts.

Next we comes a question about Bush's personal response on 9-11. Once again we get the creepy music; this documentary makes no bones about who's the villain of the piece, and it ain't Osama. We're shown a clip of Cheney talking about the Secret Service yanking him from the White House, and this is contrasted with Bush sitting in the classroom reading to the children, with I guess the implication being that the Secret Service screwed up by not pulling the President from the room. One of the Jersey girls helpfully asks, "If people fell down on the job, by not informing those who were in leadership positions, who had the power to do something, why were we not looking at our protocols so we could fix it going forward."

Of course, one assumes that the standing order since 9-12 is that if there is a terrorist attack again, the President is immediately to be pulled away from what he's doing. And as for that "power to do something", what exactly does she think he could do, run outside and shoot down the hijacked planes with a SAM?

So now we're two "questions" into the movie and they're asking about procedure changes in the event of a terrorist attack?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/





9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part II

Doing the second ten minutes here. First there is a complaint about how very few people who were rounded up initially ended up charged. But we know now that very few other people in America were involved in the plot. There is no mention of Zacharias Moussaoui, however, which is a rather glaring error. By November of 2001, the narrator says, the Jersey Girls decided that an independent investigation was needed to do what the Justice Department and the media "seemed unwilling do". Boy, gave the Justice Department two months, did they? We get a little teaser of CT nonsense from one of the Girls:

"We felt that the country was at risk from terrorists and incompetence... and um, maybe worse."

Oh, yeah, maybe worse, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

Then we get into the destruction of the towers. Again, no direct controlled demolition discussion, but it's certainly hinted at. "Why did the buildings fall? How could skyscrapers just like, crumple to the ground in ten seconds?" As usual, the narrator is unable to resist the "factoid". "Never before, or since, had fire caused a steel frame building to collapse."

Of course, that's BS both ways. The World Trade Center towers did not solely collapse because of fire; there was also a little matter of the planes slamming into them, destroying columns and stripping fireproofing from the steel. And steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire before; just not highrise steel framed buildings.

Then we get into World Trade Center 7, and I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to doubt this is anything less than a CT film cleverly disguised.

We get the mother of a firefighter giving us the next lie:

"The largest structural collapse in world history, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War and not one governmental or elected official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

In fact the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings are probably the most studied disasters of all time. Major building code changes have come out of these studies. Are these women, who tell us how much they have studied 9-11, simply unaware of all this?

The announcer also tells us that Tom Kean (whose name is hilariously mispronounced the way it looks--it's really pronounced Kane) and Lee Hamilton headed the commission which was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, but the commission members were all former "DC insiders and lawyers". (Menacing music). Boo, hiss.

Then we get a gripe about the money. As usual they cannot resist having one of the family members lie for the camera. Bob McIlvaine is called on to do his part:

"Remember in the 1990s they spent a hundred million dollars to investigate Clinton's sexual exploits. 100 million dollars!"

Except of course that the Starr Investigation cost $80 million and it investigated a heck of a lot more than Clinton's sexual exploits (including Whitewater), and resulted in the imprisonment of the sitting governor of Arkansas, as well as other convictions. McIlvaine is the father of a 9-11 victim and a longtime 9-11 Denier. He even appeared on Cynthia McKinney's bizarre Citizen's Commission back in 2004.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Hey EFL lets start here.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

HEY EFL TRAINER

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm



Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so...

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?�

But if you read on...

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

This is a quote taken out of context. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking it out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Here is a fireman saying it could have been "electrical explosions".

What a transformer explosion looks like...

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

These buildings, as most office buildings in America had transformers and other high voltage electrical equipment.

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.
The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DF1031F937A15754C0A964958260

February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm

This is a deceptive quote from a conspiracy theory site...

"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...

...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."

Now let's examine what he said in the context he said it. Here is the part conspiracy sites leave out..

�When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/

He said "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets" but the conspiracy sites remove this important insight. They skipped over the sentence. There is only one reason to do something like that. To mislead the reader by removing all other possibilities for the sounds.

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

�The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said �Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.� I couldn�t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

�I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

�I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.�

The person saying it was an explosion also says bodies hitting the floor sound like explosions. I'm sure they do. I'm sure an acre of concrete floor crashing down onto another acre of concrete floor also sounds like an explosion.

More here

The building was filled with electrical panels and cable feeding them. Some would be no different than a powerline...





It's not unreasonable to conclude, as at least one fireman did that the flashes might have been electrical in nature.

We may never know what exactly caused the flashes. But flashes alone do not mean explosives. You would see more than flashes if an explosive large enough to cut steel were set off. You would see ejecta coming from the same place as the flash.

Then their is William Rodriguez, a worker at the towers. He now says he heard explosions in the basement but that's not what he said before he became a media star and sued the government.

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

Here he is describing something very different than an explosion. The change in his story came after he became a media star and plaintiff.

Conspiracy theorists take quotes out of context in order to sell the idea. An example of just how easy it is to take ear witness accounts out of context is below...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Example video transcript:]

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents�

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.�

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]

�While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here�

"It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html

[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

�It sounded like a freight train�.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

�Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train�

[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]

As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

[enter sinister music]

In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

Looks like someone had the same idea I did...

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the "Official Story" would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an "Explosion".


http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

[deadman]

Good effort, Joo, but as usual you're just disproving specific alternatives to the official story, not proving the official story is true (the burden of proof does actually lie with you if you want us to belive the govt's version is true)

How do you account for the official unwillingness to investigate, and the siezure of crucial evidence (security surveillance at the pentagon) and the destruction of the forensic evidence (WTC wreckage) without analysis?

What do you think of the Afganistan section of the video? Allegations that Tora Bora was only surrounded on one side, and that in a separate incident only one of two possible escape routes was bombed, allowing a large number of Al Quaida fighters to escape?

If true, it would seem that the war on terror is not the reason for Bush Admin's actions, just a convenient excuse that they were unwilling to lose by killing OBL and defeating AlQuaida there and then.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[EFLtrainer]

Almost everything on screwloose is nothing more than speculation. Its not proof of any kind. Debunking means DISPROVING. Screwloose does not do that in the majority of cases. Also, most of their citations are just links to opinions, not proof.

They do make a few decent arguments, but most of it is no more reliable than what they claim to be "debunking."

And, as pointed out above, the burden lies on the government to tell the truth, not on us to prove they are lying. That shouldn't even be necessary, but it is.

[huffdaddy]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[huffdaddy]

[EFLtrainer]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Atassi]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]