I'll be on the Randi Rhodes show today to talk about latest 9/11 news

[paulthompson]

I just found out that Randi Rhodes wants me to be a guest on her show today to talk about these latest 9/11 developments, mostly the Vanity Fair article. The time is approximately 5:30 Eastern time and 2:30 Pacific time. I hope you'll listen in. If you have any thoughts on what I should say, please let me know.

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. Paul -

Did you see my thread in here from today? Is it at all plausible to you?

[paulthompson]

4. Yes

It's plausible. If you wonder how info could be slipped from someone in the US to al-Qaeda, consider this timeline entry:

July 1999: Ex-ISI Head Is Providing Taliban Information on US Missile Launches
The US gains information that former ISI head Hamid Gul contacts Taliban leaders at this time and advises them that the US is not planning to attack Afghanistan to get bin Laden. He assures them that he will provide them three or four hours warning of any future US missile launch, as he did “last time.” Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke later suggests Gul gave al-Qaeda warning about the missile strike in August 1998.

---

Does that not suggest that Hamid Gul had a traitorous source within the US government giving him classified information? Other press accounts suggest Gul was one of the 9/11 masterminds, if not the main mastermind.

Also, read my page on P-tech and how they worked for the FAA and the US military. While P-tech was owned by al-Qaeda associated Middle Easterners, P-tech whistleblower Indira Singh has privately suggested that she heard P-tech was really a CIA front or somehow closely associated with the CIA (which would explain why the company was never prosecuted).

[petgoat]

2. Without having read the VF I'll wield the big scoop and suggest

1. Skepticism about this promotion of the "incompetence" theme
2. Limiting trust in the veracity of the tapes
3. The Pentagon lied, and the 9/11 Commission covered it up. But now
they're telling the truth?

Keep up the great work, Paul! You da man!

[reprehensor]

3. Is this correct?

VF: "Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced NORAD's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country."

Were some fighters diverted due to War Games up North?

[Cleita]

5. That interview was awesome, and Randi says you

have a documentary coming out? Could you give us the details? I'm better at copying information off the internet than trying to scribble things down that I just heard.

[paulthompson]

6. Documentary

I just posted this in another thread:

It's not "my" documentary, however, I'm heavily featured in it and I hear my book and website will be mentioned in the advertisements. I've seen it and I think it's really excellent. There's a website about it here:

http://www.911pressfortruth.com /

It's more of a presentation of facts to get the viewer to think than something that pushes certain conclusions. The Jersey Girls and other 9/11 victim's relatives are heavily featured and the story is kind of seen through their eyes.

It'll get released in some limited art theaters in big cities in early September and also released on DVD at the same time. There also is a TV version to be shown on TV in some countries. We hope to have people sponsor house parties around the country to show it, too.

[greyl]

8. From what I can gather, 9/11 Press For Truth

spends much time showing that the following statements are total bullshit:

"there were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country." Robert Mueller, September 17, 2001

"I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking." Condoleezza Rice, May, 2002

Of course, that information is already available. Does the movie have an editorial opinion about the wilder non-fact based speculative theories out there and how they harm the credibility of the 9/11 Fact Finding movement? Or, does it refrain from giving them any exposure?

[paulthompson]

9. I don't think so

"Does the movie have an editorial opinion about the wilder non-fact based speculative theories out there and how they harm the credibility of the 9/11 Fact Finding movement?"

I don't think so. WTC Building 7 oddities might be mentioned in passing, if you pejoratively refer to something like that (I haven't seen the final edit but that was in one draft I saw). This is a whole different ball of wax than something like Loose Change. It focuses mainly on things like missed warnings. Hopefully it's something you could show to someone who has been supporting the official story and get them to widen their perspective. If you have an aunt or uncle who doesn't know much, has never heard of Bojinka, has never heard of PNAC, doesn't know what happened in Genoa in the summer of 2001, doesn't know the massive failings of the war in Afghanistan and how it came to be bin Laden was surrounded but not caught, etc... this is a good way to get some information across to them hopefully in an entertaining way. Some people here may not like it and want something more strident, but you have to understand the goal of the target audience. That may not sound like much to the very knowledgeable readers of this forum, but in test viewings a lot of people were blown away and said their understanding of 9/11 was completely changed. Most average Joes don't know what would be considered extremely basic stuff here.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. This sounds really good, Paul

I've got one question: what other products are recommended for further study besides your book, if any?

[greyl]

11. That's too bad, imo.

"WTC Building 7 oddities might be mentioned in passing"

What are the WTC 7 oddities that might be mentioned in passing?

"This is a whole different ball of wax than something like Loose Change.

It looks that way, yes. I was disappointed to see Loose Change referred to at 911pressfortruth.com in a "friendly" manner.

"Some people here may not like it and want something more strident, but you have to understand the goal of the target audience"?

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying the target audience is people who support the wilder speculative theories?

"in test viewings a lot of people were blown away and said their understanding of 9/11 was completely changed."

Similar accolades are stated by people who see Sylvia Browne on Montel Williams. If some of the people blown away by test viewings of the draft are the type that previously said "terrorists don't exist", "no planes", "concrete core", "pentagon missile" then bravo.

[dailykoff]

12. The cat is outta the bag my friend.

Whatever it is you're so worried is going to come out, is going to come out. You might as well prepare yourself.

[greyl]

15. I don't worry about truth coming out.

Your post makes no sense.

[paulthompson]

13. Reply

"What are the WTC 7 oddities that might be mentioned in passing?"

The odd way it fell and the fact that the head of the official investigation recently said he can't explain how it fell.

"Are you saying the target audience is people who support the wilder speculative theories?"

No. This is more aimed for, say, a Republican who was open to watching Fahrenheit 9/11. A poll came out yesterday saying that 1/3 of Americans have some sense of government complicity in 9/11. What about the other 2/3rds? What about the 70% of people who at one time thought Saddam Hussein was the 9/11 mastermind? I think it's those people who need to be reached with the facts the most.

[greyl]

14. Unfortunately, you aren't relieving my concerns.

"The odd way it fell"? The fact that someone said "I don't know?" Scientists say "I don't know" all the time.

"This is more aimed for, say, a Republican who was open to watching Fahrenheit 9/11."

The target audience is republicans who were open to watching Fahrenheit 9/11?
C'mon man. Is the French-language Swiss public television channel who made the first purchase of "9/11 Press for Truth" one of the hundreds of republicans who was open to watching "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

What about the other questions in my previous post?

[paulthompson]

16. Reply

With WTC 7, I'm referring to this:

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report? This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.
NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”
Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

You can dismiss that, or any scientific controversy, with a generic "Scientists say 'I don't know' all the time." Personally, I find it interesting that after all this time they still can't figure out how that building came down.

As far as target audiences, that's fine if you have your own ideas. If I'm not relieving your concerns, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

[greyl]

17. That reply is a bit lame.

"You can dismiss that, or any scientific controversy, with a generic "Scientists say 'I don't know' all the time."

You're avoiding the point. Many people claim justification for an idea they're emotionally attached to when an honest investigating scientist says "I don't know". See Creation V Evolution for one clear example.
Are you aware of any evidence or competent researchers that lead to a supported belief that WTC7 fell because of reasons other than damage initiated by the planes? If the evidence exists, I haven't seen it.


At this point, I think it's quite possible that the people with money invested in this movie aren't interested in making statements against any of the total bullshit theories out there. Understandable, because they need to pay off loans and at least recover their investment.

If those associated with the movie are giving a subtle wink to the wildest conspiracy theorists out there( the real target audience?) for financial reasons, that's too bad.

edit: Also, one may try to dismiss any accusation that questions aren't answered satisfactorily with a generic "I'm not going to lose any sleep over it."

[petgoat]

18. Re: what Dr. Sunder said:

“We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure,
on the fifth to seventh floors.”

It's interesting that Deputy Chief Peter Hayden reported a bulge between floors 10 and 13,
said they put a transit on the SW corner, and said nothing about any bulge from 5-7.

I wonder where Dr. Sunder's info on the westward shift came from?

[paulthompson]

7. Listen to the interview in Mp3 format here

Someone posted this in another thread:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/RandiRhodes_PaulThompson_NORAD_080206.mp3