Re-Packaging the Official 911 Mythology
Paul Joseph Watson | 14.01.2006 20:20
All of the Bush/PNAC Regime's efforts to sell the Official Mythology to the public only underscores their complete inability - in well over four years - to actually support their own "Arabs are evil, let's fight them" Conspiracy Theory with even the most basic but still absent pieces of compelling evidence, such as airport surveillance images showing "ze terrorists" boarding the planes that day.
Re-Packaging The 9/11 Fairytale
Hollywood gears up in 2006 to bolster the crumbling official state approved paradigm
Paul Joseph Watson | January 13 2006
The official 9/11 story has about as much basis in fact as Humpty Dumpty.
And just like Humpty Dumpty, all the king's horses and all the king's men certainly can’t put the official story of 9/11 back together again. It’s a yarn that has already been decimated by the alternative media time and time again.
It’s a fairytale that a 5 year-old could decipher. Based on paper passports floating out of exploding planes surviving intact when a third of the bodies were totally vaporized and the buildings were turned into dust.
Based on the fairytale that jet fuel is hot enough to take down steel buildings.
Based on the fairytale that fire damage can cause steel buildings, including ones not hit by planes, to collapse for the first and only time in history, while any other building, if its not owned by Mr. Silverstein, miraculously survives with just a few scapes.
The fallacy of the orthodox fairytale is why the establishment, through its avenues of propaganda, needs to constantly re-apply band aids to keep people from seeing the awful truth.
So whereas as the alternative media can shatter an illusion instantly and permanently in the mind of the individual, the establishment has to keep re-applying the propaganda to keep the sheep in line and prevent doubt from creeping in.
Which is clearly why we are about to see a rash of 9/11 movies which reinforce the official version of events.
Consider the very first made for TV movie about 9/11, called DC 9/11. A film which portrays president Bush([search]) on Air Force one on 9/11, exclaiming his frustration in not being able to have a fist fight with Osama bin Laden.
Now contrast that to the actual demeanour of Bush on the day of 9/11, doe eyed, unsure, taking the decision to read an upside down book about a pet goat for half an hour after he’s told about the biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbor.
It's pro-war, pro-government pro official version of 9/11 down to a tee.
And who wrote and produced the film? Lionel Chetwynd, a big establishment neo-con and government apologist, perhaps the most politically connected producer in the world today.
Chetwynd privately met with George Bush, Karl Rove and a bunch of top Republicans to have them vet the script before he shot the film.
This is the same Lionel Chetwynd who jabbed his finger at Alex Jones and barked “we’re going to get you,” in the bathroom before a taping of TNN's Conspiracy Zone show that they both featured on as guests.
So the very first movie about 9/11 is made by a high level Bush administration stooge. And the film wholeheartedly backs up lock step the official version of events.
The movie that’s getting the most attention in the press at the moment is called ‘Flight 93’ – no prizes for guessing what it’s about. It is due to be released in the spring and is directed by Paul Greengrass. Click here to see the trailer.
There’s no evidence to suggest the director is anywhere near as odious as Linonel Chetwynd but still the consequence of the movie remains the same.
It reinforces the “let’s roll” myth of Flight 93 and pushes aside the fact that experienced pilots on the ground saw that the plane was shot down with their own eyes.
It ignores the fact that we have an 8 mile wide debris field for a plane that we are led to believe was fully intact in the seconds before it hit the ground.
We’ve had contact with credible individuals who have personally talked with the pilots who shot the plane down.
Flight 93 is replete with its cast of hijackers, again sidestepping the difficult fact that several of these hijackers later turned up alive and that they could barely even get puddle jumping cessnas off the ground, never mind execute moves that crack fighter pilots couldn’t pull off, as was the case at the Pentagon.
One of the major human flaws that these social engineers play on is laziness. If somebody entertains the notion of an alternative truth behind 9/11, then they start to ask questions about other things, which means making a conscious effort to inform yourself, a lot of people just don’t want to make the effort.
Easier therefore to swallow the version of events as spoon fed to you by the government and the media, and in this case Hollywood, so that will again only reinforce that mindset.
Just look at the basic science of watching television or movies itself.
Decades old psychological studies confirm that when you're watching television the higher brain regions (like the midbrain and the neo-cortex) are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions. These lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images (a task performed by the neo-cortex), so they react to television content as though it were real.
And if you’ve ever tried to communicate with someone while their eyes are transfixed on a TV you know how difficult it is, that’s the lower brain in action.
The inability to differentiate fact from fiction is only going to add another layer of believeability on top of these 9/11 movies, and leave people wth the impression as they’re walking away from the theatre that they’ve actually seen a documentary and not a fictional movie which is based on a totally fabricated version of events.
9/11 related movies are going to be huge and there are several already in the can and set to hit the big screen in 2006. As the watchdogs of coercive manipulation and cultural steam valves of state worshipping propaganda, we the alternative media need to step up our efforts to ensure that the 9/11 truth movement remains fresh, catalystic and fertile.
-----------------------------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/130106repackagingfairytale.htm
Hollywood gears up in 2006 to bolster the crumbling official state approved paradigm
Paul Joseph Watson | January 13 2006
The official 9/11 story has about as much basis in fact as Humpty Dumpty.
And just like Humpty Dumpty, all the king's horses and all the king's men certainly can’t put the official story of 9/11 back together again. It’s a yarn that has already been decimated by the alternative media time and time again.
It’s a fairytale that a 5 year-old could decipher. Based on paper passports floating out of exploding planes surviving intact when a third of the bodies were totally vaporized and the buildings were turned into dust.
Based on the fairytale that jet fuel is hot enough to take down steel buildings.
Based on the fairytale that fire damage can cause steel buildings, including ones not hit by planes, to collapse for the first and only time in history, while any other building, if its not owned by Mr. Silverstein, miraculously survives with just a few scapes.
The fallacy of the orthodox fairytale is why the establishment, through its avenues of propaganda, needs to constantly re-apply band aids to keep people from seeing the awful truth.
So whereas as the alternative media can shatter an illusion instantly and permanently in the mind of the individual, the establishment has to keep re-applying the propaganda to keep the sheep in line and prevent doubt from creeping in.
Which is clearly why we are about to see a rash of 9/11 movies which reinforce the official version of events.
Consider the very first made for TV movie about 9/11, called DC 9/11. A film which portrays president Bush([search]) on Air Force one on 9/11, exclaiming his frustration in not being able to have a fist fight with Osama bin Laden.
Now contrast that to the actual demeanour of Bush on the day of 9/11, doe eyed, unsure, taking the decision to read an upside down book about a pet goat for half an hour after he’s told about the biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbor.
It's pro-war, pro-government pro official version of 9/11 down to a tee.
And who wrote and produced the film? Lionel Chetwynd, a big establishment neo-con and government apologist, perhaps the most politically connected producer in the world today.
Chetwynd privately met with George Bush, Karl Rove and a bunch of top Republicans to have them vet the script before he shot the film.
This is the same Lionel Chetwynd who jabbed his finger at Alex Jones and barked “we’re going to get you,” in the bathroom before a taping of TNN's Conspiracy Zone show that they both featured on as guests.
So the very first movie about 9/11 is made by a high level Bush administration stooge. And the film wholeheartedly backs up lock step the official version of events.
The movie that’s getting the most attention in the press at the moment is called ‘Flight 93’ – no prizes for guessing what it’s about. It is due to be released in the spring and is directed by Paul Greengrass. Click here to see the trailer.
There’s no evidence to suggest the director is anywhere near as odious as Linonel Chetwynd but still the consequence of the movie remains the same.
It reinforces the “let’s roll” myth of Flight 93 and pushes aside the fact that experienced pilots on the ground saw that the plane was shot down with their own eyes.
It ignores the fact that we have an 8 mile wide debris field for a plane that we are led to believe was fully intact in the seconds before it hit the ground.
We’ve had contact with credible individuals who have personally talked with the pilots who shot the plane down.
Flight 93 is replete with its cast of hijackers, again sidestepping the difficult fact that several of these hijackers later turned up alive and that they could barely even get puddle jumping cessnas off the ground, never mind execute moves that crack fighter pilots couldn’t pull off, as was the case at the Pentagon.
One of the major human flaws that these social engineers play on is laziness. If somebody entertains the notion of an alternative truth behind 9/11, then they start to ask questions about other things, which means making a conscious effort to inform yourself, a lot of people just don’t want to make the effort.
Easier therefore to swallow the version of events as spoon fed to you by the government and the media, and in this case Hollywood, so that will again only reinforce that mindset.
Just look at the basic science of watching television or movies itself.
Decades old psychological studies confirm that when you're watching television the higher brain regions (like the midbrain and the neo-cortex) are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions. These lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images (a task performed by the neo-cortex), so they react to television content as though it were real.
And if you’ve ever tried to communicate with someone while their eyes are transfixed on a TV you know how difficult it is, that’s the lower brain in action.
The inability to differentiate fact from fiction is only going to add another layer of believeability on top of these 9/11 movies, and leave people wth the impression as they’re walking away from the theatre that they’ve actually seen a documentary and not a fictional movie which is based on a totally fabricated version of events.
9/11 related movies are going to be huge and there are several already in the can and set to hit the big screen in 2006. As the watchdogs of coercive manipulation and cultural steam valves of state worshipping propaganda, we the alternative media need to step up our efforts to ensure that the 9/11 truth movement remains fresh, catalystic and fertile.
-----------------------------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/130106repackagingfairytale.htm
Paul Joseph Watson
Comments
Hide the following 15 comments
Padraig Pearse
15.01.2006 00:41
Patrick McAleer
e-mail: patrick.mcaleer@gmail.com
Homepage: http://arisenrebel.blogspot.com
Our time will come.
15.01.2006 02:33
I hope this shit will be removed from the open newswire or put somewhere like the promoted newswire where no-one will read it.
P O'Neill
Why?
15.01.2006 11:54
....
Simple
15.01.2006 19:52
If we can blow the lid off of this LIE - as we did with Iraq's "WMD" - then perhaps we can end the plans of these Fascists for a perpetual war, AND demonstrate who the real Enemy is.
911 = PNAC, CIA, Mossad
not right
15.01.2006 21:57
...
... doing something ...
16.01.2006 10:00
Actually I am suspicious of any agument that suggests one or the other.
jackslucid
e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com
Timing Is Interesting
16.01.2006 17:21
911 = PNAC, CIA, Mossad
Ach Wheesht Already
18.01.2006 22:10
Does steel fail under normal fire loadings?. Well, lets look at some building regulations.
The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.
In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes. Lets stress that - 15 MINUTES.
The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .
The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very
similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)
Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe: http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/pdf/wb_bsc%20prin_07_05.pdf. Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.
Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/steelinfire/previous_meetings.html
http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (you'll like this one, engineers)
Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:
http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/KLewis.pdf
Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts. The nuts that don't think steel weakens catasatrophically in fires will hate it.
On an academic front, the sadder amongst you will find this UK paper illuminating. Note that the example they use does not in fact collapse due to a normal - lets stress that - fire but does deform significantly. The summary does also flag up the need to consider the impact of fire after an explosion, I would suggest for fairly obvious reasons.
http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/default.htm
I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office.
Of course if the fire weakened steel theory was the crap which the conspiracy nuts claim, then we would expect dissent from construction professions; well I read the ICE magazine, the RIBA and RIAI journals, Building Magazine, Building Design. There has been not one word of dissent to the accepted structural collapse theory in any of these over the last 4 years. Not one. No serious academic papers. Nothing. Nowt.
The performance of steel in fire and need for protection to prevent catastrophic failure in fires is universally acknowledged. Any consipracy would involve not thousands, or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, building control officers, and steel manufacturers the world over. It is not only incredible (in the dictionary sense) but wholly implausable.
Yet time and time again we see the same old conspiracy theories rehashed. The theorists cannot come up with cogent, meaningful responses. Its government stool pigeons. Its stiffled opposition. Its spooks on Indymedia. Its zomboids.
If even the old "melting point of steel" rubbish takes this long to prove wrong, then how much time and space is it going to take? And is it really going to shut up the conspiracists and their religious fervour? Unfortunately not.
There might be a conspiracy, but it ain't about the collapse.
Architect
Controlled Demolition
19.01.2006 10:07
"Nasty arabs, nasty arabs nasty arabs"
"No conspiracy no conspiracy no conspiracy"
"Official explanations are good, meta explanations bad"
There, safely reprogrammed, no more horrid cognative dissonance. Do some shopping perhaps.
Remember though, we own your ass architect, and we might want it back soon.
The Bavarian Illuminati
More pseudojournalistic dross from the home of conspiracy crap
19.01.2006 13:40
Someday someone will hack their server and publish their 'Conspiracy Rant Automatic Paradigm' engine, where anything nasty that happens gets twisted into a PNAC/Zionist conspiracy and spat out endlessly citing ultimately its conjectured self as as a source.
Hilarious stuff.
They used to sell people radium to bathe in you know.
M
... and now ...
19.01.2006 16:17
By the way, everybody knows that I am the only true representative of The Bavarian Illuminati to uses these pages ...
jackslucid
e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com
Jack
20.01.2006 14:18
M
I don't know why you are here
22.01.2006 11:12
If you are here to sell something - snake oil or whatever - you picked the wrong commercial opportunity.
If you are here to impose dogma on us heretics - forget it pal, this is a post industrial, post materialist techno tribal autonomous anarchistic space.
If you are here to resist paradigm changes with a status quo line - we haf techno resources and are not afraid to use them.
Insult the messenger as much as you like, in fact ritually slaughter mecury and know that you are in good historical company ...
... we've been sold a dud and now its time to pay it all back.
jackslucid
e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com
whatever (yawn)
23.01.2006 16:38
Further, since I connot conceive of the notion that you may have done any more than glanced at a small percentage of the one or two sites youy may or may not be refering to, then your opinion to, is "a load of old conjecture guff based on pure speculation."
Anyway, back to basic as they (who?) say ...
... either the fascist war parties were party to this fascist war party, man, or they were not - in which case they are perfectly innocent and have never done anything wrong.
Now, talking about snake oil, I have some moon land for sale from the dear little space people who talk to our benevolant leaders (whom they were taken too, as it were).
jackslucid
e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com
well ...
23.01.2006 18:21
... yours has been deleted (although it may reappear) ...
jackslucid
e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com