"The New York Times Puts 9/11 Questions In The Grave," Not

[Gold9472]

“The New York Times puts 9-11 questions in the grave,” not

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_904.shtml

By Jerry Mazza
Jun 14, 2006, 01:01

The "not" is my answer to the headline and story (that came by third party email) written by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht of From the Wilderness, a club to which I do not belong, given the entry dues of $60 for Web access. In any case, were Mike and Jamey pissed about the 9-11 truth movement meeting, June 9 through 11 in Chicago. Their pique foamed from their headline and lead-in.

“As Sad As It Was Predictable Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit Authentic 9/11 Research"

by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht

© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com

All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact [email protected]. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.

Sounded like heavy stuff, just to quote. Well, since I'm writing pro bono, and I received this email like FTW email alerts unasked for, perhaps as loss-leaders, I'm circulating my rebuttal to the Times', Mike and Jamey's statements for non-profit purposes only. I've created an ersatz round table discussion from the various pronouncements. The Times name and remarks remain bold-faced for their sheer sententiousness.

Mike & Jamey: “June 7th 2006, 1:28pm [PST] – ‘Ignominious’ is the only word that comes to mind as I try to describe a June 5, 2006 New York Times story titled 500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11. For the first time (to our knowledge) in the almost five years since 9/11, the nation’s premier newspaper sent a reporter to cover a two-day conference sponsored by 9/11truth.org.”

JM: Well, don’t you think it’s about time guys? But we didn’t really think they were going to be straight about covering it, did we? Remember the Times was all for the War in Iraq from the get-go as well as the War on Terror. They were even pissed back in the late 60s at Martin Luther King for equating Vietnam with the genocide going on in South Africa. That helped him get killed in the long run, losing his so-called liberal base.

M & J: “The term ignominious applies to both what remains of the 9-11 movement and the Times story itself. The Gray Lady’s disingenuous but expectedly well-crafted character assassination will have a lasting historical footprint, but the 9-11 truth movement has been virtually consigned to a footnote in the dustbin of history as a result of mainstream media mind control and its own foolish choices.”

JM: Really, guys, you know this for a fact we’re going to be “a footnote in the dustbin of history because of our foolish choices?” Well, we’re whacky guys, I’ll admit that. The Times is going to tell everybody that in a minute. We’re wacky like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin and all the MKULTRA stoned out “hippies” of the 60s who helped bring that war to a halt? But I digress. Back to you straight-shooters.

M & J: “The truth is that the real and best 9/11 researchers chose a long time ago not to ride willingly into the Little Big Horn massacre that was long prepared for, set up, and executed over the last few months. None of us takes any satisfaction in saying we told you so, but . . . we told you so.”

JM: You guys sound like my father when I didn’t listen to him, I was just a rebellious kid. But then we’re all rebellious kids here in the ‘911-truth movement,’ which is why we read Mike’s book in the first place, despite the lack of reviews. Who gives a crap about reviews? I read the Internet, books, magazines, newspapers, even watch mainstream TV and make up my own mind. BTW, I thought the Times drama critic John Simon was the biggest asshole who ever haunted a theater, a frustrated Army-film maker. And anyone who lives and dies by what the Times has to say about anything is already dead on his feet. So what the hell difference does it make what they say, guys? They’re the footnotes to history that land in the dustbin daily.

See, you guys got the live ones. In fact, I sent my 82-year old father-in-law in Colorado your book, Crossing the Rubicon, because he was reading the American Free Press and loving it. Called me up two weeks later and said, that fella, Ruppert, he’s something else. Got all them bums pegged on ever’ page. Did ya read it, yet? Well, I’m about half-way through, Pop, but he’s cool, right? Yes sir, better finish it soon. Them bastards gonna make crap of this country.

And Grandpa should know. He flew in troops on D-Day -- 9th Army Air Force, navigator, gained a little shrapnel, some ribbons, lost a little hearing and some sleep for years. I got a soft spot for the old guy. Anyhow, I digress. Listen up, folks. Here come the rules from Mike and Jamey . . .

M & J: “Unless a movement alleging government corruption of this magnitude understands from the gate that every move must be planned with one question and only one question in mind, it will fail at the precise moment that it reaches the threshold of mass public consciousness. That question, very simply, is ‘When the mainstream media is forced to take note, how will they try to discredit our efforts?’”

JM: Well, if anybody was hoping for four stars from a Times hack with 500 Conspiracy Buffs, meeting in Chicago of all places, mazeltov, skol, bona fortuna! It’d be like the neocons falling over laughing at Steven Colbert at Bush’s weenie roast. You could hear a pin drop. But he plodded on, bless him. What cojones. Did he heed warnings? Did he worry about being silly? I don’t think so. Silly made him brave and human, plus the truth he shot out, zinger after zinger, was great.

M & J: “Avoiding the obvious ambush points is the best way to plan. Of course, that threatens the chance that a movement like 9-11 truth will ever reach the mainstream media; it also evokes the now-justified observation that the only movements questioning the government and exposing the complicity of the press that get the ink or airtime will be the ones that can easily be shot down in the public eye.”

JM: Yeah, what a bunch of jerks these 9-11 truth folks were to exercise their constitutional right to assemble in order to talk about and share their information, erroneous and naïve as it might seem to some folks. They must have forgotten it’s not a free country anymore. Actually several of my 911-truth friends asked me if I wanted to go, and I said no. First of all, I wasn’t brave enough. I figured the CIA would pump in some anthrax or Legionnaire’s Disease at the very least. Then dress up as maids to microfilm skid marks on shorts, checking for Playboys under the bed, and worse. But I won’t go there.

Mostly, I get a headache after too much political talk, which is why I like to sit behind a computer and write. I only have to listen to myself think. Second, I don’t like crowds. And third I wasn’t spending $500 bucks at least for four days of this pain. When I was in the ad game for 30 years, I’d have to go to client conferences and listen and listen to people spout about peanut butter or tissues or denture cleanser for days. My god, it was painful. Now I’m out of that. And I like to stay out. But Mike, bless him, he’s a born and bred cop, strategic, ready to set up the sting and avoid tipping the hand before the net is drawn.

M & J: “The headline pretty much sets the tone for a series of cheap shots that run very predictably throughout the story — cheap shots that most of the 9-11 movement stood up and volunteered for.”

JM: Well, there you go. I knew they’d be cheesy, them old 911-truth-seekers. Bad seekers, bad seekers, right, Mike and Jamey?

M & J: “Among other things the Times article spun using the following terms and phrases:

Times: -“splintered factions of the movement” (second paragraph)

JM: Well, that’s true in any movement, isn’t it Mike and Jamey, from the Greeks to the geeks, the Bolsheviks to the Beatniks, people don’t agree. They cut things to pieces. Only the fascists tend to have super singled-minded messages. In fact, that’s a great way to spot them, on message, on point, like dogs waiting for their master’s voice. Like the administration.

Times: -“In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job” (4th paragraph)

JM: Well, common sense and a certain degree of intelligence, patriotism and due diligence would lead this band of conscionable people to that, Mr. Times Dwork. You should know that. Remember the JFK assassination? People are still debating it. It’s called the search for justice in America.

M & J: “ – The Times does not mention the three best-selling books on 9/11 after the Kean Commission report including Crossing the Rubicon [Ruppert’s book], The New Pearl Harbor [David Ray Griffin], or The Terror Timeline [Paul Thompson].”

JM: Well, the Times may not mention those books, but we in the 911-truth movement do, all of these books. We even bring them to rallies, to show people what to read to get the scoop.

Times: -“It was in tone, half trade show, half political convention” (5th paragraph)

M & J: “Nothing to take seriously here, this implies. It’s only a bunch of people trying to make money selling things, have a few drinks and get laid.”

JM: Well, what’s wrong with that, guys? Although it obviously was more than that. At least it isn’t Bohemian Grove where the neocons all gather in Northern California every year before a huge predatory Owl to celebrate Satanism and pedophilia and watch an occasional snuff film. I mean George, his papa, Warren Buffet, Henry Kissinger, George Schulze, now Arnold Schwarzenegger, all the creeps, you know. Let’s set the record straight about strange agendas and strange people. And is anybody stranger than Dick Cheney or Henry Kissinger, Dr. Death, Richard Nixon or Junior?

Times: -“Mr. Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers – a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, [Gee, as in Texas Chain Saw Massacre?], mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for the United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.” (7th paragraph)

M & J: “By the time you get finished reading about the cave man you have forgotten about the professor and are now looking at this as a ridicule piece.”

JM: But hey, Mike and Jamey, aren’t those the people of America, all kinds, types, income groups, intellectual levels, including a freak-o or two? I think that’s frigging great. What should we have, a bunch of faggot Bilderbergers in pinstripe suits and matching golf outfits? World Bankers, International Money Funders, cutting up Africa, South America, Central America, figuring where to import the next AIDS epidemic. I’ll take hummux and his long hair any day. Jesus had long hair and a beard. I mean, anybody can ridicule, including that no-account writer who got the hapless task of trying to paint these innocent, decent Americans as something bizarre. Could anything be more bizarre than Washington DC, than the Pentagon, than Congress, and all those booze-soaked, ho-chasing, bribe-dipped fat guys in blue suits? Gimme a break, skipper.

End Part I

 

[Gold9472]

Times: -“Such ‘red flags,’ as they were sometimes called, were the meat and potatoes of the keynote speech on Friday night by Alex Jones, who is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band.” (9th paragraph)

M & J: “– Great, anoint a not-so-credible and easy-to-dismiss Jones as leader of the movement, wrap him up in a ball with the kooks and then flush the whole thing.”

JM: I personally was a fan of the silver-tongued William Jennings Bryan, although I thought his cross of gold speech was way off the mark. Got our dollar in the trouble it’s in today, backed by nothing, well not quite. Backed only, thank god, by the commodity of America’s working people, which makes it the best of the worst, which are all the other currencies. As to Alex Jones, he’s just a working guy radio announcer. If he makes a buck, so what? How much does Mr. Carlyle Group make? Or Mr. Haliburton? Or Mr. Texas Rangers make? Or you Mike and Jamey?

M & J: “-Just ignore the real 9/11 pioneers like myself, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed and Dan Hopsicker because we can’t be so easily dismissed. I’m certain that Jones’ pocketbook is flush, however, since he helped trash the movement which others made credible as he appropriated their research.”

JM: You know Mike and Jamey, you sound angry and a bit jealous. What, you weren’t invited? You’re not making enough off 911? Or you didn’t want to go, you don’t like crowds? But I love Chossudovsky, Thompson, Ahmed, Hopsicker, Griffin, and you. And I like these other guys, too, well most of them, but not as much. There’s not as much to like. And there’s a few whose heads I’d like to bang together for an hour or so, like those Web Fairies'. Jeez. But hey, it’s America, dude. Freedom of speech. Let the individual discern and decide. Let the good stuff rise to the top and the crap sink to the bottom. Little bit of life learning here. And now we’re getting heavy.

Times: -“The controlled demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement.” (11th paragraph)

M & J: “Says who? Not one of the authors of the three best-selling 9/11 books challenging the Kean Commission adopted or endorsed this position or made this statement.”

JM: Wow, not one of the three majors recommended it. So bury it. Well, for some people “controlled demolition theory” is very important. Many were there and heard the cutter charges and huge explosions and saw the effects and how the buildings fell down neatly in ten-second free-falls into footprints then spread into a tsunami of ash, asbestos, concrete and gray dust, burying everyone in its wake. To we, especially we who live in New York, who saw that, who walked by the ruins hours, days, later, that experience means something to us. And so we write about it. If it’s not your thing, don’t read about it. But don’t start playing commander in chief of the 911-truth movement.

M & J: -“its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers’ structure, which eventually collapsed.”

JM: So says Times man, and he’s full of crap, 10,000 pages full. They’ve been refuted by other scientists and engineers. The towers were built of redundant steel to withstand a 707, not to mention constant and powerful high winds and storms. They wouldn’t fall from such short jet fires. The South Tower, hit second, burned for 56 minutes and fell first; the North Tower, hit first, burned for about 75 minutes then fell. Unfortunately, they were loaded with asbestos and law prohibited their controlled demolition. But not an act of god, like a terror attack, or an administration looking for another Pearl Harbor. Follow the money, guys.

M & J: “There are more lies per square inch in this little passage [the previous Times quote] than in a whole page of typical NYT fare (say, Judy Miller). First, the most widely respected 9/11 researchers have stayed completely away from physical evidence arguments, which will be discussed further below. The sine qua non of 9/11 research – as far as we’re concerned – is the original investigation and exposé that five simultaneous wargame exercises based on hijacked airliners were taking place on the morning of 9-11-01 in the Northeast Air Defense Sector and that these exercises — under the control of Dick Cheney — were what paralyzed air defenses that day. This is the one piece of hard evidence which cannot (and has not) been refuted or even acknowledged by the government.

“The cited 10,000 page investigation is one of the exact reasons why FTW and other major researchers never touched the physical evidence aspects of 9-11: sufficient non-scientific (i.e. uncontestable) evidence exists to prove government complicity, cover-up, and murder.”

JM: Well, invoking the simultaneous terror drills is certainly powerful evidence. It moves many people and leaves others cold, nor has it resulted in the arrest and/or imprisonment of Dick Cheney. Some folks don’t quite grasp the relevance of the drills and/or they can chose to doubt it just as easily as anything you tell them if their minds are set against listening. You must remember the falling towers, the sight out it, had an enormous emotional impact on the whole world. And to be able to diffuse that cause and effect directly, that the hijacked planes were a smokescreen for it, is a great service and eye-opener to many people.

Times: -“— the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.” (13th paragraph)

JM: That’s correct, Times man. Anybody in a tyrannical society who has espoused a different story than the current national mythology is often tagged as nuts. The millions of Jews who walked into the gas chamber, not being able to imagine their fate, thinking everything would be according to human Hoyle, were tragically surprised. So it is good to question, to think out of the box, to seek the wisdom of men like Ruppert, Chossudovsky, Griffin, Ahmed, plus of one’s one heart and conscience and imagination. And to go beyond that to others, hummux if necessary. Why the hell not listen if our lives are on the line? Why the hell not open a mouth if we see a crime against us? The completely nuts folks are those who turn away in fear and indifference, including the sheeple that write for corporate media.

Times: - “There is a plan by the British delegation (such as it is, so far) to get members of Parliament to watch “Loose Change,” the seminal movement DVD.” (16th paragraph) –

M & J: “This is one of the biggest whoppers of all.”

Times: “I have watched ‘Loose Change’ and in my expert opinion it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: ‘Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.’”

M & J: “Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon. This film is so slickly produced (and on such a large budget) that it is hard to believe that amateur filmmakers could have made it. Once the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense, and that was the film’s intent.”

JM: First of all, given my three decades in the ad business, writer/creative director, and having produced millions of dollars worth of film and video, I think Loose Change is rather simply and creatively produced. It uses photo stills, titles, some pick-up news footage, simple animation, and a simple music soundtrack.

It claims that remote-control flown A3 Navy Skywarriors (planes) reconfigured to look like passenger liners hit the towers. The A-3 is about 60 percent the size of a 757 (767’s are said to have hit the Towers). The A-3 is outfitted for remote-control flying, and can carry missiles. What’s more, its wings sweep back for carrier usage and it may well have been flown, according to Loose Change 2, from the aircraft carrier George Washington which was docked off the coast of Long Island on 9/11. Helicopters hovering around the 9/11 tower hits that day may have been the remote control guiding vehicles. The A-3 fleet was sold by the Navy to Raytheon in Van Nuys, California, a manufacturer of electronic defense systems. That’s what Loose Change 2 contends to the best of my knowledge.

I don’t agree with its take on Flight 93, that it landed in Cleveland and unloaded some 200 passengers to the Glenn NASA Research Center. And then they were vanished. I believe and have written F 93 was shot down by two F-16s over Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania. Additionally, there was an all-white military jet that flew over the scene to check on wreckage. The wreckage was scattered over a distance of eight miles and seen by many eyewitnesses. What remained of the fuselage could conceivably have vanished in a former quarried mine area covered over with grasses. This information comes from Thompson’s Timeline and Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor.

I believe that at the Pentagon, either an A3 was used because of its remote-control capability, or even a Global Hawk drone. Conceivably, and owing to numerous eyewitness reports, it could have been the original Flight 77 757, whose transponder was taken over to fly the plane by remote control. I do not think pilot Hani Hanjor (who was unable to prove he could fly a single engine Cessna) was capable of performing the maneuvers of that plane, descending some 7,000 feet in a matter of minutes while making a 330-degree turn, then leveling off at practically ground level to fly into the recently fortified, sparsely occupied west wing (not the east wing where the brass was). In fact, I find that those maneuvers are impossible for a large craft like the 757, whose engines are lower than its fuselage and which would have left huge gouges in the Pentagon lawn. But, moving on . . .

Regarding the towers, it’s a fact that the transponders of Flight 11 (767) and Flight 175 (767), both out of Logan in Boston and bound for LA, went off shortly after take-off and could have been superseded by a frequency that could be used to guide these planes (without the help of hijackers or pilots) to the towers. This technology was developed in the late 70s, after the first hijackings of airliners, so that stolen planes’ guidance systems could be overtaken by air controllers and flown to safe havens. In fact, all major airlines (but one) contained the computerization to accommodate the use of this technology, including American and United. The only airline that sensed that the technology could be inappropriately used was Lufthansa, and had it removed from all their planes.

The question is, why you, Mike and Jamey, weren’t at the meeting to confront the makers of Loose Change directly, and set the record straight, if you felt it needed to be? If Ruppert feels he is the movement’s unspoken leader, why doesn’t he reach for the helm? Unquestioning obeisance is hard to get from thinking people. In the real world, you have to be there. Like Abbie and Rubin in the streets, like King, like Malcolm, like the Kennedy brothers, even like W.

You can hole up in The Wilderness and expect it all to go your way by mind control. Good luck. No matter how many books or articles you write and publish, sooner or later, you have to come out swinging, dirty your hands. Deal with the crowd if you want them in your corner.

But don’t start a war between people with the same concerns as you regarding 9/11. Don’t rag on those working-class heroes getting a bad rap via some moron from the Times. He didn’t kill the 911-truth movement, only his reputation as a writer, if he had any to begin with. If anything, he made us stronger, wiser. And if you decide you want to run for president, Mike, you could be the first cop/author elected. You’ve got my vote. The thing is, you can play the sidelines and coach, or go out there and throw the long pass and/or get sacked, hit hard. You’re a smart guy, really smart. You know what I’m saying. So enough sour grapes. Those good people did not go into that good night in Chicago gently. They were armed for bear with information. They went to win minds and hearts and put their own on the line.

They may have shot in a few directions at once. But they walked out in one piece, unlike the crowd 30 years ago in 1968, bloodied, beaten, reviled, also fractionated, but criers to a nation of a great human tragedy. Look at the newsreels again. Chicago. It’s a helluva town. What both crowds had in common were probably CIA finks infiltrating, disinforming, making trouble. That’s life in the USA.

So that’s all, folks, for now. For a complete view of Michael Ruppert’s thinking on each point of 9/11 theory, go to: oilempire.us/bogus.html#history. Of course, there is Ruppert’s landmark book, Crossing the Rubicon. His heart you will find really is in the right place. We just have to loosen him up a bit. For a copy of the email I received, write to [email protected]. There’s considerably more to discuss in this email which I simply couldn’t accommodate in this space. Hopefully you get the point from this taste that the truth is a river fed from many springs. Some water is clearer, cleaner than others. Some is silted. All of it to some degree can slake our thirst for answers. The water we drink is our choice. And hopefully we can taste what is foul and survive what is poisonous.

End