9/11 Press for Truth: The Movie Americans Need to See

9/11 Press for Truth was first released in September 2006. The film reports the 9/11 Families 14 month fight for the investigation, along with Paul Thompson’s independent development of the 9/11 Terror Timeline. The combination is a convincing indictment of failure by the 9/11 Commission, the media and the Administration to do their jobs. The approach of the movie has nothing to do with psyops, explosions or disappearing planes. It presents an exhaustive compilation of major and minor news stories, many gleaned from Thompson’s Timeline, with interviews of five members of the Family Steering Committee, to present a solid case for a new investigation.

I will digress to disclose that my personal review of the 9/11 research and questions convinced me over a year ago that the official conspiracy theory (religious fundamentalists from the Middle East conspired to hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings, causing them to collapse) can only be partly correct. The rest of the story is far too important to be left unquestioned.

It is important for firemen, structural engineers and occupants who want no reason to fear that steel frame buildings, like the WTC towers and WTC 7, will completely (and quickly) collapse from the damage they sustain, despite being over designed to withstand it. Given the far greater damage to WTC6, why did it not fail in the same way?

It is important for Americans to find out why the official reports by FEMA and NIST have failed to substantiate the official explanation, yet no further investigations have been ordered. If we do not truly know why or how the buildings failed, we can hardly defend ourselves, or prevent another tragedy and all that ensues.

This is no easy quest. It is the toughest test of any honest American’s life, beliefs and hopes. The truth could be devastating. Ignorance could be more death. Each of us has to choose when and how we face the questions. I believe it is most important that we try to solve this crime for both the victims and their families. Our criminal justice system has failed them.

One of the hardest failures to accept is the NORAD response to the hijackings. Rather than the routine intercept of airplanes off course and not responding to the air traffic controllers; fighters were not scrambled promptly, flew well below response speed, and the millitary evaded or gave conflicting answers to the Commissions questions. Remember that the Commission seriously considered sending their complaints of obstruction or perjury to the Justice Department for investigation? I married into a NORAD family. After 11 years in Anchorage, some images are etched in my memory forever. Multiple fighter planes at Elmendorf Air Force Base doing ‘touch and go’ exercises, pairs taking off for routine patrols, and the flash of a fighter disappearing in a heartbeat on a scramble.

On 9/11/01 two planes had attacked the Towers and over 30 minutes later the Pentagon was still unprotected from a flight that had been off course 3 times longer than it should have taken for fighters to arrive from either of two bases. Is it any wonder that Russian President Vladimir Putin was one of the first to scoff at the idea the terrorists acted alone? If the anti-aircraft missles on and around the Pentagon couldn’t be fired in time, is there any point in building the Star Wars system? If for no other reason than accounting for the taxes we’ve spent on NORAD, this question requires a real clear answer. I suggest asking the pilots.

Although I was familiar with Thompson’s Terror Timeline, the movie covers the simple reasons that led to his monumental effort. Reflecting Socrates’ observation “Wisdom begins with wonder,” it also required a long journey of searching news articles and recording the information. Thompson relates an all too common editorial incompetence: really important stories were buried in the newspapers back pages or sections, while misleading or unimportant ones made front pages. The director adds similar stories that occurred in television news. The most telling are the clips that are no longer available.

The interviews of the five family members are to me the most powerful part of the movie. These are not wild eyed, irrational or emotionally unstable people. They are intelligent, articulate and focused. The work they did initially is impressive, and they haven’t stopped. There is a very simple story that emerges. Too many reasonable questions, too little effort to find answers that are often readily available. The effort was directed at NOT finding answers. Evading questions, answering with flat out lies, and repeating the lies until people believed or stopped asking.

Except the 9/11 families will not stop asking.

What they ask in this movie is exactly what must happen. Americans have to start telling their Congressional representatives to instigate another investigation. Almost none of the members of the previous investigation, or any of the FEMA and NIST researchers, should be involved. The exception is Max Cleland who resigned early, calling the investigation a fraud. The researchers in particular need to be from outside the government and preferably not dependent on government funding for their usual work. Members of the victims families should be included. They have the best questions.

9/11 Press for Truth has been televised in many countries overseas and is currently screening around the US and Canada. The goal is to have additional screenings the third week of July, in theaters and private homes. Then a lot of voters can talk to their Congressmen during the August break. I know they will be gearing up for the September fight over funding Iraq. It ought to make BushCo that much more destabilized if they have reasons to avoid an honest to goodness investigation.

Looking for sane sites to research?

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Journal of 911 Studies
9-11 Review
9-11 Research
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Complete 911 Timeline

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to 9/11 Press for Truth: The Movie Americans Need to See

  1. This is one of those things that the average American doesn’t want to know about and the government like so many other things doesn’t want Americans to know about.

    I didn’t know Brave New Theaters was promoting this. That means it’s getting a little more attention now. Good deal.


  2. God Bless our American Friends and Neighbours to the south, from your friends in Canada. Press for truth was the original documentary that led me to re evaluate the attack of 9/11. The Jersey gals are some of those who make your country great. Your military men and women have our prayers! We pray for peace and our Iraqi friends too. Stop this war in Iraq, please stop now!

  3. Alex says:

    Richard speaks only for himself. Many of us support your war effort, and stand side-by-side with your soldiers serving overseas in the fight against tyranny. We pray for peace too, but not a temporary peace attained through surrender.

    Oh, and Ginny? This 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense only serves to further alienate the democrats from the moderate majority. I’d suggest you tone it down, or at least publish it on a site which isn’t so blatantly partisan. Thanks for the list of “sane sites” though, they really made my day. Perhaps you could add “timecube.com” and “ufoevidence.org” to the list ๐Ÿ™‚

  4. Yarrow says:

    Thank you for article and for helping spread the word that there are a lot of very serious legitimate questions left unanswered and outright ignored by the 9/11 Commission cover-up. I suggest http://www.patriotsquestion911.org for a very long list: Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report.” Many names will be very familiar to your readers. Also http://www.stj911.org, the website of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. And last but not least, http://www.911blogger.com (from whence I learned about your article.)

  5. Darrell Prows says:

    I’m confused. If some guys hijacked some planes and flew them to their death, how did someone else manage to co-opt that effort for another purpose?

  6. Tim Sparke says:

    Hi Ginny

    I read your post about 9/11 Press For Truth. I distribute the film to TV around the world along with Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries. Have you read any work by Dr David Ray Griffin? Also you should check out Taking Liberties the new film about the Blair Government….I will send you a copy if you want…

    Might be useful viewing for when you are back in the White House.

  7. Ginny Cotts says:


    There is no doubt a tremendous amount of nonsense on the internet promoting asinine conspiracy theories. Since you have apparently read them I find it difficult to understand that after reading:

    The approach of the movie has nothing to do with psyops, explosions or disappearing planes.

    You suggest I should ‘Tone it down’ and then suggest I add some blatantly ridiculous sites to the ones that have established themselves as scientific and credible, responding to valid criticisms and citing themselves the limits of their analysis due to the limits of available physical evidence.

    As for supporting ‘our’ war effort, you should realize -as Bush refuses to-that a solid majority of Americans now think it was a mistake to start it and want our troops out. That could be due to the number of experts who predicted what has come to pass so well before 3/19/03.

    Finally, this was primarily a movie review. Your comments are on the subject covered by the movie, with nothing to say about how it presented this controversial subject in a non-controversial way.

    My challenge to you is to see the movie and then comment. This one is totally different than Loose Change, In Plane Site and others that have turned many people – Steven Jones in particular- off the idea. Dr. Jones did turn to looking at the solid evidence and has contributed greatly to the scientific support for a new investigation.

  8. Ginny Cotts says:


    Back in the White House? Haven’t been there since I was a kid in the ’60s. When the Dems are back?

    I have not read Griffin’s books but have seen his lectures. He certainly ranks in my list of credible contributers.

    My reading and viewing list is at least 6 months long, as I have time, I will watch for the Blair movie.

  9. Ginny Cotts says:

    Darrell Prows Says:
    June 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    Very easily, especially with the lead time they had. Press for Truth actually has a credible lead time much earlier than I had been aware of.

    Since I haven’t mentioned it and I think this is a mind opening exercise for most Americans, Google ‘Operation Northwoods’ and read the PDF.

    This plan was submitted to McNamara and Kennedy in ’63. They nixed it and Kennedy dumped the head of the JOS who signed of on it.

    If you are hung up on “how” this could have been done, there are some realistic scenarios based on what was needed in manpower and time, and what is reported to have gone on at the Towers in the weeks just prior to 9/11.

    Most importantly, what we really need to find out first is WHAT happened. Then we can work on how, who, etc.

  10. Alex says:

    Ginny, take you for taking the time to respond. I’d like to address a few of the points you brought up:

    1) The sites you listed are in no way “scientific” or “credible”. At first glance they may appear slightly better than the majority of the sites out there, but upon closer inspection it becomes apparent that they are full of conspiracy-mongers, pseudo-scientific cranks, and outright frauds. For instance, the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice” promote the “work” of Steven Jones, [comment edited for potential slander, lacking supporting information] . They also back Kevin Ryan, who was a water tester at NIST, fired for misrepresenting his personal views as the official position of NIST. To top it off, they present absolutely no work from anyone who’s actually qualified to comment on the issues being discussed.

    2) I’m aware that the majority of Americans no longer want the war in Iraq, and I’m truly sorry that this is the case. Still, no matter how many people think the world is flat, it will continue to be round. Truth is not decided by election. Unfortunately, US policy will be effected by it’s people, which will doubtless result in further misery a few decades down the road. Such is life. In the meantime, I remain fully committed to doing the best job possible up to that point in order to maximize the chance that the Iraqi people will be able to secure and rebuild their nation without the presence of US troops. And I will continue to contribute to the effort in Afghanistan even after the US has pulled out of Iraq.

    3) As for the movie, I HAVE seen it, and I realize you were reviewing the movie and not the subject. However, you cannot separate the two so easily. You make numerous mistakes in this article, such as talking about “anti-aircraft missles [sic]” around the Pentagon, when in fact there is no basis for believing that such a system was in place at the time, or at any other time in history. In fact, the majority of cold-war era air defence was handled by the National Guard, and the majority of that went out the window after the USSR collapsed. Nobody has ever presented any evidence for such a system at the Pentagon – people just assume that it’s there.

    The problem is that this movie has obviously lead you to believe things which aren’t true, and to reach conclusions which have no real evidence backing them. As such, anything positive you may have to say about the movie is cancelled out by it’s negative aspects.

    I agree that the movie is less…”extreme” than others, however, in my eyes this makes it even more nefarious because it lends a credence of legitimacy to the claims being made. A reasonable person could watch “Loose Change” and dismiss it out of hand, since it was obviously a load of nonsense. Whereas in a movie like “9/11 Press for Truth” it becomes much more difficult to see the lies because the overall packaging is so much slicker.

  11. Ginny Cotts says:


    Citing Steven Jones as [reference edited because original edited]. Otherwise it is slander. (Seriously, you need to support it or I will edit, the Dem Daily does not allow that kind of comment.)I have absolutely no reason to think he is anything except a physicist who has made some major contributions to the muon physics field. Specifically correcting the original coefficient suggested by the 1st two major researchers in the field. Sorry, I am at work and don’t have my sources to cite their names. I also know Kevin Ryan’s backgroud and the reason he was fired. He was NOT a water tester with NIST. He worked for UL – the company that tested the WTC steel and passed it to begin with. The letter he wrote to NIST to question their testing methods was considered out of line – or something to that effect. So UL didn’t want to be associated with the question, that makes it invalid? Hardly.

    Begging your pardon, I have 2 degrees in BS (I know you suspected that) and was raised by a PhD in Physical Chemistry, whose brother worked on the Johns Hopkins Physics team that developed the Polaris, Poseidin and Trident missiles for the nuclear subs, and would go meet them in foreign ports to trouble shoot the systems. [Growing up with the two of them was solid on being expected to support your claims – or be raked over some very uncomfortable coals] On top of the (high school and college) physics and chemistry I took, both my kids are engineering students. We’ve had some interesting conversations on how steamed some of their physics professors can get on this subject.

    So your response to the sites is they “are full of conspiracy-mongers, pseudo-scientific cranks, and outright frauds.” and also claim that “they present absolutely no work from anyone whoโ€™s actually qualified to comment on the issues being discussed.” That is really a stretch. Among the contributors either writing or cited in the writings are architects, engineers, structural engineers, the firefighters (which is a very scientific based field), mathemeticians, logicians, ethicists and more. What are your criteria to be qualified on the issues? And personally, I am with Ayn Rand on this one. I don’t care if you work in the mail department, if your argument is valid, it’s valid. (See Lorenzo’s Oil)Jones has gone to great lengths to discuss the scientific method and what he is doing, and expects others to do to follow it.

    If you can point to some specific articles that refute Jones, fine. Labeling, name calling and ridiculing are disinformation, not an argument.

    Let me suggest one specific item that is now glaringly clear. The EPA ‘clearance’ of the air at and near the site when they had adequate knowledge to know full well it was dangerous. And we have had first responders and other people in the area dying from the exposure since 2/02 if I remember the first one correctly.(Warning, I married an Environmental Engineer, MS hazardous waste + grad studies in public health and toxicology). The ethics there trouble a lot of scientists and professors.

    Yes, the truth has a way of making you sit up and take notice when you denied it in spite of the facts. The truth about Iraq is clear, and the predictions from many sources, with many credentials, were there long before we went. Wish that US policy were decided by the people. We and the world would not be in this mess. And the policies I am referring to go back to taking over Hawaii, at least.

    Regardless of whether there are or are not anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon, NORAD fighters should have been there long before that jet. (The Pentagon would probably NOT acknowledge there are anti-aircraft missiles there.) However, if I am wrong about the missiles, I would like my crow stewed. “the majority of cold-war era air defence was handled by the National Guard”. Wow, that would be a HUGE surprise to my father and brother in law. Senior was a wing commander for NORAD – from it’s development after WWII (navigator for a B-29? bomber who spent the last 18 mo as a POW). Younger was the civilian head of the electronic repair shop at Elmendorf for all the fighter jets in AK. That would include computers, etc.

    I am not sure what the other “numerous’ mistakes in the article are, and given your record of errors, I suspect nothing worth going in to.

    The movie did not really cover much that I didn’t already know – from other sources. Some internet, and that goes far beyond the websites on the subject. And quite a number of non-fiction books that I chose based on the author, the reviewers, the supporting references, etc. Most of what the movie presents that help the average American realize the problem is from Thompson’s compilation of news items from a variety of sources, none in dispute.

    What the movie reinforced for me is that the attack is not fully explained by the official government conspiracy theory. Aside from the failure of the NIST and FEMA reports to explain the evidence we do have, the news evidence in Thompson’s Terror Timeline screams for follow up. I do not believe things now that I didn’t before the movie. What I like about it is that people like you don’t come up with anything but “it’s lies” ‘that are difficult to see’.

    My question is, if it turns out that there is something more to this story that we won’t look at, what will happen next? If there is nothing, a lot of us will collectively sigh in total relief. I really doubt we will need to spend anywhere near the money that was put into Clinton and Lewinsky.

    I admit that I wear tinted glasses for scotopic sensitivity syndrome. It actually improves my vision. And a lot of times I don’t wear them, just cuz. My ADD brain is very good at picking out patterns and threads that others don’t see. I don’t say “I told you that” very often because it’s usually 5 or 10 years before what I realized is wrong/true becomes accepted. This is particularly true in health care and nursing – where I’ve been for 30 years.

    And where I really need to get back. Time for the am stuff before day shift gets here.

  12. Joe says:

    I am curious why the people that have all this info do not run for office(Ginny)? It seems we have a lack of inteligence in Washington. Let’s get some actual minds out there!

  13. Ginny Cotts says:

    There is a rather incoherent post on this at the JAWA report.

    Among other things he makes reference to a flame war going on between the regulars and others, with some sick sexual stuff, etc.

    Just fails to make clear that the discussion was NOT here at the Dem Daily.. it was at a conservative site he linked to early in his column.

    Details. Anyone remember that one of the Mars missions had a major screw up because Lockheed- Martin (right here in CO) failed to put the units on some figures they were using? They were working with another company – who was using a different unit measurement (eg: like inches vs centimeters or F vs C – don’t remember the exact conversion). Darned if I can remember what piece of very expensive equipment didn’t work when it got to Mars. The youngest kid would. She was in a high school class with a really exceptional science teacher known for harping on the issue of putting the units on – ALWAYS. Needless to say, she had a wonderful time with “NOW do you understand why I beat this into your brains?” ๐Ÿ™‚

    As far as the refutation on Cleland’s resignation. Kinda hard to reconcile their take with the actual video of Cleland speaking for himself.

    So I have made a name for myself in the 9/11 False Movement as a nutty, confused, driven by my political party ideology, idiot.

    Would someone please tell me who in the Democratic Party has really come out in support of this idea? Even Kos will NOT let anyone post on the subject. You get banned.

    My family would also like to know WHEN I started believing ANYTHING because someone said to.

    One of these bright ones had to make an issue of my post being under the name of Ginny Cotts, while I am listed with the writer’s as Virginia. To the effect that this was some kind of stupid hiding move. Pamela did a good job of stomping that – the guy actually admitted the connection was obvious and not necessarily some kind of [GOP] dumb stunt. It would have been even more obvious if he had checked my bio info as he did Pamela’s.

    Oh well. Time to hit the pillow. I will be getting up to go back to work in zzzzzzzz uh, 8 hours.

  14. Ginny Cotts says:


    You have just made my week. I have said elsewhere that the next vote will be for candidates who pledge certain things. Like starting a real investigation of 9/11.

    Run for office? Takes money, patience, people who would vote for someone who is openly an atheist. The latter is the real barrier.

  15. My my Ginny, you do know how to get the wingers all worked up! Now let me know when you can do that with catfish, and I would be pleased to take you on a fishing trip. With the catfish, you would have a much better conversation.

  16. Darrell Prows says:

    Ginny, I can see that there is an entire subject that I’ve never heard of. I believe that Bush was going to invade Iraq irrespective of the 9-11 terrorism. Are you saying that there may be some strong connection there?

  17. Ginny Cotts says:

    {{{Donnie}}} I LOVE fishing. I may not be much at stirring up the catfish, but I sure know how to have a conversation with them – and a frying pan. ๐Ÿ˜†


    There is plenty of information from DC insiders, millitary, intell and public statements that Bush, Cheney and others were convinced that Iraq needed to be ‘finished off’ – in my words. The Gulf War did not get rid of Sadam and the sanctions were not making him cooperative enough. The man was actually seriously talking about and acting like he was going to start trading Iraq oil in Euros. If you haven’t come across the PNAC document, Google, read and note the signatures. Some of the ones you may not recognize are as important as the ones you do.

    I suggest the Operation Northwoods document because it so thoroughly exposes the millitary and CIA thinking about what covert actions are perfectly acceptable to them to deceive Americans into using our millitary to invade other countries. That plan was developed in the early sixties.

    Let me give an overview of my likely scenario for 9/11.
    There is no question that the Towers had been the Holy Grail for the terrorist to strike – for over 10 years.

    The CIA and FBI seem to have discovered the plot at various levels, places and times. Enter the millitary-industrial-intelligence-media-financial-corporate-Congressional complex. A group that Ike had an early glimpse of, but would surely be beating his head against a wall if he realized how much control it would get despite his warning. The background for getting a handle on that involves a lot of non-fiction books that are not short. I refer you to Robert David Steele’s recommendations at Amazon. I have differences with some of his approaches to fixing the problems – which is very minor compared to his grasp of it and ability to point you to people who have written the best stuff on various aspects. He also has recommendations for 9/11 reading. Steele is a genuine conservative, has a millitary and intell background.

    I think some intell people outside the government were contracted to track the terrorists, help them out to some extent, and keep the people in the MIIMFCC loop up to date. The plan I suspect was to let the terrorists do their thing and just add to it so it could all be blamed on them. A form of LIHOP – let it happen on purpose, only mine involves embellishing the terrorist plans with stuff the terrorists would not have knowledge of. As opposed to MIHOP – make it happen on purpose.

    One of the more ludicrous arguments by the fringe is that some of the hijackers have turned up in the ME and are normal, law abiding citizens with jobs, families, etc. So they argue there were really no hijackers.

    The apparent logic is: identity theft only occurs in America.

    As I have said, getting into this can pack a BIG blow to your whole world view. My 82 year old mother just wants to die before she finds out anymore. And she keeps on with planning and bringing in speakers for the Democratic Club at the senior citizen complex she lives at.

    My father, with the PhD in physical chemistry, won’t consider it for 5 minutes. Go figure.

  18. Alex says:

    First off, using the phrase “official conspiracy theory” is beyond the pale. You should know better than that.

    Moving on.

    Go through the actual list of contributors at the “scholars” site. Out of the hundred of so “members”, only 2 are listed as mechanical engineers. They also have a whole 2 architects, only ONE structural engineer, and one firefighter. But they DO have a whole lot art teachers and even a “Holistic Health Practitioner”, which, while doubtless being fascinating jobs, have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

    The fact of the matter is that every field out there will have one or two cranks in it. This is normal. Unfortunately for your argument, the vast majority (and by vast I mean 99.999%) of the relevant experts agree with the conclusions of NIST. Going up against that kind of scientific consensus is reminiscent of the creationists attempting to disprove evolutionary science. It’s just plain silly.

    Popular Mechanics did an excellent article, and eventually a book, debunking Steven Jones and his ilk. The information is all available for those who aren’t too lazy to look, or who haven’t been led astray by their own political convictions. I fear you fall into the latter category.

    About the only thing you DID get right is that Kevin Ryan was a water tester for UL and not NIST as I had previously stated. That was my mistake – I’m quite aware he worked for UL, I simply made a mistake because I was rushed. Thank you for correcting me. Your dismissal of his firing on the other hand is totally unwarranted. He presented his own views as if they were the official position of UL, and he absolutely got what he deserved. He is only one example of the dishonesty inherent in the “twoof” movement.

    Ask your family members about who handled INTERNAL air defence during the cold war, and they’ll tell you the same thing I did. The regular military handled external threats in concert with NORAD, while the NG and AND handled internal air defence. And post-cold-war, internal air defence became for all intents and purposes non-existent.

    And since you asked, here’s some other mistakes in your article:

    “It is important for firemen, structural engineers and occupants who want no reason to fear that steel frame buildings, like the WTC towers and WTC 7, will completely (and quickly) collapse from the damage they sustain, despite being over designed to withstand it.”

    – The buildings were never designed to be hit by a jetliner at full speed, and then burn for hours. That they managed to stand as long as they did is a testament to the abilities of American engineers, but they were in no way designed for this sort of disaster.

    “It is important for Americans to find out why the official reports by FEMA and NIST have failed to substantiate the official explanation, yet no further investigations have been ordered.”

    – This is simply not true. In fact, I’m surprised YOU haven’t been censored for “slander”.

    “Rather than the routine intercept of airplanes off course and not responding to the air traffic controllers; fighters were not scrambled promptly, flew well below response speed, and the millitary evaded or gave conflicting answers to the Commissions questions.”

    – Intercepts of aircraft over American soil was anything but routine. Intercepts of flights originating overseas were routine, but these took place over the ocean, in area which were actually monitored by NORAD. Domestic flights HAVE been intercepted in the past, but the response times for those intercepts have always been slower.

  19. Ginny Cotts says:

    Sorry about not being able to respond to Alex. I am having technical difficulties. You don’t have to stay tuned. Check back in the am….

  20. Pingback: Moonbats to The Left, Moonbats to the Right - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

  21. Darrell Prows says:

    There are numerous powerful and entrenched interest groups in this country (with influence not necessarily limited only to here)working for any number of purposes. There is also the fact that our society has become basically dysfunctional. The social contract is severly strained, and few doubt that it is coming ever closer to the breaking point.

    This is the perfect formula for a society giving serious consideration to taking the extraordinary step of convening a body for the purpose of deciding if it’s necessary and desireable to start over. Or to fix any manner of problems, but do it with less drastic measures. The name for this kind of effort is a Constitutional Convention. This approach can work because the Convention can do anything or nothing, and is absolutely unlimited in what it can study and propose. Also, it can be structured in such a way that it can be captured by no single interest group, no matter how powerful.

    And because of the ratification process that follows, a loss of confidence for the Convention by the populace would leave us no worse off than we were before we gave it a try.

  22. Longtime Dem Daily readers will notice a trackback here from the blog of a former Dem Daily writer. A response to his post and the attacks on the Dem Daily about this post from right wing blogs is discussed here:


  23. Pingback: Democratic Convention Party Political Local Advertising Presidential Campaigns » Blog Archive » Editor’s Note on Opinions Published on The Democratic Daily and The Politics of Personal Destruction

  24. Ginny Cotts says:

    Before this went up, I had a discussion with Pamela on whether to get into this. I was concerned that it would create issues for her and the blog. I also knew there is still a lot of the ususal human resistance to a drastic challenge to conventional thinking. Only on this subject, the fear factor makes the problem that much worse.

    Pamela, as always, was respectful of my view and willing for me to review the movie. Which I found out I could not do at Kos – no discussion of any other explanations of 9/11 are allowed at all.

    Ultimately, it was the families, whose comments and commitment to getting their very valid questions answered, who got my devotion to personal responsibility and truth in the face of ridicule in full gear.

    At a mini family reunion recently, we were laughing at a comment in one a family album:

    “Families are like fudge, mostly sweet with a few nuts.”

    I had to raise my hands and chime out:

    “Proud to be a family nut”.

    Lots of laughter, no dissent.

    This is who I am. One of those people who has never accepted the obvious. My life defining quote is:

    “Too much sanity may be madness. The maddest of all is to see the world as it is and not as it should be.”
    Don Quixote, final soliloquy, last act Man of La Mancha.Miguel de Cervantes

    I think different, I use Macs. I don’t always speak what is on my mind. One of my dentists absolutely agreed I don’t have a big mouth – he actually used pediatric tools sometimes.

    I’m ok with who I am. I am not ok with people who confuse my friends with me.

    Attacking or ridiculing Pamela because she is open minded enough to let the writers here print controversial ideas is exhibits a lack of viable argument and a disdain for the whole spirit of free press, freedom of speech and what democracy is about.

    I have decided not to continue the discussion as it was going because I frankly doubt it helps much. My point in writing the review was to get people to see the movie and decide for themselves.

    The Terror Timeline that is a critical part of the movie is based on thousands of news stories, brought together so that a clearer understanding can be gained. It is the timeline that, as the families keep pointing out, allow individuals to connect the dots.

    The movie, as I stated in the first paragraph, does not go into any of the far fetched theories. It is just solid American citizens asking questions based on news and information obtained from media outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo and many others.

    Even the 9/11 Commission had big problems with the Military answers to the NORAD response during the attacks. The DVD I have has a section of the Congressional testimony by Paul Thompson on this.

    I put the site links that I respect as legitimate, scientifically based efforts above. The answer to Alex’s last post was simply one link after another, to send the readers to compare for themselves his broad statements versus the specific arguments. Apparently there are too many links for the program to let me post the response.

    I am in the camp that really does not want to believe.

    Please, provide answers to these questions that show reasons that do not implicate anyone but the terrorists. We don’t want our fears to be true – to any degree. I for one will cook the crow and eat it with joy if these concerns can be laid to rest, (Can we have champagne with that?)

    Until then, I have my own knowledge base in physics and chemistry, a mind that was taught early on to question and think in a scientific way, and five decades of using it successfully.

    Aside from the professional horror that the government told first responders and residents the air was safe to go back to the area, there is one other thing that always comes back to me as a big intuition check.

    You don’t have to read any of Dr. Jones’ paper. Just go to the picture on page 29. It frames the question that my brain refuses to let go of.

    An invisible hand that can reverse the laws of physics helped the terrorists on 9/11?

  25. Alex says:

    Don Quixote was not supposed to be a self-help book, Ginny.

    Other than that, I’ve always found people who “think different” to be valuable in my line of work…but there’s a point where “thinking different” simply becomes counterproductive and/or redundant. Or, to re-use a famous quote: “You can have your opinion, but not your own facts”. I have a use for people who can look at a problem, and come up with a creative solution, or who can look at a scenario and pick up on details which others would miss. I have ZERO use for people who can look at a well-explained phenomenon and say “the government did it” based on sheer speculation, nor do I have any use for people who confuse their ignorance for insight.

    As for the last bit of your comment, you have, essentially, just admitted that you think the WTC was wired for demolition. Because, IF “an invisible hand that can reverse the laws of physics helped the terrorists on 9/11”, then there are only three possible causes:

    1) “God” intervened and made the WTC fall straight down.
    2) The government wired the towers with explosives, and used them to correct the collapse.
    3) You and “Dr.” Jones don’t know the first thing about physics.

    Me, I’m going with number 3. Unless you’re willing to agree with me on that, you may as well start promoting “Loose Change” instead of “Press for Truth”. And if that’s the case, let me know so I won’t bother wasting any more time here.

  26. Well, this sure got the wingers, and the wingettes like Ron in a state of WTF! Funny, but how does this pertain to the rest of us? Oh that’s true, we are all wrong! My nad..er…my bad! So a review on one thing now describes what we all think huh? Moonbattery? Why yes you are Ron! You are the ass now, and will always be. You rebuke what others might believe, and think what you believe is the only way. That makes you an ass, and the lowest common factor. Please try to evolve you poser. Libertarians that pose as liberals are so out of touch. I would also add that you suck! Sorry, it had to be said. At least try to be what you really are. And I mean other than being an asshole!

  27. anon e. mouse says:

    I just love the consistency of the logical conundrums the Troooothers present.

    On the one hand, they say โ€œWhat happened to the resistance?โ€ Then they say โ€œwhat happened to the angular momentum?โ€

    Maybe the angular momentum was used up by the resistance and vise versa, the resistance was destroyed by the angular momentum

    –squeek squeek (in your pantry right now)

  28. Berle says:

    The movie is superb and should be viewed as a starting point in any honest inquiry into the politics of the response to 9/11. Readers here should recommend the DVD to their local libraries and colleges.

  29. Kyle F. ence says:

    Thank you Ginny for your candor, courage and most excellent review of our documentary. You do all of us great honor by your honest and spirited defense of the film and those who you have measured to be people of integrity and intelligence who have sought to fight through the morass of lies, deceit and disinformation to find the truth.

    Perhaps you are aware, Rep. Kucinich has committed to re-open at least a part of the investigation by holding a hearing in his Oversight subcommittee on Domestic Policy this coming September. I hope you will join us in giving him as much support as we can muster to follow through and begin the digging that is so long overdue.

    Also, I’d like to find sponsors on the Hill for a screening of the film in the small theater in the Library of Congress building on the House side. If you think you might be able to help with this could you please contact me.

    Your review and response to comments embody just the sort of sane and sensible approach that is required to actually and finally get Congress to exercise their Constitutional duty of oversight here. I hope we hear more of your voice in this campaign.

    All the best, KFH

  30. Ginny Cotts says:

    Dropped back to check for new comments and appreciate the support very much.

    I was scrolling past the Alex’s #18 comment and noticed something that didn’t jump out at me before.

    “Popular Mechanics did an excellent article, and eventually a book, debunking Steven Jones and his ilk.”

    The Popular Mechanics article was printed in March of 2005. They could not have written about Jones because he was not involved publicly in the 9/11 movement until almost a year later.

    This is exactly the kind of fakery that goes on in accusatory arguments. Sounds good, until you know enough to realize that their facts are NOT facts.

    This is personally amusing to me.

    “Don Quixote was not supposed to be a self-help book, Ginny.”

    My life defining quote is:

    โ€œToo much sanity may be madness. The maddest of all is to see the world as it is and not as it should be.โ€
    Don Quixote, final soliloquy, last act Man of La Mancha.Miguel de Cervantes

    Would be from a PLAY.

    It’s details like that I somehow see for what they are. Not a simple mistake in an attempt to be funny. Humor is funny because the basic point is the truth of it – bassackwards.

    Never change the (real) facts for any reason. It makes no difference to the real story. Not doing the details and the facts could leave you stranded on another planet with a piece of equipment that doesn’t work. Or something just as bad right here.

    See the movie, call your representatives. Contact Kucinich.

  31. Paul says:

    It seems I’m finding this thread months after discussion died down, but thanks for the good review, and for holding to your sense of the facts against Alex and the propaganda.

    A few points that may help:

    1. For more sources to argue against the Popular Mechanics article critical of conspiracy theories, see David Ray Griffin’s book, the title of which is something to the effect of “Debunking the debunkers.”

    2. Regarding the physics of the (three) WTC buildings that came down as if by controlled demolition, Griffin and others have compliled compelling information that includes oral history testimony from firefighters and others who claimed they heard explosions in the towers far lower than the plane impacts, and at times unrelated to the plane impact. This recorded oral testimony was supressed, and released only after some legal battles.

    3. Alex does not address the most compelling points of “Press for truth,” which includes facts about the Bush administration’s efforts to
    a) resist the extablishment of an independent commission for a very long (historically unprecedented) period of time after the events;
    b) limit the scope of the commission’s work to include preventing future attacks (and not examining why and how 9-11 happened);
    c) under-fund the commission to only a small fraction of what was spent investigating the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal;
    d) stonewall and delay in releasing requested documents to the commission;
    e) limit the number of commissioners who had access to the documents released, and in some cases, release only approved, edited versions of those documents;
    f) stack the deck in terms of the choice of commissioners (David Ray Griffin and others make an even better case for this than the movie in regards to the conflicts of interest of Philip Zelikow);
    g) for Bush and Cheney, to agree to testify only in person, with no trascripts or recordings, and not under oath.

    Bush and Cheney, throughout all this, acted as if they had many things to hide.

    Whether one believes in the official account/conspiracy theory regarding the terrorists acting alone, or in some alternate possibility, this list (3.a-g above), if most Americans were aware of it, should be troubling enough to have the citizenry taking to the streets and demanding a new commission and investigation.

    Thanks for your good writing and advocacy on this topic.