-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: How Rabinowtiz lied
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:25:36 -0800
From: jeff strahl <jstrahl@well.com>
Only thing i'd contest here is the separation of gov't and media
(very last sentence), in fact they are two facets of the same ruling
apparatus, in fact the media are closer to the core than the gov't,
they are directly run by the corporate elite who run the banks, oil
companies, chemical companies, airlines, military
contractors,...Within hours they had on Henry Kissinger and former
Israeli premier Barak accusing Islamic terrorists of the attacks and
outlining the war strategy--like they came up with this in a few
hours on the spot.
on 3/1/06 3:17 PM, Gerard Holmgren at holmgren@iinet.net.au wrote:
Evan,
I also work in entertainment, so I don?t need a lecture about how
that works.
Nevertheless, entertainment is not we are engaged in.
We are engaged in
1) Research to determine the truth as far as is possible
2)Strategies to make the results of that research as widely known
as possible.
It is true that communication can be an important component of
entertainment, but on the hand so can deception and so can retreat
into fantasy. So I see little relevance.
Perhaps you are not as experienced in this matter as some of us,
which is why you why hold the naïve - but possibly well intentioned -
view that the mainstream media is where we need to look.
This was indeed my naïve view when I first became involved in this
issue, very soon after the attacks happened. While I expected a
certain amount of denial and corruption I did believe - naively -
that there was an essential core of decency which would eventually
respond to absolute proof.
The continual response (or lack of response) by the media to a
continual barrage of proof from every conceivable angle is itself
proof that it is totally corrupt. You may as well email the white
house or the CIA itself, with some of the evidence and ask them for
an "investigation".
I have learned this through years of beating my head against a
brick wall with the media and with politicians who I thought were on
"our side". I gave up on that aspect sometime in 2003 I think.
But once I became more aware of the media hoax element of sept 11 -
evidence which emerged later than that of govt involvementm, the full
reason became clear.
The media is not merely covering up. In order to understand the
situation fully, you need to realize that the media was actually
directly involved in orchestrating Sept 11 - just as much as the govt
and their agencies. This is hardly surprising when you look at who
owns the media.
It was the media who showed us the cartoon of an animated plane
hitting the WTC in order to sell us the story. It was the media who
touched up pictures of the WTC damage retrospectively to make the
hole a better fit for the wings of a 767.
It was the media who fabricated passenger lists.
It was the media who invented the totally fictitious story of AA43.
You probably don?t know about that one, but I can explain it later if
you like.
After showing us the cartoon of a non existent plane hitting the
WTC, it was the media who pounded us with a shock and awe brain
numbing campaign for the next days, showing us the shocking and
traumatizing footage over and over and over - relentlessly
conditioning us for the war on terror to come.
Speaking of the slogan "War on Terror", if you look at how quickly
the slogan appeared complete with logo, on the bottom of screen
scrolling bars of the media, anyone who has worked in advertising
will know that it would have been impossible to have such a slick and
coordinated marketing campaign slogan and logo up so quickly if it
had not been a pre-fabricated event, with a preset message.
It was the media which uncritically aired the fake OBL confession
video and the fake Nick Berg beheading video.
It is the media which actually airs pre-fabricated 90 second
propaganda clips from the govt and corporations as "news" without any
acknowledgement that they are fact totally planned ,produced,
prefabricated propaganda.
It is the media which still agonizes over "whether we got it
wrong" on WMD.
It is the media which has promoted every loony theory about how the
WTC fell.
It is the media which continues to publish the names and faces of
the 19 mythical hijackers, even after the FBI backed off their
identification claims.
Do I need to go on ?
Nearly all of these lies are supported by Rabinowitz. I suggest
that you re-assess your friendship and re-assess your expectations of
the media.
I wonder if Soviet dissidents were stupid enough to appeal to the
media to publicize their case ? You think ours is any different ?
At least the Soviet citizens knew that their media was simply a
propaganda arm for their oppressive dictators. It seems that most
people in the west haven?t figured that out yet.
Up until Sept 11, although I had hints in that direction, I hadn?t
properly figured it out either.
But a proper study of the evidence will demonstrate that we need to
stop saying 'The govt did Sept 11" and start saying "the Govt and
media did sept 11."
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@vote.org]
Sent: Thursday, 2 March 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: How Rabinowtiz lied
Gerard,
you may be entirely right in every detail. you are probably wrong
in some. i have little way of knowing. Same with mark. i send the
best of what i find to 1 local and 2 national media people. hopefully
one will jump on one of the stories. i participate in the
Denver/Boulder emails, which have been entirely friendly. i am not a
serious investigator of this, but i talk to people about it.
i don't have the infinite time you folks obviously have to try to
argue your case. i am far too busy to read all of your letter below,
or to check who said what when how.
i'm just a regular person who happened to end up on the wrong email
distribution list!
And i decided to tell you how you look to outsiders!
you look like your own worst enemies.
i'm a retired entertainer (http://vote.org/evan)
you'll do far better when you know your audience.
Evan
don't wast any more elctrons. i won't be reading. please everyone
take me OFF the list if you decide to jump in the poison.
Evan wrote
[[Taking 5 minutes to look at this (i don't have more time for
squabbles
like this) it looks like Mark made a mistake, and like Dave, then
accused Gerard of being a disinfo agent. i don't see 'proof' of lying.]]
I thank Evan for the acknowledgement that Rabinowtiz was factually
incorrect and used that factual innaccuray as a basis to accuse me of
cointelpro. As for "I don't see proof of lying" ...it would be
interested then to know what does constitute proof.
As my article shows, Rabinowtiz uses as the basis for his
accusations a claim that the BTS database is a database of "completed
flights". And yet the BTS and my article are absolutely awash with
references to listings of *cancelled* and *diverted* flights on the
BTS. It is simply inconceivable that anyone could come to the
conclusion that Rabinowitz is asserting.
There is absolutely zero - zilch - that could even put this idea
into anyone's mind and the issue is overflowing with references to
the opposite. If Rabinowitz is not guilty of lying over this, then
one can hardly accuse any member of the Bush regime of lying over
anything, because you have set a precedent of the most blatant
porkies being passed off as innocent mistakes.
Rabinowtiz does not help his cause by failing to link to my article
when attacking it - so that people couldn't see what the article
actually says, and failing to link to the BTS to empower his readers
to see what that says.
He compounds this by falsifying my statements.
In addition, whenever Rabinowitz confronts me in public, the first
thing I do is point is out this lie, and yet it remains uncorrected
after all this time, and unapologized for.
[[Whatever the BTS database says, the US National Transportation
Safety Board database DOES include all 4 9/11 crashes:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=9&year=2001
just scroll down to Sept. 11.]]
The NTSB can make up anything it likes. The BTS on the other hand,
receives its data from complex automated flight- linked computers,
which are almost impossible to manipulate manually. Thus the BTS is
almost like a video record of the event, whereas the NTSB is people
*deciding* what they think happened. And they are supposed to make
such decisions on the basis of all the data before them, but the BTS
anomalies themselves prove that the NTSB is lying.
How ? Why does the NTSB not itself refer to the lack of BTS data if
it is a serious investigation? Air disaster investigators are
supposed to look into every nook and cranny to determine everything
about that flight in the search for clues.
The fact that the automated flight data does not exist, and that
there is not any record of the flights being scheduled should be a
major point in the investigation.
And yet the fact that the automated flight data is missing is not
even considered worthy of a mention in the investigation. Assuming
that the flights took place, then what happened to the data? Did the
data transmission systems fail on those two flights ? If so, why? Or
was the data illegally tampered with afterwards? If so by whom and
why ? Furthermore , why were the flights not even listed as
*scheduled*, a process which is separate from the data transmission
which begins when it begins to taxi out?
So there has been a massive failure of mandatory reporting
requirements in relation to these two flights. Why ? Who or what was
responsible for this, and in what way if any is it connected to the
eventual fate of the two flights ? The NTSB does not even acknowledge
this - which shows that it is not conducting an investigation. It is
covering up - making up bullshit. The failure of the NTSB to even
mention the missing data discredits it as a reliable source of
information.
[[Again, NOBODY knows the absolute truth, or the legal truth
without a legal independent investigation. i think a lot of time is
wasted on arguing details when we need to get media attention and a
real investigation. It's like clerics debating how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin 700 years ago.]] Nice one ! Producing
official documentation that two of the allegedly hijacked flights
didn't exist, and that the NTSB is covering this up, is angels
dancing on a pin...and exactly what would be relevant information
then? How about the fact that, independent of any of this, the
passenger lists published by the media for the mythical flight 11 are
proven fakes?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html
That is of course is unless you want to assert that airlines
routinely produce dozens of different passenger lists for the same
flight and give a different one to each media outlet. And that 4
people really did die on both an AA *and* a UA flight on the same
day.
[[we need to get media attention and a real investigation.]] Given
what I just showed about the media and the NTSB (if this is the kind
of thing which Evan calls a "real" investigation...moving right
along...
[[So i urge everyone, including Mark, to stop accusing others of
disinfo.]]
I agree that unsubstantiated allegations - such as those made by
blimpyDave against Ray should stop. But when we catch somebody lying
- like I caught Rabinowitz, then we should say so.
Rabinowtiz's claim against me was unsubstantiated libel. He didn't
even accurately describe what I wrote. On the other hand , my
accusations against him are meticulously detailed with direct quotes,
links and supporting documentation.
There are four stages to presenting evidence for disinformation.
The first is to prove something is incorrect or at least unable to
substantiate it's claims.
This is done in 3 stages.
1) Show that the sources were unreliaable, fraudulent or non
existent. 2) If this is not possible, show that the facts attributed
to those sources were cited incorrectly , or so selectively as to be
misleading. 3)If this is not possible show that the argument
presented as a result is illogical.
Once this is achieved, then in order to expand the accusation to
"disinformation" it must be demonstrated that the faults were of a
nature that the writer was well aware of what they were doing.
blimpyDave has failed to make any of those charges stick against
Ray. Likewise,Rabinowitz's attack on me.
But I completed all 4 steps against Rabinowtiz.
Following this principle, here's more lies from Jim Hoffman.
Jim Hoffman trashes the Sept 11 stand down evidence
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/hoffmanstanddown.html
As for this being "squabbling" - then why "squabble" with the media
when they lie ? Why "squabble" with the govt when it lies ?
Does someone merely have to pin a label to themselves saying "9/11
truthseeker" to then have a special exemption to lie and not be
called to account for it ?
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment