Where is Icke in the 9/11 controversy? [Archive]

View Full Version : Where is Icke in the 9/11 controversy?

ryans53

30-08-2007, 06:13 PM

Most of us are aware that there is a very lively debate ensuing within the so called "9/11 Truth Movement" that has divided some of its members over what this enterprise is supposed to be about. Much of this controversy revolves around how elaborate and exotic the 9/11 plot had to be in order for the crime to be pulled off. One side endorses non-conventional weapons such as energy weapons while the other side prefers more conventional weapons like explosives. Also, there is a divide over the issue of TV fakery and No Planes.

This debate has been discussed in this forum regularly in the last few months, yet David Icke himself, at least to my knowledge, has not really participated in it. I find this a bit puzzling since it is characteristic of Icke to engage in controversial topics and boldly state where he stands on any given issue--especially a topic that is lively in his own forum. In my opinion, Icke's input on the 9/11 controversy would be most welcome and informative since he has so much experience with 9/11 in general, and explosive controversy in particular.

In my opinion, those who put forward the non-conventional weapon and TV fakery hypotheses have been subjected to intense ridicule by the 9/11 community in much the same way Icke was ridiculed throughout the nineties. Because of this, I would suspect that Icke would be interested in this controversy simply because of his similar personal experiences. As far as information goes, it would be extremely useful for Icke to relay to us how he has identified and responded to smear and defamation tactics. After all, in order for us to continue to make wise moves in this game of earthly existence, we profoundly need the ability to discern who is putting forward legitimate information and who is attempting to deceive.

Further, controversies of the kind we find in the 9/11 community are an asset to us insofar as they demand a response from questionable players, demonstrating where they stand and why they stand there. Those who give incomplete, inconsistent, or otherwise suspicious answers--or even avoid the topic altogether--give us a powerful clue about their true character. For this reason, I think it is important for Icke to participate in this controversy. I have my opinions about how what he might say would translate on the legitimate/illegitimate scale, but am just as concerned over his absence on this issue.

What do you think? Anyone else think it is important for Icke to comment on this?

Anders Lindman

30-08-2007, 06:43 PM

I don't know about Icke, but it's striking how different the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were compared to the WTC 7 collapse. The WTC 7 collapse looked like an ordinary controlled demolition, whereas the twin towers came down with a huge plume of pulverized concrete reaching far out to the sides.

fccool

31-08-2007, 02:33 PM

I don't think you really understand what Icke is all about :). If you would, then you would not give a damn what he thinks on the issue (of joining one group or another)... and only care what you think. Essentially what Icke thinks about it does not really matter. In fact in the long run it does not even matter who orchestrated the 911 and HOW they did it. They did it, and they are in control and what people need to realize that conspiracy goes a bit deeper than the first layer of government... and government is just a visible layer of it. What diffference does the trivial things like image fakery or plasma weapons would make? These are just specks in this issue. Even if towers did not fall due to control demolition.... there are still tons of issues such as Norad and AFA standing down, the worlds militry base being hit by plane.... and the way the investigation was carried out.
So right now what we have are those people who argue over trivial matters and miss the big picture. The truth of the matter is ... they could have carried out 911 in thousands of different ways. Understand that the clues that were left behind were left behind intentionally. 1) For misleading 2) For misleading...

911 Truth movement is not a very rational movement right now. 911 is not a problem , it is only a result of the problem. I appreciate people asking questions, but what you doing here is to push somebody into "picking a side" in arguing on what IMO appears to be a trivial matter. I don't know what Icke thinks on the issue (because I'm not him), but my guess would be that he thinks it's all a bullshit matter. It's like arguing about the shapes in your serial... is a a horseshew or a cloud? It's all serial and it's a shitty breakfast :) ... and the sooner people realize it the better.

christophera

31-08-2007, 04:21 PM

What diffference does the trivial things like image fakery or plasma weapons would make? These are just specks in this issue. Even if towers did not fall due to control demolition.... there are still tons of issues such as Norad and AFA standing down, the worlds militry base being hit by plane.... and the way the investigation was carried out.
So right now what we have are those people who argue over trivial matters and miss the big picture. The truth of the matter is ... they could have carried out 911 in thousands of different ways. Understand that the clues that were left behind were left behind intentionally. 1) For misleading 2) For misleading...

fccool, I'll paraphrase what you say above.

"We have the people that argue about the trivial (sic) matters and miss the big picture "they" could have carried out 9-11 in thousands of ways."

It is a serius error to state that the event of the Twin Towers coming down could be achieved any other than ONE way. I assure that it did happen ONE way and that if ANOTHER way, ANY OTHER way were attempted, it would look completely different.

TOTALLY different.

The "tons" of issues you list are not issues that Americans can do anything about WITHOUT a fully accountable government.

What I've just said essentially is that ONE ISSUE must be selected for all AMERICANS to get behind and focus on in order to create an accountable government.

I will add that the issue selected must also be presented by media to America. Essentially what I've just said is that media controls us and our ability to create an accountable government.

Of the "tons" of issues, media would and could mention any, but would not find that focus on any would be justified because none of the issues in the mix are issues that elected officials can present without marginalizing their presentational position with the IMPLICATION of conspiracy.

The above reasoning is what I use to justify the proposition that the misrepresentation of the Twin Towers design and construction is the single most powerful issue that an American official can bring to bear on their surrounding government which media can also focus upon, IF, enough public interest is involved to bring numerous officials to focus onthe same matter.

Let us not lose sight of the dynamics involved.

ON EDIT:

911 Truth movement is not a very rational movement right now. 911 is not a problem , it is only a result of the problem.

The truth movement could be rational if the quasi leadership were not intent on subverting it by supporting the impossible structure FEMA states existed which also cannot be supported with raw evidence. The support for the impossible is obscuring the possible cause of the phenomenal event.

MOST IMPORTANTLY; 9-11 as a result of the problem is even less likely to be adequately addressed because the essence of that problem is an issue which America is in deep denial of since before America existed. Secret societies and HOW the secret that creates secrets operates.

That problem is a socio-religious, spiritual problem and even mentioning it causes cognitive dissonance.

The situation is like an onion and the first layer is 9-11, or perhaps the problem of the public creating focus on an issue that the media MUST focus on.

ryans53

31-08-2007, 05:42 PM

fccool-

What I'm asking about Icke isn't so much what "side" he might ultimately take in the issue, but how he feels about the division itself. My motivation for this isn't that I feel Icke should or should not embrace a particular camp; rather, my motivation is that there is a parallel between Icke's work on the reptillians and others' work on exotic weaponry/TV fakery in 9/11 to the extent that ideas are fiercely condemned before they are fully heard. The sort of mentality that attempts to silence other points of view is precisely the sort that holds the so called Matrix together. In other words, to break free of the Matrix, a tolerance for uncomfortable new ideas is precisely what is needed within mass consciousness-- not hostility towards them. So I would like to stress that this is not primarily about Icke's preferred camp but about the viability of the market of ideas.

There is a parallel here with Icke's most recent newsletter. In it he writes:

"I am delighted when anyone, no matter what their belief, takes the trouble to communicate information that people need to know about the way the world is controlled and manipulated, but they do a great disservice to the greater good if they insist that anyone who goes further than them must be either mad or an agent of the state."

He is largely speaking here of his personal experiences in the conspiracy community and the ridicule he vehemently received over the years. His work on the reptillians is particularly relevant here. Even if his ideas about the reptillian connection turn out to be wrong, it nevertheless remains the case that he is and always was utterly justified in relaying his information about it. No one with a serious interest in understanding our world to the fullest extent possible is justified in ridiculing another person merely because the information offered is "too bizarre." So, the ridicule and active censorship of the more "bizarre" 9/11 ideas is another instance of the limitations on ideas Icke himself has experienced. For this reason, since Icke was perfectly justified in offering his research into the reptillians, 9/11 researchers must also be justified in offering their findings on non-conventional weaponry and TV fakery.

Icke also says in the newsletter:

"It is the way that people kid themselves that they are freethinkers while they continue to live in prisons of the mind and how they talk about the conspiracy while belief systems implanted by the conspiracy, like religion and 'rational science', continue to control their reality."

My worry is that if a fairly major instance of censorship continues to exist in the 9/11 movement, then, without adequate attention, the less experienced of the "awakened population" will continue to "kid themselves that they are freethinkers" and defend the Matrix system while of the belief that they are dismantling it. I happen to believe that Icke's credibility and experience in this area has enormous potential to help alleviate this problem if only he would talk about it. His recent newsletter alludes to this idea, but I think an explicit comment would be far more effective.

auron

31-08-2007, 06:03 PM

http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Images/Book%20Library/Alice%20in%20Wonderland.jpg

sidlittle

31-08-2007, 06:16 PM

What diffference does the trivial things like image fakery or plasma weapons would make?

It implicates the media and exposes much respected media personalities as traitors. It threatens the very structure that has held us in suppression and exposes the sheer overwhelming vastness of this conspiracy that many of us seem to acknowledge yet still have difficulty accepting. In short, it attacks the head of the beast. Hardly trivial.

As I understand, Icke has previously undertaken the 'don't go there' standpoint to no planes. However, this was a fair while ago and I would be curious to his current opinion in light of the obvious increased popularity of the tv fakery issue- popularity that some well established 911 forum members curiously attempt to play down.

i_am

31-08-2007, 09:30 PM

This debate has been discussed in this forum regularly in the last few months, yet David Icke himself, at least to my knowledge, has not really participated in it. I find this a bit puzzling since it is characteristic of Icke to engage in controversial topics and boldly state where he stands on any given issue--especially a topic that is lively in his own forum. In my opinion, Icke's input on the 9/11 controversy would be most welcome and informative since he has so much experience with 9/11 in general, and explosive controversy in particular.

What do you think? Anyone else think it is important for Icke to comment on this?

Hello ryan53

The forum guidelines as stated below that David will not be participating in the forum.

It is for us to discuss his work.

As auron pointed out, he has written a book about his thoughts and if you go to the main website and do a search for 9-11, you will find plenty.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/announcement.php?f=5&a=2

Questions to David Icke
David Icke will not be participating or answering questions on this forum. He is extremely busy with writing a book, and the forum would simply take up too much of his time. Please do not use this forum as a ground to post messages or questions to David.

ryans53

31-08-2007, 11:19 PM

I didn't expect David to comment himself in the forum, I was more interested in what other people's opinions were here. I see that my comment about David not participating in the discussion was more ambiguous. What I meant was that he hasn't said much about it in general--be it newsletters or interviews--yet there seems to be at least some interest within his forum members.

I have read his book on 9/11, all of his newsletters and seen all of his video-casts but have not, unless I missed something, seen him comment on this issue yet or post many links on the headlines page about it. If he has I will gladly stand corrected, but from my fairly regular monitoring of this site I have not seen anything that might represent his thinking on this. My interest is to find out what others think he might say on the subject and to perhaps hear why people think one way or the other. I personally think this issue is worthy of comment, not so much because of the implications behind each side's position, but because of the hostility over ideas that, I think, others here may disagree, is so destructive to the pursuit of truth.

fccool

01-09-2007, 04:20 AM

My worry is that if a fairly major instance of censorship continues to exist in the 9/11 movement, then, without adequate attention, the less experienced of the "awakened population" will continue to "kid themselves that they are freethinkers" and defend the Matrix system while of the belief that they are dismantling it. I happen to believe that Icke's credibility and experience in this area has enormous potential to help alleviate this problem if only he would talk about it. His recent newsletter alludes to this idea, but I think an explicit comment would be far more effective.

I totally understand where you are coming from. But I think I'm somewhat gotten over the fact that the average person does not and will not give a damn unless they have nothing to loose. So, just like cypher in the matrix they would prefer the system istead of the truth. You tell people about this stuff and they seem to be very interested until you get to the part that in order for truth to exist the lie has to stop. You can't eat your cake and have it at the same time.
The reality is as I've mentioned 1000 of times before... the American prosperety comes at the cost of the third world slave labor who are willing to work for paper... just as long as the rest of the world will believe that paper has value. Now the push is to get rid of the paper all together. So if you search the history the 911 is only a tip of the iseberg. It is just the final stage of the veeery old plan. The US is a stepping stone Empire that basically was created to unite the world by means of the dolllar. 911 had very little to do with Iraq or even control IMO. It would not make much sence to start a costly war just to save the dollar. If the creators of this economy really wanted to keep it they would not do stupid things like these. But IMO what was happening behind the scenes while we were preoccupied arguing about whether or not we landed on the moon in 50s... some background history.

1) USA was founded as a nation with absolute power given to government, while making it look like it would be split into three branches that would keep ech other accountable. Somehow the "founding fathers" overlooked the fact that these people work for the same entity that feeds them, so it is in their best interest to monopolize the control. And so it happened. So for those who think that by changing the ruling parties from "bad guys" to "good guys" will ever change anything, then think twice. Absolute power corrupts, especially in environment of overblown beuracracy. Would you bite a hand that feeds? Would anybody?

2) World Wars were instigated to bring about the global economy of which the least damaged by the wars US would emmerge as a leader. It would print paper in return for actual labor and goods and would enjoy a nice "prosperous" economy at home while endulging in bread and circuses.

3) The rest of the world buys into the concept of a Almighty Dollar thus bringing about the financial world order.

4) US spends heavily on the military and other bogus expenditures while borrowing from the other countries by giving them IOUs that earn interest. The other countries are gladly except those with hope of getting rich from "prosperous" US economy... eating crumbs from the Emperor's table so to speak.

5) The powers that run the whole show see that now is the time to execute the final stage of the age old plan - bringing the whole thing down so that the Phoenix can rise out of the ashes.

6) An idiot is installed to be a president, so when the shit hits the fan everything can be blamed on the government's inability. Massive credit infusions are pumped into the already bursting money market. FED stops publishing the M3 in order to hide how much money they pump into the system in order to make sure that the crash is very severe when it happens.

7) In order to infuse money even further a war is needed, but US will not go into a war without an enemy. So 911 is orchestrated. The clues are left behind to blame the current Idiot president and his government for wanting to go into war to gain control. Behind the scenes massive infusions of dollars are carried out by ways of borrowing, credit expansion and paying for the cost of war and "national security". Overstating the price of the real estate also swollows all of that money to hide the real effects of the infusion temporarily. Foreghn borrowers also take some money by selling useless junk and keeping the money in their savings accounts, thus also preventing the economic instability.

_____________________________________________

Everything above the line was the past. Now the present and the speculative (my speculations that is) future

8) In order to make the collapse global there has to be ovestated panic which will be fueled by the media. So my guess is that economic collapse will begin very slow in the morning and by the end of the day people will riot on the streets fighting for food and gas as the stores close and refuse to sell products for worthless paper. People will sit home bound to their TVs not believing their eyes, and media will infuse even more fear and panic which will cause the whole global economy be flushed down the toilet. So store up on some food to at least get you through 1 month. Even if its something minor. I'm not trying to be paranoid, but reasonable. I lived through collapse of Soviet Union, so the first month is the hardest as people refuse to sell necessities such as food and fuel. Also, learn to see through bulshit and understand how economics really works. This is the way the world is being manipulated... primarily though money.... and the money that people stored up in their savings accounts will be gone. My parents worked their ass off for years, and when hyperinflation hit they could buy two loaves of bread with their entire life savings.

Here's a picture to illustrate the concept:

http://www.germannotes.com/inf.jpg

That's stacks of money that lady from 1923 Germany is buirning to keep warm. It will be much worse because people are not expecting it.

9) People will blame bad governmental policies and wreckless war, and a new plan will be pushed for a more stable global economy and global government that will keep the local governments in check. During the time of crises the changes willl move at much faster pace. During the time of crices nobody will care if government will execute the dissenders. People will beg for stability, and it will come in form of the global governmnet with global religion and global financial system.

So that's the big picture I'm talking about and in light of that picture whether the planes hit the Towers or these were faked digitally... it does not really matter. The outcome is the same in any case. Understanding economics and telling people about the Matrix money system is much more important IMO, and for some reason it is overlooked or paid very little attention to. Even in the "truth movement" realm people believe that everything is ok as long as we change the current government that is the "epidemy of all evil". But they don't realize that they themselves are a part of something much more sinister that is being worked around behind the scenes. So that's my whole point.

christophera

01-09-2007, 08:01 AM

So that's the big picture I'm talking about and in light of that picture whether the planes hit the Towers or these were faked digitally... it does not really matter. The outcome is the same in any case. Understanding economics and telling people about the Matrix money system is much more important IMO, and for some reason it is overlooked or paid very little attention to. Even in the "truth movement" realm people believe that everything is ok as long as we change the current government that is the "epidemy of all evil". But they don't realize that they themselves are a part of something much more sinister that is being worked around behind the scenes. So that's my whole point.

Excellent account and projection. Given the severe inability of Americans to unify meaningfully and use what is almost gone, rights and freedoms, it is about certain that the process you describe is but around the corner.

However, knowing that, are we willing to see it all happen again because we are afraid of addressing the methods of secrecy that are used to have the control you describe so dynamically.

If we do not address the secrecy, and it can be understood, it will just happen over and over.

From what I can tell, the secrecy, or what we call secrecy, is actually UNCONSCIOUS which is better than a secret. There are groups exploiting the unconscious human mind behind social fears created to give knowledge of the unconscious fearul patina whereupon few are willing to address it. From what I can tell, if we, the people could use the same knowledge, a great deal of our dependency could be removed, our weakness obliviated, and we create freedom in that way rather than attempting to force the powerful to recognize that we should have it and make it available via a social contract.

It requires spiritual courage with unwavering understanding and faith in love however, so the thought languishes decade after decade in our fearful confusion.

i_am

01-09-2007, 08:42 AM

I didn't expect David to comment himself in the forum, I was more interested in what other people's opinions were here. I see that my comment about David not participating in the discussion was more ambiguous. What I meant was that he hasn't said much about it in general--be it newsletters or interviews--yet there seems to be at least some interest within his forum members.

I have read his book on 9/11, all of his newsletters and seen all of his video-casts but have not, unless I missed something, seen him comment on this issue yet or post many links on the headlines page about it.

I think David made his point about it when it happened and from time to time adds something. I heard him talk just a month or so after it happened and believe me he had plenty to say :)

I just did a quick search and found a number of links to stories. Some may have comments by David.

http://www.davidicke.com/index.php?searchword=9-11&option=com_search&Itemid=

ryans53

01-09-2007, 03:42 PM

I think David made his point about it when it happened and from time to time adds something. I heard him talk just a month or so after it happened and believe me he had plenty to say :)

I just did a quick search and found a number of links to stories. Some may have comments by David.

http://www.davidicke.com/index.php?searchword=9-11&option=com_search&Itemid=

I know David has talked at length about 9/11 as a problem-reaction-solution event plenty of times in public. However, I have not heard him comment on Judy Wood's work on the possibility of directed energy weapons, Morgan Reynolds' work on the physical impossibilities of aluminum airplanes interacting with the trade towers the way the footage suggests, or the TV Fakery researchers who argue that there are visible anomalies in the television footage itself that imply the use of Hollywood-style special effects in place of real footage. Again, I do not expect David to have a definitive opinion about the truth or falsity of the above theories, but I am of the belief that the hostility over both, the existence of such theories, and the people who offer them, would be of interest to David because these hostile attitudes are of the same sort that attacked David's ideas over the reptillians.

There are many otherwise respectable figures in the 9/11 movement that have publicly chastised the above research merely on the grounds that the theories are too "out there" to be true, or else argue that even if they were true it would add nothing to the movement because enough has been established already to prove the government's involvement. The latter argument might then say that the controversial theories can actually do harm to the movement because neutral people would be less likely to take the 9/11 movement as a whole seriously when these "hard to believe" theories catch their attention. All of these grounds for categorically rejecting this kind of research is, in my opinion, a matter of great concern to anyone interested in maintaining a free market of ideas. In other words, people need information to make informed decisions about, not only seemingly isolated individual events, but the full structure of our reality. This is a point that I believe David is very passionate about. He has said many times that what he has to say is only information and that no one has to believe him if they don't want to. I think this is precisely what is happening in the non-conventional/TV Fakery research--they are offering information that can either be accepted or dismissed, but not forced. The problem is that there is a mentality within some groups that feel justified in arguing for the silencing or censoring of these views. The better mentality, in my opinion, and what I suspect would be David's opinion, would be to allow these theories to exist in public for individuals to contemplate on their own. If they are inadequate theories, then they should reveal themselves as such in time. It is this more tolerant mentality that we need to encourage in this field of "conspiracy" work so that ideas like David's and others can be heard and considered by greater numbers of people to help wake mass consciousness up. That is why I would like to hear David say something about this issue at some point. I followed your link and did some more searches of my own through the archive but did not find anything about non-conventional weaponry or TV Fakery in there. If anyone were to come across a specific piece of material that David has put forward on this subject please let me know where to find it.

masonfree party

03-09-2007, 09:40 PM

And you think tv fakery doesn't go on?

Top Gun versus Sergeant Bilko?
No contest, says the Pentagon

Scripts can often be the first casualty in Hollywood's theatre of war

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guar...,543821,00.html

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Wednesday August 29, 2001
The Guardian

Hollywood film-makers have frequently changed plot lines, altered history and amended scripts at the request of the Pentagon, according to recently released military documents. Producers and directors have often agreed to changes in order to gain access to expensive military hardware or to be able to film on military property.

On many occasions films have been changed so that the US armed forces are shown in a more heroic fashion. Film companies agree to the changes because doing so saves them millions in production costs. If film-makers do not agree to alterations, assistance is withheld.

Among films that have been given approval and help by the Pentagon are Armageddon, Air Force One, The Jackal, Pearl Harbour and Top Gun. Those that have failed the test include Forrest Gump, Mars Attacks!, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now, Sgt Bilko, Platoon and Independence Day.

One internal army memo about Forrest Gump, which starred Tom Hanks, suggested that "the generalised impression that the army of the 1960s was staffed by the guileless or by soldiers of limited intelligance" was unacceptable. "This impression is neither accurate nor beneficial to the army."

Of the scene when Tom Hanks shows a scar on his buttock to President Johnson, a navy memo states: "The 'mooning' of a president by a uniformed solider is not acceptable cinematic licence."

The documents indicate that the Pentagon sees the film business as an important part of public relations. "Military depictions have become more of a 'commercial' for us," said one memo quoted in an investigation by David Robb in the current issue of the media magazine Brill's Content.

In GI Jane, the 1997 film starring Demi Moore, one scene in a foxhole originally showed a male serviceman having difficulty relieving himself in her presence. "While addressing issues related to the presence of women in front-line ground combat, the urination scene in the foxhole carries no benefit to the US navy," wrote US navy commander Gary Shrout to the director, Ridley Scott. Scott wrote back that "this scene has been eliminated" and agreed to other changes but the end result was still unacceptable.

In Hearts in Atlantis, due out later this year and starring Anthony Hopkins, there is no military plot but the film-makers wanted to use land belonging to the army. The Pentagon agreed and suggested that the film could include a shot of an army recruiting booth in a carnival scene.

When Top Gun, starring Tom Cruise, opened in the US, navy recruiting booths were set up in cinemas. Cooperation had been given after the character played by Kelly McGillis was changed from an enlisted woman to someone outside the service, as relationships between officers and enlisted personnel are forbidden in the navy.

The film companies are often shown in the documents to be more than anxious to help. "We firmly believe that with the support of the US military, Armageddon will be the biggest film of 1998, while illustrating the expertise, leadership and heroism of the US military," wrote Disney executive Philip Nemy to the Pentagon.

The Jackal, starring Bruce Willis and Richard Gere, received help after the marines were given a better role. Major Nancy LaLuntas had objected that the helicopter pilots had no "integral part in the action - they are effectively taxi drivers."

A letter from film's director, Michael Caton-Jones, stated: "I am certain that we can address the points that you raised ... and effect the appropriate changes in the screenplay that you requested."

In GoldenEye, the 1995 James Bond film, the original script had a US Navy admiral betraying state secrets, but this was changed to make the traitor a member of the French navy - after which cooperation was forthcoming.

The makers of Independence Day agreed to turn the secretary of defence, under whom military installations fell to alien invaders, into the White House chief of staff, but still did not win approval.

The writer and producer, Dean Devlin, had told the Pentagon: "If this doesn't make every boy in the country want to fly a fighter jet, I'll eat this script." But a Department of Defence memo concluded: "The military appears impotent and/or inept; all advances in stopping aliens are the result of actions by civilians."

Mars Attacks! and the comedy Sgt Bilko also failed the test.

The financial incentives for film companies are great because military hardware is enormously expensive and difficult to hire, with the Israeli air force being one of the few services that rents out its equipment.

Philip Strub, special assistant for the entertainment media at the Pentagon, said yesterday that the military was often asked to help when a film was still in development. He said that after changes had been suggested it was a matter of trust that the film-makers would honour the changes and he was not aware of any injunction ever being taken to stop a film being shown: "It would be anathema to us (to interfere with) the artists' rights and first amendment rights ... We regard it as a success when we work with a film-maker on a project and a lack of success when we don't."

Some films the Pentagon had been unable to assist, he said. Saving Private Ryan was shot in Europe where the US had no second world war equipment. Some projects, like the anti-war Born on the Fourth of July, never asked for help, he said. He added he anticipated that growth of computer-generated imagery meant that requests for help would decrease.

Cheryl Rhoden of the Writers Guild of America West, said yesterday that she was aware of the issue. "Any time that any outside entity attempts to effect changes is of concern to writers," she added.

Films which obtained cooperation:

. 911 news feeds

• Air Force One

• The Caine Mutiny

• A Few Good Men

• From Here to Eternity

• Armageddon

• The Longest Day

• The Hunt for Red October

• Pearl Harbour

• Patton

• Patriot Games

• Top Gun

• Windtalkers (to be released)

• The Jackal

• Hamburger Hill

• Hearts in Atlantis (to be released)

• The Longest Day

• GoldenEye

• The American President

• Behind Enemy LInes (to be released)

• Apollo 13

• Tomorrow Never Dies

• Tora! Tora! Tora!

• A Time to Kill

Films denied cooperation:

• Apocalypse Now

• Catch-22

• Broken Arrow

• Die Hard 2

• Dr Strangelove

• Forrest Gump

• Full Metal Jacket

• GI Jane

• Independence Day

• The Last Detail

• Lone Star

• Mars Attacks!

• Memphis Belle

• An Officer and a Gentleman

• Platoon

• Sgt Bilko

• The Thin Red Line

john white

04-09-2007, 05:07 AM

What on earth does the Pentagon looking to get good recruitment PR out of Hollywood, and therefore supporting "positive" scripts that dont show War to be hell and the military to be hopelessly incompetant and insane, have to do with "TV fakery no planes hit the WTC"?

Nothing, that's what

masonfree party

04-09-2007, 07:53 AM

CNN,FOX,ABC etc amended 911 scripts or already had them in place at the request of the Pentagon....its obvious john boy

john white

04-09-2007, 11:44 AM

CNN,FOX,ABC etc amended 911 scripts or already had them in place at the request of the Pentagon....its obvious john boy

Its one giant leap to assumption is what it is Mason lad

and even if that was the case: its still got nothing whatsoever to do with evidence for "no Planes"

mr_pixie

04-09-2007, 04:14 PM

ryans53

05-09-2007, 03:39 AM

Mr. Pixie-

Thanks for that information. Do you know when David is scheduled to go on the James Whale Show? I checked David's site and James' site but couldn't find it listed. Now that David's book is done perhaps he has some extra time to look into these issues and have something of substance to say about it.

mr_pixie

05-09-2007, 04:55 PM

dondaz

06-09-2007, 10:34 AM

Well said fccool. About sums the situation up so far.

Most people won't wake up untill they are getting their teeth kicked in by the powers that be. Boy will they kick back when that happens.

chandrakavi

26-09-2007, 03:44 AM

This is a great book on 9/11, and
NWO, no one should miss it.
ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER
BY DAVID ICKE

tiswas

02-10-2007, 11:00 AM

Alice in Wonderland was the first Icke book I've read.