CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE – THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT

Posted by on Aug 24, 2011 in Archival

Confronting the Evidence:
Program Outline and Script
Copyright (c) 2004
[ INDEX ] – [ FULL SCRIPT ]
NOTE (9/21/04): 
The following script was used as the framework for “CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE,” the 9/11/04 program at the Manhattan Center. The entire production was put together in three weeks from scratch, including guest list, original film clips and promotion. The script went through many versions, as changes were made and guests were added right up until showtime. This meant that talent and crew had to implement the script with just a few hours lead time. 
The script specifies the order in which guests appear and films are played, and provides suggested text for the hosts to use in bridging and introducing the various segments. The bulk of the time during the program was taken up by presenters and panel discussions. The presentations themselves, making up the majority of program content, are NOT included here.  This is NOT a transcript. Various deviations from the script during the actual program are specified in RED. 
Those involved did not just do well under difficult circumstances; they performed brilliantly, and produced a truly historic event. 
– Nicholas Levis and Bryan Sacks
OVERVIEW
PREPARATION
PRE-GAME SHOW (DOORS OPEN AND MEDIA AVAILABILITY) (7 PM)
PRESS CONFERENCE (7:15-7:45PM)
PROGRAM STARTS (8 PM)
PART TWO (9:51 PM)
FINISH (11:25)
The program is divided into two Parts, with a break. Each Part includes a panel discussion in the middle and at the end (total of four). The second panel discussion in each part includes audience Q&A. 
There are 20 Segments, numbered 1 through 20, and eight film Clips, labeled A through H.
Times specified for each segment include moderation and bridging.
All times specified in the script are ending times!
——-INDEX——-
PART ONE – from 8PM until…
8:05 1) WELCOME AND CLIP A: A TRIBUTE TO THE FALLEN (5:00)
8:08 2) HOSTS AND INTRODUCTION (3:00)
8:13 3) JENNA ORKIN: AIR POISONING AT GROUND ZERO (5:00)
8:21 4) SPEAKER TBA: UNREPORTED BOMBSHELL (8:00)
[NOTE: During the last hour before the program, this section was ordered cut by the financer.]
8:26 5) CLIP B: THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (5:00)
8:41 6) FIRST PANEL DISCUSSION (15:00)
WITH KRISTINA BORJESSON, DR. ROBERT BOWMAN, PAUL THOMPSON
, CHRISTOPHER SCHEER
8:50 7) CLIP C: DAVID RAY GRIFFIN ON THE 9/11 COMMISSION (9:00)
9:00 8) PAUL THOMPSON: PAKISTAN CONNECTION Powerpoint (10:00)
9:06 9) CLIP D: OBSTRUCTION & CORRUPTION IN FBI (6:00)
9:11 10) MODERATORS: MILITARY RESPONSE (5:00)
[NOTE: Under a last-minute arrangement, most of this was replaced by a speech on the same subject by Robert Bowman.]
9:31 11) SECOND PANEL DISCUSSION AND AUDIENCE Q&A (20:00)
WITH SCHEER, BORJESSON, BOWMAN
INTRODUCING JOHN PRADOS, KARL SCHWARZ
ROAMERS (PICKING OUT AUDIENCE SEGMENTS)
[NOTE: Again, there were no “roamers.”]
9:51 BREAK (20:00)
During break: ANNOUNCEMENTS AND A SEGMENT FROM CRAIG HILL FILM
[NOTE: Film not shown, due to unknown technical problems.]
LES JAMIESEN on New York 9/11 truth activities
Option of JAMES WALTER Introducing Part Two
PART TWO 9:51 until…
9:54 12) INTRODUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FORUM (3:00)
10:00 13) CLIP E: COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 (6:00)
10:07 14) CLIP F: PENTAGON FLASH ANIMATION (7:00)
10:19 15) JEFF KING: COLLAPSES OF TWIN TOWERS (12:00)
10:24 16) SCOTT FORBES: POWERDOWN MYSTERY (5:00)
[NOTE: No phone link to Forbes, due to unknown technical problems.]
10:39 17) THIRD PANEL DISCUSSION (15:00)
THOMPSON, PRADOS, WEBSTER TARPLEY, TOM GORDON
PHONE LINK TO ERIC HUFSCHMID
[NOTE: No phone link to Hufschmid, due to unknown technical problems.]
10:47 18) DAVID VON KLEIST (with CLIP G: IN PLANE SITE) (8:00)
10:55 19) BARRIE ZWICKER: HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS (8:00)
11:20 20) FINAL PANEL DISCUSSION AND AUDIENCE Q&A (25:00)
THOMPSON, TARPLEY, CRAIG HILL, KYLE HENCE
[NOTE: Hence chose not to appear. Mr. Christopher Bollyn took his place.]
ROAMERS (PICKING OUT AUDIENCE QUESTIONS)
11:25 21) CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION (5:00)
————————- SCRIPT —————————
PRE-GAME SHOW
7PM
DOORS OPEN TO PUBLIC AND MEDIA AVAILABILITY
People filter in, go to tables, admire ballroom.
Arriving media received and chaperoned to interview opportunities with guests.
Henceforth: ALL TIMES ARE ENDING TIMES
PART ONE – from 8 PM until…
…8:05 p.m. 1) WELCOME AND CLIP A: A TRIBUTE TO THE FALLEN (5:00)
ED BEGLEY:
Good evening, and welcome to “Confronting the Evidence: September 11th and the Search for Truth.” I’m Ed Begley, and I’ll be your host for this evening’s program. I’d like to ask you please to finish taking your seats, as we shall begin in a moment. I don’t need to tell you that tonight marks the third anniversary of the September 11th events. To begin tonight’s program, we ask you to join us in tribute to the fallen of that day, people from New York and the United States and eighty other nations, and to those who live on.
RUN FILM CLIP A
“A TRIBUTE TO THE FALLEN” (Mike Berger, 4:00 mins. film run time)
[Set to music, the clip focuses on the human element, showing disaster and loss; Ground Zero and first response; the missing and the grieving; funeral and memorial ceremonies of different faiths; clean-up and the dogged persistence of the searchers; art, memorialization and differing ways of dealing with the horror; the coming-together of the families; briefly, Sept. 11 family members at the hearings of the Commission that they fought to gain; and a return to the present, looking forward.]
CLIP ENDS
…8:08 p.m. 2) HOSTS: INTRODUCTION (3:00)
SPOTLIGHT ON
ED BEGLEY:
(Asks simply for a moment of silence)
LIGHTS UP
(ED and JAMEY take positions. To their left, a set-up for up to 6 panelists at a time.)
ED:
Welcome once again. I’d like to introduce you to my co-host this evening, Jamey Hecht. In the next few hours, we shall embark upon a difficult journey, as we ask you to reconsider the horrifying events of September 11th in a new and troubling light. The evidence you will see and hear tonight is dramatic and startling. If this is your first exposure to this evidence, you may feel uncomfortable and challenged to confront your prior assumptions about September 11th. If you have already been exposed to these issues, you may feel relieved that the lingering questions you harbored have also captured the attention of a large group of gifted researchers. Some of them have been questioning the official story of Sept. 11th from the very first days after the attacks.
The questions these researchers have raised have been the subject of countless articles and discussions initiated by citizens in their homes and neighborhoods, and using the medium of the Internet. This alternative discussion, despite being met with a deafening official silence by the commercial media, has nevertheless had an enormous impact on what people think. Just last month, a representative poll commissioned from Zogby International found that about one-half of this city’s residents do not believe that the attacks came by surprise. 41 percent of New York state residents overall believe that authorities in the U.S. government actually knew about the attacks in advance, and consciously failed to take action.
JAMEY:
Why does so large a group of people believe such a thing? And why have their questions been ignored? We believe we owe the victims, their surviving family members and all citizens a searching and fearless examination of the events of 9/11, wherever it leads. We know of no way to better honor the fallen. In support of this effort, we humbly request that you draw your own conclusions as we confront the evidence together and aim at a more complete account of the events of 9/11.
…8:13 p.m. 3) JENNA ORKIN: AIR POISONING AT GROUND ZERO (5:00)
JAMEY:
The film you saw at the beginning contained many images of first responders at Ground Zero and citizens of New York in the weeks after the disaster. If you are among those to whom it seems impossible that the authorities would actually allow 9/11 to happen for political gain, at such an enormous cost to human life, consider what the authorities knowingly allowed to happen to the residents of this city immediately after September 11th. Let me please introduce Jenna Orkin of the World Trade Center Environmental Organization.
JENNA ORKIN steps up to podium.
(3 MINS.) [She picks up the point as it is given to her, explaining that people could have taken a number of precautions against the health hazards caused by the dust cloud over Manhattan in the weeks after the attacks; except that the White House acted to suppress initial findings of toxicity, and everyone was told instead that the air was safe and there was no need for such precautions. How many more people will have their lives shortened unnecessarily because of these false assurances?]
ED:
Thank you Jenna. Why did the authorities give false assurances about the air in Manhattan following Sept. 11, when they surely knew better? Were they acting to limit liability for property owners, or to keep the economy going during the weeks of greatest danger? Regardless of the motive, the example of the poison air – which happened in a painfully obvious fashion – shows us that some authorities have acted with reckless disregard for human life.
…8:21 p.m. 4) SPEAKER TBA: UNREPORTED BOMBSHELL (8:00)
[CUT.]
… 8:26 p.m. 5) CLIP B: THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (5:00)
JAMEY:
What else was left out from the report? Before we study many more such details, it’s time to look at the big picture. What has caused a community of thousands of so-called 9/11 skeptics and researchers to construct an alternative hypothesis of the attacks? What do people imagine as a possible motive for intentionally allowing 9/11 to happen?
RUN FILM CLIP B (4:00): “A NEW PEARL HARBOR?”
(The clip is from the documentary, “Hijacking Catastrophe” – PERMISSION OBTAINED.)
[The segment from “Hijacking Catastrophe: 911, Fear, and the Selling of the American Empire” describes the rise of the defense doctrine of total spectrum dominance under the first Bush administration, followed by the creation of the “Project for a New American Century” in the late 1990s. The members of PNAC include the major players in the Bush administration’s drive for war: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. Published in the year 2000, their manifesto, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” admits the costly and dangerous transformation they desire will not gain support from the public without a “New Pearl Harbor
.” A year later, we see the “New Pearl Harbor” arrive, on Sept. 11th: the two crashes into the towers, the two tower collapses, the Pentagon strike. Very dramatic footage reviews the key disasters of Sept. 11. To complete the sequence of events on Sept. 11, we added additional footage from the little-known collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.]
ED:
The film segment you just saw is about four minutes from “Hijacking Catastrophe,” a documentary produced by the Media Education Foundation. You can find out more information about it at www.hijackingcatastrophe.org, and you can purchase the DVD at the rear. So delicate are the questions surrounding 9/11 that even a documentary as powerful and well-done as “Hijacking Catastrophe” does not actually address the official story of Sept. 11, or investigate the background of the attacks. But it does present a view of the big picture, within which the questions become logical. We made one addition to the catastrophic images at the end of the clip, because we noticed the film had left out the last disaster of the day: the collapse of a third skyscraper at the World Trade Center site, Building 7. More on that later.
…8:41 6) FIRST PANEL DISCUSSION (15:00)
WITH K
RISTINA BORJESSON, DR. ROBERT BOWMAN, PAUL THOMPSON, CHRISTOPHER SCHEER
ED
(introduces panel): Kristina Borjesson is the author of Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. She won an Emmy and a Murrow Award for her investigative reporting. Christopher Scheer is a staff writer for Alternet. He is co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. Paul Thompson has compiled the world’s most compendious resource of mainstream press stories about the events of Sept. 11, “The Complete 9/11 Timeline,” at www.cooperativeresearch.org. Thompson’s work has been widely praised, not only among those who question the official story, but also in mainstream press reviews. His work has just been published in book form by Harper-Collins as The Terror Timeline. Finally, Dr. Robert Bowman, a man who flew 101 combat missions as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, and who today takes a stand against war. He directed all of the government’s “starwars” programs under Ford and Carter, and opposed them under Reagaon. He now heads the Institute for Space and Security Studies. Welcome everyone.
ED WITH STARTER QUESTION FOR PANEL:
LAST QUESTION IS TO PAUL THOMPSON, HE WRAPS UP: What about 9/11? Why is anyone doubting it? Weren’t all the real questions cleared up by the 9/11 Commission?
…8:50 7) CLIP C: DAVID RAY GRIFFIN ON THE 9/11 COMMISSION (9:00)
JAMEY:
9/11 changed the world, so we are told. It became the reason to go to war, to pass new laws limiting our civil liberties, to change the way we live in so many ways. Shouldn’t we want to know everything about this event? We’ve already discovered one grave failure of the official investigation linked to a clear attempt to mislead the public. We asked David Ray Griffin, theologian and author of The New Pearl Harbor, to analyze the 9/11 Commission Report as a whole. He argues that the Commission was set up to shield key government figures and agencies from a full investigation.
RUN CLIP C: DAVID RAY GRIFFIN ON THE 9/11 COMMISSION (7 mins)
[Griffin dismantles the report for its omissions in a witty and devastating fashion, pointing the most outrageous conflicts of interest among the Commission and its staff, for example the well-suppressed fact that Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, who controlled its agenda and access to White House documents, has been a close associate of Condoleeza Rice since the late 1980s and co-wrote a 1999 book with her. We have added images to depict much of what he says. His last sentence directly speaks of: OMISSIONS.]
…9:00 8) PAUL THOMPSON: PAKISTAN CONNECTION / Powerpoint (10:00)
ED:
And what a number of omission there are! In fact, more than we have time for. But we’re about to look at a few of the big ones. (Holds up the 9/11 Commission Report) You may recognize this as the 9/11 Commission Report. I’m going to read you perhaps its most astonishing confession. On Page 172: (READS) “The U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.” Isn’t that interesting? Doesn’t it matter who paid for 9/11?
JAMEY:
I think we have discovered Rule One of the 9/11 Commission: Don’t Follow the Money.
ED:
Same page (READS) “Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.” I’m going to ask Paul Thompson, the author of the Terror Timeline — (holds it up so that we can see it’s at least as thick as the Commission Report) — to show us the open-source evidence that there was at least one foreign government, in fact a close ally, that allegedly provided funds for the hijackers. Furthermore, he’s going to also tell us about a guest from that country who was having breakfast with Congressman Porter Goss, the President’s choice to head the CIA, on the morning of Sept. 11th.
PAUL THOMPSON steps up to the podium and does an 8-minute powerpoint:
[He begins with a troubling disclosure shortly after 9/11, involving the Director of the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as of 9/11/01, Mahmood Ahmed. Historically, the ISI is closely linked to the CIA. Ahmed was in Washington before, during and after 9/11/01. He met with high-ranking members of the CIA, the Armed Services Committee and the National Security Council. But in the weeks following 9/11, information emerged linking him directly to the funding of the alleged hijackers, though we heard not a word of this from the 9/11 Commission. Did the ISI develop the 9/11 plot? Did it act as the contractor of U.S. intelligence services? On the morning of 9/11/01, Ahmed was having breakfast with Porter Goss and Sen. Bob Graham. They later ran the Congressional investigation, but somehow missed mentioning the close relationship between ISI and the Bin Laden network. Of course, Goss now runs the CIA and has never had to explain what, if anything, he knew about the ISI connections to terror financing. The evolution of this story in the press is a story in itself, and stands as an excellent example of the ability of the press to dampen the exposure of potentially explosive information by removing relevant context in their presentation of it.]
(After presentation: THOMPSON EXITS.)
…9:06 9) CLIP D: OBSTRUCTION & CORRUPTION IN FBI (6:00)
ED:
As troubling as the omission of the Pakistani connection may be, people might at least say, it involves another country. Who knows what happened there? But what about the 9/11 Commission report’s omission of evidence of high-level obstruction of FBI field investigations within the United States – investigations that could have located the alleged hijackers? The evidence of coordinated obstruction is particularly troubling. Take a look.
RUN CLIP D (about 4 mins.) [Points covered in the clip:
1) The FBI Minneapolis field office in Aug. 2001 was investigating the just-arrested Zacarias Mossaoui, later alleged to have been “the 20th hijacker.” Its investigation was blocked so vigorously from the top that the agents joked Bin Laden had a mole at the FBI. This was revealed by whistleblower Coleen Rowley. 2) Ken Williams, Phoenix FBI office, sent famous July 2001 memo suggesting FBI keep tabs on suspicious flight-school students. Suppressed. 3) Robert Wright, Chicago field office, investigating suspected terrorist cell for three years, had his case closed in January 2001. Later wrote 500-page manuscript about how he was obstructed and might have uncovered the alleged hijackers. Three years later, the FBI is still keeping the book under a publication stop. 4) Was this related to the 199i order of January 2001? The incoming Bush administration forced a well-documented stop on investigations into Saudi financing of terror and connections to the Bin Laden family, which is closely connected to the Bush family. 5) Sibel Edmonds, FBI translator, after 9/11 uncovered evidence of internal corruption and criminal conspiracy to cover up advance information about 9/11. Placed under a gag order, she is finding ways to courageously push the envelope. She has joined with the 9/11 truth movement.  6) Did “Bin Laden” have a mole? It turns out that almost all of these investigations were blocked by the same high-level FBI office, the radical fundamentalist unit including officials Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman. What was their motivation?]
JAMEY
Of the several FBI employees who came forward with such allegations before and after 9/11, “The 9/11 Commission Report” fails to mention anything at all about Robert Wright. Sibel Edmonds and Coleen Rowley are each mentioned just once – in footnotes that reveal nothing about what they said. Also unmentioned in the report are David Frasca, Marion Bowman and Michael Maltbie, the officials who should rightly have to answer why these investigations were apparently blocked.
…9:11 10) MODERATORS: MILITARY RESPONSE (5:00)
[NOTE: By arrangement in advance of the program, most of the following was cut and covered instead in a speech by Dr. Robert Bowman.]
ED:
We’ve looked at the big picture. We’ve looked at what came before 9/11. For the rest of this evening, we shall examine the day of 9/11 itself. In recent weeks, a lot of people have been looking at where the President was on that day. We all know now, thanks to Fahrenheit 9/11, that George W. Bush spent at least 7 minutes after hearing about the second plane crash listening to children read about a Pet Goat. Some people call this an individual failure of nerve. But in reality, there is much more that needs to be explained. The visit to the Florida school began soon after the first attack. After the second attack, the president and his entourage of Secret Service and staff did not react and in fact did not leave the school for almost half an hour. What was going on? And what was the President’s real response to the attacks on that day?
JAMEY:
In his office at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld received word as each plane hit the Twin Towers, but apparently continued his scheduled lecture to a Congressional delegation on the subject of national preparedness against surprise attacks. After the opposite side of the Pentagon was hit (at 9:37 a.m. according to the 9/11 Commission Report), he disappeared for 30 minutes while his generals tried to locate him and bring him to the war room. Richard Myers, the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sept. 11, says he thought the first crash was an accident. He went ahead with a meeting at the offices of Sen. Max Cleland, with whom he discussed the subject of national preparedness. Myers heard about the second crash (which happened at 9:03 a.m.) on leaving the meeting. Moments later, he was told the Pentagon had been hit.
ED:
General Winfield, the next man in the chain of command, heads the National Military Command Center. He decided suddenly the day before Sept. 11th to take off two hours starting at 8:30 a.m. These were the two hours of the attacks. When one key commander goes missing, we call it a mistake. When the top four people in the chain of command are missing while America is under attack, does it constitute a pattern?
JAMEY:
The U.S. air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for intercepting errant planes, such as were executed routinely in years past. Interception orders for errant planes were issued on 67 occasions in the year prior to June 1, 2001. Yet on Sept. 11th, four planes went off course during a period of nearly two hours and none of them were intercepted for surveillance purposes. Since then, the agencies involved have issued a long series of conflicting timelines and statements. The North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, and the Federal Aviation Administration published dramatically different accounts. A new chronology is provided in The 9/11 Commission Report. That was accepted by NORAD and the FAA. But accepting that means that officials of NORAD and FAA disseminated false accounts of air defense response repeatedly in the two years prior to the publication of the Commission report.
ED:
The report contains no suggestion that officials in government should be held accountable for this. Why not? In reality, the commander of NORAD on the day, General Eberhart, was promoted. His superior, General Myers, was confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Recall that the FBI officials who stopped the Minneapolis investigation just prior to 9/11 were also promoted or given citations, the following year.
…9:31 11) SECOND PANEL DISCUSSION & AUDIENCE QUESTIONS (20:00)
STILL ON: SCHEER, BORJESSON, BOWMAN
INTRODUCING JOHN PRADOS, KARL SCHWARZ
ED:
John Prados is a journalist and author, most recently of Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War. His work appears regularly in one of the nation’s great old journals on military affairs, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist.
JAMEY:
Karl Schwarz is a principal in Global Axxess and a former high-level consultant to the Republican Party. Arkansas Republicans once asked him to run for governor against Bill Clinton. More recently, he has been researching the background reasons for the removal of the Taliban.
ED’S STARTER QUESTION:
LAST QUESTION IS TO ROBERT BOWMAN, HE WRAPS UP: What in your view is the significance of the military response on Sept. 11th?
…9:51 BREAK (20:00)
ED:
(Introduces break, notes that there will be announcements and an excerpt from a film of Craig Hill speaking during the 20 minutes. “We are starting again at 9:50.” Possibilities for speakers during break include Les Jamiesen, on getting involved in 9/11 Truth activities).
OPTION OF JAMES WALTER INTRODUCING PART TWO.
PART TWO – from 9:51 until…
…9:54 12) INTRODUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FORUM (3:00)
ED:
Ladies and gentlemen, given all that you heard in the first half – the powerful case for doubting the official story – many skeptics and researchers have not stopped simply at asking the questions, or at begging for disclosure from an unresponsive government. Many have struggled instead to examine the physical evidence in creating a better explanation for a number of grave anomalies.
The different ideas that have come up in the process are often the source of controversy among the skeptics themselves. I won’t tease you, or pretend that many of you have not already heard these ideas, or considered them yourselves. I’ll just list a couple that have garnered the most attention among skeptics, both pro and con.
The theories have included the idea that the the crash of the fourth flight, Flight 93, was not caused by a struggle on board, but by a missile that shot the flight down. Or that the airplanes were actually flown by remote guidance systems. After all, that technology certainly exists, and just last month was proposed as a possible option for taking over hijacked planes from the ground and guiding them to a safe landing by remote control. One presenter coming up, an engineer, will argue that the Towers themselves did not collapse due to plane crashes or fire damage, but were demolished by explosives.
Many have suggested that the pattern of damage to the Pentagon could not have possibly been caused by a commercial, jumbo-size airliner.
Given all the reasons to doubt the official story, we are not going to dismiss anything out of hand. We ask you to judge for yourselves, and remind you that should any one of these claims prove true, the official story no longer stands. If any one of these hypotheses should prove false, it still does not tell us whether the others are true or false.
…10:00 13) CLIP E: COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 (6:00)
JAMEY:
We’re going to start with what probably the largest number of people think is the most obvious smoking gun. At least, it is among those who are even aware of it. Remember the Zogby poll we mentioned earlier? It also asked a question about the third skyscraper that fell late on the afternoon of September 11th. Raise your hand if you know the number of this building. (Audience raises hands). (IMPROVISE BASED ON RESPONSE, e.g. “Good. We did give it away earlier.”) The poll of New York State found that only 21 percent of residents were aware of the mysterious collapse of the third skyscraper. Remember, it was not hit by a plane. So what happened to 7 World Trade Center? Have a look for yourselves.
RUN CLIP E: WTC 7 (5:00). 
[CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT, BASED ON AN EARLIER SCRIPT BY BARRIE ZWICKER. THE FILM BY SGTV WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE SECOND EDITION OF ZWICKER’S “THE GREAT CONSPIRACY.]
…10:07 14) CLIP F: PENTAGON FLASH ANIMATION (7:00)
ED:
The following clip has lit the Internet on fire. This collection of images represents the case that the explosion at the Pentagon may not have been caused by an airliner.
RUN CLIP F: PENTAGON STRIKE (CLICK HERE TO WATCH IT) (about 6:00)
….10:19 15) JEFF KING: COLLAPSES OF TWIN TOWERS (12:00)
JAMEY: Of all of the terrifying images on September 11, the collapsing Twin Towers were among the most horrific. A shocked nation saw the two largest structures in the New York City skyline dramatically crumble before its eyes. Given the vast scale and unprecedented nature of the horrific spectacle, and lacking any information to the contrary, viewers could only assume that the fiery crashes of Flights 11 and 175 were the sole causes of the towers subsequent collapses.
But since then, serious questions have been raised about the official explanations of the collapses. The following analysis, by research scientist Jeff King, summarizes some of the concerns. Jeff King.
JEFF KING: (Power-point presentation of about 10 minutes.) 
[This was cut due to a technical failure. King instead delivered a stand-up speech.]
…10:24 16) SCOTT FORBES: POWERDOWN MYSTERY (5:00)  
[CUT – Phone link failed.]
ED: I’m on the line with Scott Forbes. He is an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a company that had offices in the World Trade Center for nearly 30 years. On the day of 9/11, Forbes was at home waiting for a cable repairman and witnessed the attacks from his apartment in Jersey City. Later he recalled unusual events at the Towers that he had noticed during the preceding weekend. Scott Forbes?
…10:39 17) THIRD PANEL DISCUSSION (15:00)
THOMPSON, PRADOS, WEBSTER TARPLEY, TOM GORDON
PHONE LINK TO ERIC HUFSCHMID [Phone link failed.]
JAMEY:
Webster Tarpley has come in today from Washington. He is the author of George Bush, the unauthorized biography (the father, that is). He authored a new book that will be released in October called 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism Myth of the Twenty-first Century. Tom Gordon is a member of the 9/11 Science and Justice Alliance. Joining us again are Paul Thompson and John Prados. On the phone, Eric Hufschmid, software engineer and author of Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attacks.
ED with STARTER QUESTION TO WEBSTER TARPLEY: Webster, I bet some people in our audience feel like they’ve fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole. What sense can we make of all this? How does it fit into the big picture?
DISCUSSION ENSUES.
JAMEY with FINAL QUESTION, TO PAUL THOMPSON:
Paul, some among those who reject the official story still are unconvinced by the physical evidence arguments. As one who has stuck to the political side and circumstantial evidence, do the physical evidence questions matter?
…10:47 18) DAVID VON KLEIST (with CLIP G: IN PLANE SITE) (8:00)
ED: David von Kleist is the host of the popular radio program, The Power Hour. He is the maker of the best-selling new film on DVD, “9/11: In Plane Site.”
DAVID: (Takes over and asks for the clip to be run at his cue.)
…10:55 19) BARRIE ZWICKER: HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS (8:00)
JAMEY: Is all this really possible? Can a government really do such things to its own people? Our next guest will discuss that… Barrie Zwicker is the maker of the film, The Great Conspiracy, which had its world premiere Thursday evening at the 9/11 Citizens’ Commission Hearings chaired by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney here in New york City, who is in the race to take back her seat in November. Barrie was the chairman of the International Citizens’ Inquiry into 9/11, Phase Two, held in Toronto last May.
BARRIE: [Does a presentation on precedents for provoking wars and false flag terror, MKULTRA, governments eating their own, etc. Based loosely on his earlier presentation at the “9/11 Omissions Hearings” chaired by Cynthia McKinney, sponsored by 911Truth.org and 9/11 Citizens Watch, and held on 9/9/04 at the Symphony Space Theater in New York.]
…11:20 20) FINAL PANEL DISCUSSION AND AUDIENCE Q&A (25:00)
THOMPSON, TARPLEY, CRAIG HILL, KYLE HENCE
ED: Kyle Hence is the co-founder of 9/11 Citizens’ Watch, a watchdog group that has followed the 9/11 investigations very closely. Craig Hill is a Democratic candidate for Senate in the state of Vermont who is running on a 9/11 truth platform. They now join us for our final panel with Paul Thompson and Webster Tarpley. [Instead: Christopher Bollyn.]
STARTER QUESTION: Webster, no doubt many in our audience are hearing about all this for the first time. Why haven’t they heard any of these things before?
DISCUSSION ENSUES, WITH ROAMERS PICKING OUT AUDIENCE FOR Q&A SIGNALLING TO HOSTS.
FINAL QUESTION, WRAP UP TO PAUL THOMPSON: Paul, what’s going to happen next? Do you think the 9/11 investigation will be reopened? [Unclear to the authors if Thompson was still present at this point.]
…11:25 21) CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION (5:00)
ED: Now that we’ve reached the end, take a moment to reflect on what you have seen, and ask yourself, “Why haven’t I seen this sort of evidence before? Is it because all of these researchers deserve to be marginalized? Are their claims deserving of the silence they’ve been met with in the mainstream press?”
We think they’ve remained beyond sight by virtue of the same principle of selection that David Ray Griffin identified earlier this evening, when he spoke of the 9/11 Commission’s refusal to consider evidence that did not fit its guiding assumptions. But in this case, the principle of selection is operating in the major media. The media has deemed that any suggestion that members of our government had actionable foreknowledge of 9/11, and consciously failed to act, simply cannot be considered. This is the obstacle to a wider dissemination of their work, and our nation suffers from it every day as a result.
JAMEY: This principle of selection has buried many explosive stories: The Pakistani connection to the financing of the 9/11 plot. The disgraceful use of military force to seize energy resources. This same principle keeps horrific images of Iraqi civilians and children out of American newspapers and off of American television sets. It is this principle of selection that relegates the “ugly” aspects of the war, the pictures of the dead, to documentaries like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, without which millions of Americans would never have seen such footage.
ED: This principle of selection also keeps the deadly effects of corporate misconduct from public scrutiny. The public airwaves are controlled by corporations that are not in the business of incriminating themselves.
This principle of selection operating in the commercial media has many facets, but at its center is the strongly held, but misguided assumption that the American government has only good intentions; it may act unwisely, or incompetently, but it is beyond the realm of possibility that some of its members can act criminally, particularly against its own citizens. As we hope has been demonstrated this evening, this myth of American exceptionalism must be seen for what it is – a myth. Challenging this fiction is priority one if we are to find the way to a saner, more sustainable way of life.
JAMEY: Returning to the enormous crime scene of 9/11, we suggest that all explanations for which there is strong evidence be considered. Along with this, it must be considered that people within this nation’s power structure had the means to facilitate and stood to benefit from the attacks. The official silence about this is deafening.
To break this official silence, it is up to every one of us to demand that a new investigation into 9/11 be opened, one completely independent of influence from the Bush Administration. Along with 66 percent of New Yorkers, as the Zogby poll found, we call on all investigative bodies, especially the Congress and the New York State Attorney General’s office, to reopen the case of Sept 11 – and to take seriously evidence of a wider circle of complicity.
Having said all of that, it’s also important to remember that within the community of 9/11 investigators, there is much disagreement about how the official story fails to capture the truth, and you’ve witnessed some of that disagreement this evening. That’s a good sign; healthy debate and peer review is needed to produce the strongest findings. Yet we believe that the failure of both the mainstream media and the 9/11 Commission to fully investigate this crime is beyond dispute.
THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

www.scriptsell.netLargest Online Shopping and Fashion Network