War by Deception Director's Cut (three hour video)

[Ed Jewett]

War by Deception Director's Cut (three hours long)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d33-Lk5Z...r_embedded

[I'm fifteen minutes into it now....[size=12]comment at will.]


Magda: Feel free to do what you will with the placement of this as it matures and evolves.]
I would like if we could all see this in a good theater to ggether for the first time...][/SIZE]

[Magda Hassan]

:popcorn: So would I Ed

[Ed Jewett]

(paused at 33:33, honest, I didn't ...)

Boom boom boom boom ... gonna knock me off my feet ....

Take that, Sunstein.

[Ed Jewett]

Well, now, said the church lady, isn't that special?

I have notes which I will type up in good time. (How do I best preserve their provenance?) How about if I dictate them with my voice recognition system?

The 1st annotation seems to be at the mark of 7 min. and 58 seconds with the question in and about the section on John Stockman. I found the introduction to be stunning; the next comment is, quite literally, "drill-in-progress techniques, players" was to remind myself to note that this is a film that more extensively ties together a series of what have been called by professionals "state crimes against democracy" and conceives or describes them in a manner that suggests that the "lessons learned" [as noted in Cheney's meeting at which he discussed the lessons learned from Iran Contra, which I believe is documented here at DPS already] have been brought forward through a series of linked events featuring many of the same players. Veterans here at DPS will recognize many elements; I think the discussion about this movie may be more interesting than the movie in some quarters.

Later on I wrote "boom boom boom boom take that, Cass Sunstein" [which I posted elsewhere]. I paused to post the film about the 15 min. mark in 2 locations, and to notify several others of the film and the threads.

I wrote what I recall was something of my own very poor attempt to mimic another DPF member when I jotted down the words "dust-preserved myth busted dusted petrification of video evidence".

I noted and found John Miller's report about telephones being disabled (just prior to the appearance of Dan Rather) which I found to be very telling information. I wrote a 3 word expletive at the 39:30 mark, noted the word "busted" at around 41:00ff (if one can use that notation relative to video), made a special note of the "2nd question on or about 51:49 mark, thought the comment about comparing the convergence of the authors of compounding and continuing narratives to be a means of identifying prime suspects was fascinating, noted the remark to myself that the film had "OODA-looped" the known arguments, fields of contention, and to some extent body of work in 9/11.

My next serious notation at about the 55 min. mark is the question to myself "Is continuity of government actually a code word for the plan itself, and/or the military-industrial fascist governmental corporate twisted skein itself? Is COG the plan itself?".

I made further note of the comment at about the 56:30 mark on the retention of information versus lies.

I made a note to myself to requote the text at about 57:18.

Over the course of the entire program starting about at that moment, I made notes as to how many errors or questions or topics requirING further verification in my mind; at that point I had to count at about one-half to perhaps 2, which increased to not more than 5 or 6 maximum throughout the entire program. Several of those were in fact minor or might qualify as either typos by the graphics editor or by narrator mis-speak working for himself. [If he is.]

I made a series of other notes a very minor nature; one example is a notation of several books: "The Rod to Damascus goes through Baghdad" and "Afghan Vortex", made further note of the quote paraphrased here (the dumbest man in the world Doug Feith). I made a note of the discussion at about the 70 min. mark on ends versus meanswell technically, that's probably not an accurate statement, noted that lengthy Paul statement from the floor of Congress about the 72 min. mark and the use of the word "unenthusiastically" which I felt deserved some further thought.

I made another mark at 1:24 "busted", note of a fact checking needed at 1:25, another "busted" at 1:26 repeated particularly at around the 1:29 mark with the testimony of Wilkerson ending in a 3 word phrase. I thought the discussion by Wayne White at the 1:31 mark about nodes was very interesting. As was Paul Pillars' comment on intel versus policy at the 1:32 mark. I made further note of the book by Perle referenced at 1:34 [ need to verify and identify precisely the title of that book], made note of the article "A Necessary War". I referenced a point about Libby that was later clarified and thought that the discussion about bunkers and command posts in general at the mark of about 2 min. shy of 2 hours was worthy of expansion.

Note was made also of the repetitive this of destruction of evidence as a team point in these SCADs.

I made another remark of "busted" at the 2:08 mark. At about 2 hours and 20 min. in, I paused to check to see if anyone had made any other posts, questioned the identity of the music at the 2 hour and 35 min. mark (is it from "Braveheart"?), made note of the individual named ? Donna Lessman? At about the 2:40 mark, made note of the reference to Aramark, made note of the comment made by the individual I had identified as Chalmers Johnson at about the 2:54 mark and thereafter "things that can't go on forever don't."At about the 2 hour and 59 min. mark I noted commentary about the malfunction of the sole massive central elevator in one of the WTC's (or both?) that extended over time requiring" maintenance", clearly the strongest supposition or identifier of the placement of in-tower explosives.

The ending of the film was winding up at about the 3 hour mark; there is a good deal of data that follows and can be noted by freeze framing. It is clear the entire film will have to be watched to 2 to 3 times with one hand on the pause button.

I made note of the "instructions" posted at the 3 hour, five-minute mark, asked myself why those instructions would be listed and in that method and made special note of the ending sequence, and then wrote my last comment the form of a 3 word question "tweaking our noses?".

The question is "Who OODA-looped who here?".

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Hi Ed,
since you asked for comments and since I started looking into that film I'd like to give some first thoughts.
First of all, it is a complex film, much more complex than it appears on first sight. It is far from perfect, technically, but it also is far from simple.
It employs a lot of techniques to associate contents with each other, which are not, on its face, associated.
I think that is the main message of the film, which you may feel is good or bad, depending on whether you happen to believe that all these things are associated or not. But it forces you to think about connections and associations, which may or may not be there. I don't think the film proves anything, except that a bunch of war criminals served in the bush administration, but we knew that. And, of course, that you cannot trust the media. We knew that, too, I hope.

Of course the film is designed to be as viral as possible, that is to reach as many people as possible and have an effect on them.
I think that as a film maker I would strive for the same goal, maybe with different means.
I cannot estimate how many hours of hard work have gone into finding some of the video clips in the film alone, some of which I had heard about but not consciously seen before. So, even if I have seen a lot of 911 material, I learned something from the film.
Ans I learned something about perception.
Of course the film and its author, Ryan Dawson, have been accused of being anti-semite and not everybody loves Ron Paul.
Of course there were copyright issues and there will be more of them. And of course there are endorsements of the film by people whose motives are less than pure.
As I said, its a complex film about a complex issue.

[Ed Jewett]

The more comments, the better, Carsten.

The film can be analyzed as a film. The fellow who twice refused to pass me in a mandatory course on the history of film would be surprised to hear me speak of this (sitting and watching old Eisenstein movies at 10AM when you are a 22-year old college student is not fun), but the film can certainly be discussed as information, communications, perhaps even propaganda. The film (different than in Eisenstein's era because we have control of the projector and can stop and read a huge number of frames to see the title, author, date, headline or other piece of information that can easily be fact-checked or verified) can be discussed in terms of errors, fact checking, 'analytical validity" (as you say, juxtaposition of items, events, etc,, or the dot-connecting). The video can be analyzed in terms of source, author of the narrative, inputs (fiscal and otherwise). The film can be analyzed in terms of purposeful manipulation; is it present? The film can be seen as the joint product of several entities, and the political backgrounds of those entities ascertained (dominantly US Libertarian)(is there a difference among Libertarian philosophies as they move from nation to nation?). That the Libertarians and Ron Paul are opposed to the Federal Reserve is a given.

It is a very complex subject, and one made doubly and triply complex by linking events (Oklahoma bombing, the first WTC bombing, 9/11, et al).

But isn't that what we try to do here at DPF? Do we analyze events as separate entities or do we begin to see similarities, the same players, etc.? [A trend started by Peter Dale Scott...]

I can recall an earlier film entitled "Who Killed John O'Neill" [ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...3523144457 ] which utilized the story-telling technique of having two intense protagonists charting and linking facts by Post-It notes and string.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Yes, Ed, "Who killed John O'Neill?" came to my mind as well. Some Alex Jones material as well.
It might be interesting to know that Ryan Dawson published a book in 2006 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Welcome...?z=y&itm=1). Judging from the customer reviews, it seems to have mixed responses.

About the film, I think it is a "classical" Wake-Up film by someone who felt this himself, got angry and began working feverishly to make others wake up as well. This film is so packed with pieces of diverse information, repeated several times in rapid cuts that by the end everybody must be dizzy. It might be interesting to note, what is NOT in the film. It is not really strong on details of the actual events on 9/11 or on Afghan/Pakistan/Saudi geopolitics before 9/11. Many other issues as well, that can be seen in connection to 911.

But Global Warming is in it, for whatever reason.
It will be seen as classical "conspiracism" by its critics.

[Peter Lemkin]

I'd agree with Carsten. It was passionate and ambitious; contains lots of good materials hard to find elsewhere - but lacks a kind of coherence and theme; leaving out much that should be in it. It is a personal and passionate wake-up call. I personally find the global warming denial a turn-off, but then I'm an Environmental Scientist....and know it is not a conspiracy as he sees it - quite the opposite....but people differ, don't they.

A perfect film is nearly impossible on such complex matters. It is an eye opener for those who have eyes wide shut. For those in the 'know', I think it is only of interest in some of the hard to find footage. It is another arrow in the quiver of films and books to open a crack in the closed minds out there. Whatever works......

[Magda Hassan]

I personally find the global warming denial a turn-off, but then I'm an Environmental Scientist....and know it is not a conspiracy as he sees it - quite the opposite....but people differ, don't they.

I agree Peter but I think the global warming/not warming division is being played by both sides for various political gain. The anti warmers are funded by big oil and friends who want business as usual, and what a wonderfully profitable business it has been. On the other side bankers and finance marketers are drooling at the prospect of an Emissions Trading (ponzi) Scheme to make billions from. Meanwhile, people just want transport to go to work and visit friends and family and gas and electricity to keep warm and cook. All this can easily be provided by renewables right now but there is no lobbyists for them as there is not the super profits there is in oil and market trading. That's where the conspiracy is.

[Peter Lemkin]

I personally find the global warming denial a turn-off, but then I'm an Environmental Scientist....and know it is not a conspiracy as he sees it - quite the opposite....but people differ, don't they.

I agree Peter but I think the global warming/not warming division is being played by both sides for various political gain. The anti warmers are funded by big oil and friends who want business as usual, and what a wonderfully profitable business it has been. On the other side bankers and finance marketers are drooling at the prospect of an Emissions Trading (ponzi) Scheme to make billions from. Meanwhile, people just want transport to go to work and visit friends and family and gas and electricity to keep warm and cook. All this can easily be provided by renewables right now but there is no lobbyists for them as there is not the super profits there is in oil and market trading. That's where the conspiracy is.

I agree with what you've said, but that is only part of a very complex picture...and perhaps this is not the right thread to divert to put it in. Briefly, the major problem of most humans is the belief that we are the ONLY or most important species on the Planet Gaia, and that the resources are here for our use...and not for those of other species. This distorted and suicidal anthropocentric view is only about 14-16,000 years old in some areas and not yet present in the few remaining indigenous societies who worship and feel 'one with' Nature and other living things. The hubris [and to some extent religious/societal beliefs that re-enforce this view - not all religions/societies do!] of humans will be our downfall. We [all living things, as a group] survive and thrive together - or perish together...very soon!... Most humans are totally unaware of how we humans depend on all other living things and Gaia itself - both its living and non-living components. Read Derrick Jensen [many threads on him already on this Forum], and I'll speak more to this on another Environmental thread later.....