Hello,

As FTW readers and subscribers, we have to react to the article by
Jamey Hecht, It's the Timing, Not the Film, posted 5/19/06. It is a
disgraceful display of envy and petulance. This is yet another
disguised attack on the researchers who focus on physical evidence,
and appears motivated less by a desire for truth than a power play
for some sort of movement "leadership".

Hecht appeals to John Judge and particularly Mark Rabinowitz as
experts on the issue. John Judge has long asserted that the 757
which was Flight 77 bounced off the Pentagon lawn into the
building, amazing given the pristine nature of the lawn.
He furthermore presented as evidence the testimony
of a friend of his, a flight attendant who supposedly
flew Flight 77 before but not that day, who claimed she
saw the plane's tail outside the building on the lawn
days later and recognized it from her previous flights.
Amazing, given that immediate post-crash photos show
nothing that looks like a tail.
When this was brought up in lots of on-line forums,
the story she was claimed to have told was changed
to say she saw the tail inside the building, equally
amazing given that the entry hole is only 20 ft high,
vs the tail's height of over 40 ft. All this didn't prevent
Judge from proclaiming all those who assert a no-757
position are disinformation agents. By 2005, he extended
this assertion to anyone who said the WTC towers were
brought down by demolition, and stuck to this argument in a
live public forum in Oakland, California, in spite of being
shown that his perspective violated the laws of physics,
to the audience's utter amazement.

As late as November '03, Mark Rabinowitz was still
asserting that the WTC towers came down because the
planes severed the buildings' central cores, and the collapses
took time simply because the buildings teetered for a
while before falling. After realizing how this position was more
ridiculous than situations portrayed in children's cartoons,
he changed his tune somewhat. But he continues to hang
on to a 100 percent denial position regarding the Pentagon.
He has failed to defend his assertions in a variety
of on-line forums, falling back on name-calling and then simple
withdrawal when it became obvious his positions were untenable.
Yet you present him as THE authority on the subject.

And now, Jamey Hecht simply asserts "i reckon it was AA 77",
that hit the Pentagon, but somehow claims he's not asserting
a position in a debate, that it really doesn't matter, that all
physical evidence is ultimately "a disinformation tool", and that
all researchers should stick to "means, motive and opportunity",
ie the fields Michael Ruppert has researched the most. Worthy
areas of inquiry, for sure, a complete case must have those
covered, but they in themselves are not enough, they are
hardly more impervious to counterattacks than are the pieces
of physical evidence. Hecht et all simply don't have physical
evidence mastered or even understand it very well, so they
put it down. It's not enough for them to say "We would
rather pursue our own subjects", they have to disparage
those who pursue it as purveyors of "disinformation"
(from Hecht's article!). Even smoking guns such as
testimonies by firefighters and rescue workers, gathered and
analyzed by David Ray Griffin, that these emergency
responders heard and saw numerous explosions, even
explosion patterns, in the WTC towers as they fell
or even before that, are thus dismissed, showing extreme
disrespect to those witnesses.

Apparently you have all learned nothing from the experience of
maintaining for over two years an article posted 2 days after
the events which contended that the WTC towers came down
due to the fires melting the structures' steel,an assertion
which is in complete contempt of the laws of physics.
This was repeatedly pointed out to the FTW staff,
but ignored until Mike Ruppert posted his piece in
November '03. Back then, he appeared to be apologizing
for maintaining such a piece of disinformation posted for
as long as it was, but now you are showing us that in fact
you are sticking to your guns, and screw the laws of physics.

You claim that the video's release is "embarrassing the
9/11 movement". But if anyone is being embarrassed or
acting in an embarrasing way, it appears to be YOU, FTW.
The video's release has resulted in a massive wave of
interest in 9/11 websites, and even a really good letter
to the San Francisco Chronicle attacking its front page
propaganda. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/18
Comments on on-line forums seem not at all to follow
the pattern Hecht asserts regarding the "water cooler talks",
as if everyone is now buying the official story.
Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research has responded in
a splendid way with several articles debunking the "new video".
It is FTW who is buying it. Instead of jumping on this video
and exposing the fact that the media are trying to portray a
vapor trail shown in it as "an airliner" (enlargements show
it quite clearly to be a vapor trail as wiggly as a worm),
YOU are trying to use this release as a wedge to divide the
movement and browbeat physical evidence researchers
into submission. The government could not hope for better
support from its planted agents than it is getting
from YOU, FTW!!

Jeff Strahl
Shiu Hung