On January 4, 2006, Mr. Gordon Farrer of
The Age wrote an editorial review of
911 In Plane
Site entitled "Malicious nonsense posing as proof" before it aired on
Channel 10
AUSTRALIAN TV NETWORK. Please fell free to read his editorial:
(Text Link
to editorial:)
http://wwww.thepowerhour.com/news2/farrer_editorial.htm
Below, please find a response issued by
Dave vonKleist regarding the editorial review of
911 In Plane
Site by Mr. Gordon Farrer:
January 6, 2006
Dear Mr. Farrer,
As producer the documentary, "911 In Plane Site", I
find it necessary to respond to your blatantly biased review that was
posted on January 4, 2006. It is obvious that you either didn't see the
documentary and were told what to write, or that you did see it and
chose to attack the messenger rather than address the questions that
were raised.
In either event, it demonstrated to me (and the many
people that have e-mailed us at The Power Hour) that your intent was to
dissuade and intimidate potential viewers to keep them from watching,
and to ridicule anyone who had the audacity to watch the program and
indulge themselves in the exercise of thinking outside the "cage" that
you had so carefully and skillfully crafted for them.
As a "journalist", you are aware that unbiased
reporting of the facts after following a line of inquiry is what
separates a professional journalist from a hack. A "propagandist"
presents pre-supposed notions and utilizes the technique of ridicule to
sway opinion before the facts are presented. Given the above
definitions, which one do you think would describe your contribution to
The Age? Sadly, I have no doubt that you actually believe you would be
defined as the former, despite the actions taken can only be defined as
the latter.
If you have any interest at all in pursuing the facts,
you may want to follow up on these leads:
http://arc1.m2ktalk.com/aug2005/power6661/0808051.mp3
http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press12.htm
http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press13.htm
On our radio program, we have interviewed a two-star
General, an Air Force Colonel (with 30 yrs. identifying aircraft ant
aircraft parts), an Army Major, Air Force Major, a 33 yr. veteran of the
DoD in missile defense systems, numerous Airline pilots including an
instructor, and the United Airlines pilot who flew Flight 175 up to two
months before 9/11 when he retired. They agree that a 757 could not have
caused the damage at the Pentagon and that the planes that hit the
towers could not have been commercial aircraft. That is their opinion
not mine.
What "experts" can you bring forth to support or
justify your condemnation of the hard photographic evidence presented in
the film? I would be most interested as to what your explanation would
be in regard to the "pod" and the "flash" is. How do you explain the
Pentagon photos and footage taken before the collapse of the "E" ring? I
noticed (and so did many of your readers) that you didn't address any of
these issues. In fact, you didn't address one issue, not one. I would
challenge you to do so however, coward "journalists" usually throw their
rocks, shoot their arrows and then run and hide. Prove me wrong.
Notice the above
poll taken from USA Today. I know this is from the US, but I'm sure that
your fellow Aussies share similar sentiments. According to this poll,
94% DON'T trust the Federal government, 78% DON'T trust newspapers and
76% DON'T trust the news. Could it be that your "journalistic efforts"
might be a contributor to the miserable failing levels of trust from the
people you claim you serve? The Age has enjoyed 152 years of publication
and it is sad to see that your brand of reporting is printed in such a
respected newspaper. This indeed is demonstrative of the fall of
integrity of the mainstream media, due to the corporate takeover of most
forms of broadcast and print media.
I would suggest
you re-examine the issues presented in "911 In Plane Site" with an open
mind and consider that everything we were told came from government
officials and mainstream media. Look at the poll again. Get it? Unless
writers and publishers get with the program, no doubt you'll all be
looking for a new vocation. You can't stop the people from thinking
outside the cage for long. Some of them actually employ cognitive skills
that prevent them from being influenced by propagendists.
On Friday,
January 6th, I spoke with Monica Forlano, from the "TEN Network"
program-scheduling department. I was told that typically, the network
would receive between 12 and 24 calls after airing a given program.
After airing "911 In Plane Site", the network received a total of 548
calls, 540 of them being positive and supportive. It appears that you
and those that share your sentiments are in the extreme minority. Yet
you write for a major publication that gives the appearance of
reflecting the views of the people! What's wrong with that picture? (
The Poll!! The Poll!!)
I will
welcome any intelligent response from you and post it proudly on the
web, as I have with your article and this reply.
G'Day Mate!
Dave vonKleist
The Power Hour
www.thepowerhour.com
Joyce Riley & Dave vonKleist
|
