Saturday, August 30, 2008

Bonanno Interviews "Reflecting Pool" Writer Jarek Kupsc III

(originally published by OpEdNews)


“An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist implicates the US government in the attacks.

Alex Prokop (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 videotape revealing new information about the day of the attacks. The footage was sent by Paul Cooper (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, D. C., where they uncover suppressed information about the attacks and their aftermath. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the “official story” begins to crumble.”

Bonanno: There’s something I’m going to harp on just a little bit more and I hope you don’t mind. I understand what you said about Oliver Stone.

However, I keep hearing that there are certain actors – and who really comes to mind is someone who seems to have put his career on the line - is Charlie Sheen. He seems to agree with 9/11 Truth and, as you said, one of the things that “All The President’s Men” had going for it besides a slightly larger budget, is the fact that it starred Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

Joseph Culp, I believe, did a very good job. He showed us that he has acting skills. He’s been around for a while and I think he did an excellent job.

John Cusack comes to mind. Sean Penn comes to mind. These guys – I think their hearts are in the right place.

Did you attempt to send the script to any of the actors that I mentioned?

Kupsc: Well, not before we made the movie. What I wanted to do with the film in terms of casting was to make sure that nobody had seen these actors before in order to build up more credibility to create a pseudo-documentary feel of realism.

If you see a movie like this with Sean Penn playing Joseph Culp’s part, you’re going to look at Sean Penn and, no matter what the content is, you’re going to see Spicoli talking about the collapse of Building 7.

If you get Charlie Sheen, he comes with a lot of other baggage. He’s made all kinds of movies in his day.

I would hate for this movie to ever be remade with Brad Pitt telling me that NORAD has a stand down order. People would just laugh at it out loud.

There are no actors today on the “A” list who would carry that kind of believability in people’s minds. They would not even take on these roles because it’s a career killer. I have no career, so I have nothing to lose, but, for these guys, it’s the end of the line.

When Charlie Sheen came out with his views on 9/11, which are absolutely valid and correct, he was immediately ridiculed and undermined by virtually every news outlet in the country. However, he has a hit sitcom. He makes a lot of money for his network and they would not do anything about it because he’s a money making machine.

However, when Rosie O’Donnell spoke out on – uh

Bonanno: The View?

Kupsc: Right, about WTC Building 7, she was canned from her show just because she doesn’t have that kind of clout. She’s not a money maker for her network anymore. She used to be, but she’s not.

It depends on who you are, what you do and what your status is.

If you had someone like…let’s just drop this celebrity…it’s just not going anywhere.

Bonanno: All right.

Kupsc: I fully understand. I did send Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen a copy of the movie. I tried to get a hold of Sean Penn, not in terms of performing in the film. We need the support of these people with credibility or credentials, if you will, to speak out on 9/11.

I was hoping I would hear back from Charlie or I could get through to Sean to see what they think about it or see if they could support our movie and I never heard anything back.

What we really need, not just for the movie, but for the 9/11 Truth Movement, is for one respected journalist such as Seymour Hirsch of The New Yorker to do an investigative piece connecting all the dots, all the loose ends, wrapping it up in a story.

They did a great job in The New Yorker with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. They broke the story in The New Yorker. Why couldn’t they do something similar with 9/11?

Mother Jones or Harper’s…it’s a moot point, really, to say this because the answer is obvious. They can not put their ass on the line.

All it would take for people’s opinion to turn on a dime is for one journalist such as Si Hirsch to write about it.

Bonanno: There’s a scene in the movie in which Prokop is on a beach or near a dock – there’s water. There’s a guy that Prokop meets there. Prokop says, “You’re the only one who’s written about Building 7.”

According to what McGuire, Prokop’s editor, says in the beginning of the movie, the movie takes place 5 years after the events of 9/11.

We all know that people like Thierry Meyssan and David Ray Griffin had written about 9/11 before 2006.

Yet, the story line seems to indicate that the possibility of an alternative explanation for what happened on 9/11 was coming to light in 2006.

Was this intentional? Did you mean to imply that 9/11 hadn’t been researched prior to the time frame in the movie?

Kupsc: What you’re leading to is why didn’t I bring out any of the 9/11 research?

Bonanno: Was it your intention to make it appear that research had just begun?

Kupsc: The reason for that is that I wanted the movie to be accessible to people who’d never really thought about 9/11.

This movie is not geared toward people who already know what happened or already suspect what happened. For anybody who knows anything about 9/11, they’re not going to find any new information about that day in “The Reflecting Pool”.

This is not a movie about breaking a story. This is a movie about the quest of a journalist, a mainstream journalist. It’s about breaking the story open in the mainstream press.

We’re not talking about any of the alternative takes on the story that had been reported through documentaries and books like Steven Jones’, David Ray Griffin’s and others – great books; Michael Rupert’s book. They’ve never been reviewed by the mainstream media.

What I wanted to do is to turn the table on the mainstream media and say, “Hey, every source we used in making this movie comes from you”; New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Newsday, CBS News, you name it. They’re all verifiable mainstream corporate media sources.

Granted, none of these articles or these clips have ever been shown in prime time or printed on the front page. They’ve all been marginalized. It took me a very long time to get to the bottom of these sources. It’s very difficult to get to that.

However, they have published it at some point. The commentary on the DVD reveals all the sources. That’s the bonus feature on the DVD. If you watch the movie with the commentary, it quotes all of these mainstream media outlets telling you all these facts. Nobody’s ever connected the dots in the mainstream.

As I said, I wanted to turn the table on the mainstream media saying, “Hey, guys, you’ve already reported on that. So why don’t you connect the dots to make one solid piece of investigative journalism”, which is what Alex Prokop is doing in the film, which is kind of wishful thinking on my part.

I didn’t want the journalist in the film to follow the path of people who’ve been established in the underground sector. That’s already been done. What hasn’t been done is what we’re saying in the movie, meaning get somebody in the mainstream to connect all the dots. That’s all we’re asking.

We’re not trying to portray this quest as some kind of an underground effort which is verifiable in the eyes of the larger public. Even though David Ray Griffin’s work is completely verifiable. So is Steven Jones’s, Richard Gage’s and so on.

This is still perceived as fringe in the eyes of mainstream America.

In the commentary, we do mention Steven Jones’s research. We talk about William Rodriguez and other things.

Again, this is a movie for a complete skeptic who never really took the time to investigate this issue, somebody who just bought the official version and never moved beyond that. This is a very gentle way of introducing someone like that to the subject matter. That’s the idea behind the movie. It was not to reiterate all these points made by all these researchers already and not to overwhelm the audience with technological data and scientific information. It’s something very gentle, very subtle. It’s the journey of a skeptic to the other side.

To friendship,
Michael

“You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.” - James Thurber

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Modern Propriety




<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=110716">To what degree was the US government complicit in the events of 9/11?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash</a>

Friday, August 29, 2008

Interview with Jarek Kupsc, Director, Writer and Star of "The Reflecting Pool" – Part II

(originally published by OpEdNews)


“An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist implicates the US government in the attacks.

Alex Prokop (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 videotape revealing new information about the day of the attacks. The footage was sent by Paul Cooper (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, D. C., where they uncover suppressed information about the attacks and their aftermath. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the “official story” begins to crumble.”


Bonanno: You said in your interview with Jonathan Mark of FlyBy News that you would like to see “The Reflecting Pool” become another “All The President’s Men”.

Also, I’m going to ask the obvious. Alan Pakula, who directed “All The President’s Men”, seemed to have a much easier time getting that movie into mainstream theaters than you seem to be having with “The Reflecting Pool”

Could you contrast and compare the two situations and maybe even the two movies?

Kupsc: That’s a fair question. I actually never said that I’d like it to become another “All The President’s Men”. I have no illusions as far as the quality of our film verses the quality of the big Hollywood multi-million dollar production starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. There’s no comparison in terms of pure artistic and technical accomplishment. Obviously their movie is a very well made movie with backing by Hollywood.

If I had the same amount of money as Alan Pakula had there would be something to discuss. But ours is a very low budget film.

However, having said that, I would suggest that the same forces that were behind Watergate, behind wire tapping and all the stuff that happened back in the ‘70s, these forces not only succeeded in continuing their nefarious activities, as well as their influence on government, but are still in power today and are stronger than ever. America is, indeed, on the precipice of becoming a fascist state. If you look at all the powers Bush has granted himself through presidential directives and other laws that went into affect, you can see, and it’s all documented at the whitehouse.gov web site, the dictatorial power that Bush wields at this point, or any future president will wield. The powers they have are larger than those that Oliver Cromwell had back during the British Empire days.

Cromwell was a dictator but still did not have as many powers as President Bush does today. In terms of Anglo-American history, no other president or leader or king has ever wielded more dictatorial powers than President Bush does today.

You have to ask yourself is this the democracy with which I grew up? Is it really working for me as a citizen? People seem to be so oblivious to the fact that they work more hours today than ever. They work 60 hour weeks. They make less money than ever.

47 million Americans have no health insurance. 30% of the high school kids cannot graduate because they’re illiterate. 40% of kids in Harlem are diabetic because of the fast food industry who is completely dominating the airways with their commercials during The Olympics. They’re basically selling poison to the children.

We have Donald Rumsfeld in the ‘70s who was a lobbyist for the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. He pushed for Aspartame to be used in every single gum that’s being produced in America.

Aspartame has been banned around the world as virtually a carcinogenic poison. Yet, you can’t find a chewing gum without Aspartame, even if you try.

All these issues are important.

Bonanno: People don’t realize that, as you say, Bush is setting a precedent for future presidents.

Kupsc: It’s just not him because he’s a man of limited intellectual capabilities, as former Press Secretary Scott McClellan testified in his recent book. Nobody has any illusions that Bush is very competent as an individual. However, admittedly, he’s not a fact checker. He signs his name to papers that other people bring to him. He’s a puppet, a figurehead. This has been done by other presidents before him and will be done by presidents after him.

Whoever gives the president dictatorial powers – you have to trace it back to his advisors and people he surrounds himself with and see what forces they represent. It could be the neocons or, as with Obama, The Trilateral Commission. I’d encourage anybody to Google The Trilateral Commission to learn what it is promoting.

Even though we have a dictator president, he’s not of the caliber that, say, Oliver Cromwell was in England.

Even FDR had enormous powers during the war, but he managed to do a lot of good things as well.

The office of the presidency has been basically diminished to the point of just being a figurehead without any real agenda. It’s a blank slate.

Bonanno: I wrote an article stating pretty much what you’re saying right now.

Kupsc: So we’re on the same page.

Bonanno: Right.

Kupsc: I’m really concerned – I don’t know if you want to hear my concerns regarding the upcoming election.

Bonanno: I would love to. I think that the OpEdNews readers would want to hear that as well.

However, I’d like to get back a little bit more – then we’ll definitely get to the election – get back a little bit more to the distribution of “The Reflecting Pool”.

I had given this a lot of thought. I know that you say you don’t want to become part of the mainstream corporate film making system. For instance, Oliver Stone…

Kupsc: I think that you’re very, very wrong about that, Michael.

Bonanno: Am I really? OK…

Kupsc: I don’t know if you’re familiar with the new movie that Oliver Stone is releasing in September called “W”.

Bonanno: I know very little about it, but I’ve seen some trailers.

Kupsc: Let’s just look at what he did with 9/11. He basically made a movie about two guys trapped in the rubble for two hours without any context as to what happened that day.

He made “JFK”, which was a really important movie, but I don’t think we can look up to people on the “A” list in Hollywood – oh, by the way, he’s not on the “A” list anymore because “A” list means you make a lot of money for the studios – and all of his recent movies have tanked, including “WTC”.

He’s not a big player in Hollywood anymore.

There’s just nothing happening. People cannot deal with the issue of 9/11.

You have to follow the line of the media which was very impressed with “United 93”, which was a complete fabrication, a completely unsubstantiated fabrication based on the fantasy that was created by the government.

Bonanno: “United 93” served as a wonderful reinforcement, though, didn’t it?

Kupsc: Yes, and this is why I’m saying I would not wish to push “The Reflecting Pool” into that realm.

It has no chance of being picked up by a major studio.

Another problem with distribution, if you don’t do it yourself, is the same problem that happened with “Loose Change”, the final cut, which was the third edition when they were actually bought by Mark Cuban, an extremely rich person who decided to release it theatrically. For no apparent reason, he pulled the plug, leaving those guys hanging, therefore postponing the movie for another 7 or 8 months.

What happens sometimes, when a distributor comes in, and you sign your rights off to that person for a number of years, you may never, ever see that movie play anywhere and you can’t do anything about it. They can shelve it. They can do anything they want with it.

It’s a very risky proposition, if you have a project like “The Reflecting Pool”, to approach a legitimate Hollywood distributor and say, “Here, here’s my movie. Give me $200,000, I’ll shut up and you can do whatever you want with it.”

Of course I could use $200,000. I could use $200.00, but it’s not about money.

We want this to be heard and seen and I believe that, if such a distributor would pick us up, they would shelve this movie. They would never, ever have it shown as long as they’d hold on to the rights, which I’m not about to relinquish.

We’re also working right now on making the movie available as a download.

I’m flying to Poland in three weeks to do a screening at the biggest Polish film festival and Joseph Culp is taking the movie to Norway to their film festival. We’re opening in New Zealand in October.

All this is done based on our personal efforts and contacts.

As an independent movie makes for very little money, we’ve been extremely successful.

We just finished a tour of the east coast. We opened the movie theatrically in New York City, which is an historical event. For the first time ever, a 9/11 truth oriented film received a theatrical run in the country.

We were reviewed by the New York Times, which, of course, was a hit piece. But we also got terrific reviews online by independent reviewers.

It’s gone pretty well. Of course, we can’t pay our rent, but that’s another story.

We are screening virtually every week-end now.

I just got an email from a man in Switzerland who’s going to show the movie. We’re screening in Canada in Waterloo, Ontario. We’re screening in Boulder, Colorado in a week, I think I’ve mentioned that.

So, it’s an ongoing effort.

We’re also going to screen the movie together with “Able Danger”, which is another 9/11 thriller, on September the 11th in New York City on a double bill.

People are seeing this movie and they talk about it. I would urge anybody to write their own review and post it, whether you like it or not.

Just keep talking about it. Don’t let the 9/11 issue die a natural or unnatural death. You have to keep this issue alive, whether the media wants you to or not. It’s our duty to get to the bottom of it. None of the questions that we are trying to raise has been successfully or satisfactorily answered.

To friendship,
Michael

“What happens when the future has come and gone?” - Robert Half

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Disguise

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Bonanno Interviews Jarek Kupsc, Director, Writer and Star of “The Reflecting Pool” – Part I

(originally published by OpEdNews)


On August 22, I interviewed Jarek Kupsc (pronounce Yá-duck Coops), the man who wrote, directs and stars in the first theatrical presentation of an alternative theory of what happened on September 11, 2001. The movie is called “The Reflecting Pool” and co-stars Joseph Culp, son of well known actor Robert Culp and an actor of stage and screen in his own right. Culp, along with Kupsc’s wife, Jodie Baltazar, was a major producer of “The Reflecting Pool” as well.

I’ll lift the short descriptor of the movie right from the DVD box:

“An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist implicates the US government in the attacks.

Alex Prokop (Jarek Kupsc), a successful journalist, receives a rare 9/11 videotape revealing new information about the day of the attacks. The footage was sent by Paul Cooper (Joseph Culp), a driven researcher whose daughter died on 9/11. Sensing a good story, Prokop travels with Cooper to New York and Washington, D. C., where they uncover suppressed information about the attacks and their aftermath. As Cooper introduces Prokop to key eye-witnesses, the façade of the “official story” begins to crumble.”

I could include where and when the movie is being screened, how successful it’s been so far and many other facts that one usually finds in an intro to an interview. However, I can assure you that, after interviewing Kupsc for an hour and twenty minutes, everything that one usually finds in an intro is covered and covered rather thoroughly.

Due to the length of the interview, I’m publishing it in four parts.

The interview’s audio was recorded and a link to that recording was supposed to accompany this article. Unfortunately, after spending well over twenty hours attempting to fix an unbearably poor quality audio, I came to the conclusion that listening to the audio would have been a negative experience, so I decided to leave it out.

But enough with the amateur techno version of Murphy’s Law. Here’s Part I of the transcript.

Bonanno: One thing that OpEdNews readers might want to know about you is a little bit about your background, both as an activist and a filmmaker.

Kupsc: Well, my film adventure, if you will, started in high school in Poland where I grew up. I was born and raised in Warsaw, Poland. I started making Super 8 movies in high school, as a 16 year old and I always wanted to follow this passion into creating some kind of a career in films for myself.

I left the country in ’85 and came to The United States in ’87. I worked my way through college and film school and acting school, several acting schools as a matter of fact. “The Reflecting Pool” is my third feature film. I have shot two other feature films before that, “Recoil” and “Slumberland”. I usually – exclusively, I should say, work in low budget formats, totally independent of the system, the Hollywood system or the independent movie world. I have no desire at this point to branch out into Hollywood.

Although I do live in LA, I live in Koreatown which is probably the cheapest area where you can find a decent place to live. I’m staying there with my wife, Jodie Baltazar, producer and cinematographer of “The Reflecting Pool”, and our 5 year old child, Caspar.

So, to wrap this up, this intro, I have a degree in writing and directing from San Francisco State University. Again, I studied acting at the same school as well as various workshops, one of which was conducted by Joseph Culp in Venice, California. I took this acting workshop around 2005.

About a year into the workshop, I started developing the screenplay for “The Reflecting Pool”, which I subsequently brought into the workshop. I started working on scenes from the script with other writers and actors. There were five drafts of the script. It started shaping up into its final form which you can see on the screen, through the participation of Joseph Culp’s workshop.

Subsequently I asked Joseph if he would want to portray one of the leading characters as well as to produce.

Joseph Culp is a Santa Monica/Los Angeles based actor. He’s an acting teacher as well as a producer.

We combined our resources in order to make this movie. By we, I mean my wife Jodie, myself and Joseph. We kind of pooled our resources together including savings and credit cards, whatever we had, just because we did not want to represent any political groups. We did not want any outside influence. The making of this movie was a purely independent production with a very limited budget. However, I did feel it was necessary to talk about this issue as soon as possible.

We went straight into self distribution, meaning we simultaneously released the movie on DVD and started showing it theatrically so that people could have full access to the movie.

You can order the video from our web site, reflectingpoolfilm.com. You can go to our web site to find out where the next screening will be. A lot of people are asking us for screeners that they can project in their own communities. We have a standing offer for anyone who’s involved in honest politics that they can screen the movie at any time or in any place with no licensing. We just want to make it as accessible as possible.

Bonanno: You answered my next question which was, “How did you come to meet Joseph Culp?” You brought to mind another question, however.

You presented this to your class, you said. How was the content or the premise of the movie received by your class?

Kupsc: …by my class? Well Joseph was the first person to have read it. He was not well informed of other possibilities of what may have happened. He had some initial reservations about the 19 hijackers, but he never pursued it any further. He went on with his life, went shopping, took care of the family. He has two kids and a beautiful wife. They were just going about their business like most Americans.

When we started workshopping the script in class, he started having questions and started to go about researching and verifying what I was offering. Eventually, he educated himself adequately enough to realize that there is, indeed, something nefarious about the official version of 9/11 and what happened that day. In the process of working with me on the script, he became a true believer of some other possibilities which we try to explore in “The Reflecting Pool”.

As far as the other members are concerned, several people in the group ended up acting in the film; most prominently Lisa Black, who plays the editor of the fictional Centinal magazine which commissions the article about 9/11.

Bonanno: She does a wonderful job, by the way.

Kupsc: Yes, she’s actually an acting professor in an upstate New York college. She’s been a professional actress all her life. All the actors in the film were professional actors with maybe one exception.

We tried to make it as professional as we could under our limited budget restrictions.

Bonanno: I have one more sort of personal question. In his book, The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin presents 8 different degrees of conceivable US complicity in the events of 9/11. They start with the premise that the Bush administration knew nothing about it, they had no idea it was going to happen, but, while it happened, they thought they’d take advantage of it by making it a basis for invading Iraq. There were degrees between that and the ultimate degree, which, of course, was that they were complicit in making it happen.

If you don’t mind sharing this with us, is there a place that you personally fit in those degrees of complicity?

Kupsc: I have my personal views on what happened that day. My personal views, however, are firmly rooted in science and research and academic papers. You mention David Ray Griffin. There’s also Professor Steven Jones, who has been investigating the debris of WTC ground zero. He found an ounce of explosives in the debris which he examined. He came up with certain theories which are being “disproved” by the mainstream media.

As recently as yesterday, the 21st of August, the NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, finally decided to release their report on the collapse of Building 7 after 7 years, in which they basically state, officially, that, for the first time in the history of modern architecture a steel framed building collapsed due to a fire from an external explosion. The report, which I just read, the NIST report – and I’m not a scientist, but, just by reading the report, I can see so many holes, inconsistencies, contradictions and flat out denials of fact. This just makes me believe that the building collapsed due to controlled demolition. There’s really no other explanation.

I also question the release of the NIST report, which is conveniently timed right before the election. There are other very interesting hit pieces that we receive from the media.

In the latest issue of Mother Jones, there’s a huge hit piece about 9/11, as well as my movie, which they single out. Again, it’s an article without any substance. They distort the facts and they mislead the public in the article. I think it’s a concerted effort to deal with the growing effectiveness of 9/11 Truth. People keep asking questions which won’t go away. I think this is part of a concerted effort by the administration and the mainstream media to thwart our effort effectively. They’ve been doing a pretty good job, but we’re not going to go away.

Unfortunately, when you have guys on television like they had yesterday, supporting the now official version of Building 7 collapse, most people in the country will buy it, just like they bought Colin Powell’s performance at The United Nations. A few years from now, we will all agree it was a big lie. Now we all agree that Colin Powell lied. The message of weapons of mass destruction was a complete fabrication. We all agree on that.

Bonanno: If I’m not mistaken, Colin Powell agrees on that, too, doesn’t he?

Kupsc: I think, if he really agreed on that, he’d blow his brains out and that would be the apologetic message to the rest of the world.

Bonanno: I’m rather certain that there have been articles written which indicate that he now knows that he was used. But, I’m sorry to have interrupted you. Go ahead.

Kupsc: No, no, that’s just fine. I’m not really following Colin Powell’s career. I lost my interest in that individual long ago. In fact, if he has any pangs of conscience, I would encourage him to speak out on that.

It’s safe to bash the Bush regime because it’s an outgoing administration. Even the media’s picking up on certain things that were proven to be false. They were distorted facts that led us into two simultaneous wars. Over 4,000 American troops have died; millions of civilians have died in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, we all know that this was based on a lie. Even the media knows that. Yet, nobody wants to discuss, with any degree of intelligence, the issue of 9/11. If we agree that the administration virtually lied about everything since they came into office, why wouldn’t you want to include 9/11 in this equation? It’s a very simple question. It’s still taboo for most people and most media outlets.

It’s an ongoing effort for the 9/11 Truth Movement and people that have questions such as myself. It’s a struggle, an uphill battle. I don’t know what the answer would be. I don’t know how we can overcome this apathetic ignorance of scientific facts and laws of physics that are completely neglected involving the collapse of The Twin Towers and Building 7.

Maybe people don’t realize that the NIST is the government. It’s a pseudo-scientific body that is fully sponsored by the government. How can you expect the government to investigate itself?

Bonanno: They seem to do that a lot in this administration.

Kupsc: It’s completely preposterous. It’s like having your house burglarized and going to the burglar and saying, “Hey, do you have any information about my little problem that I had last night?” It’s absolutely ridiculous, what’s happening, and people are buying it, but not all.

There’s Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Richard Gage, who’s working on the new NIST report on Building 7 and there are others who are doing great investigative reporting. There are people like yourself, Michael, who are not afraid to talk about this openly and posting this interview on OpEdNews. There’s a big underground – so to speak – underground movement contradicting the mainstream opinion; I should say propaganda flat out. There’s no big mystery that most news dispatches come straight from the White House.

This has been documented. I’m not inventing anything. The fact that the CIA controls the media has been really well documented by people like Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame who wrote an article in 1977 which was basically entitled “The CIA and the Media”. He described how the CIA is planting editors in virtually every media outlet in the country, in newspaper, television, radio. Now, thirty years later, we can only imagine the influence they wield. There’s no big mystery about the CIA’s involvement if we really look back at how all the CIA’s directors, 9 out of 10, ended up working for Wall Street.

Bonanno: I can tell you that I have here in my hands The World Trade Center Building Performance Study from FEMA which, surprisingly, they sent me when I requested it. Not so surprising is the fact that real scientists wrote the things that are in this report and what they wrote is a bit hard to swallow.

I said I was going to ask you one more personal question but you brought up the fact that you lived in the Soviet Block for a while. I was just wondering if that helped in your writing “The Reflecting Pool”.

Kupsc: Well, growing up in Communist Poland was a fantastic experience for me as it was for everybody else in terms of understanding the difference between news and propaganda. Anybody who grew up behind the Iron Curtain knew that what you were hearing on television, radio or reading was not true, meaning all the political and economic news wasn’t true.

Bonanno: The people actually knew it?

Kupsc: Yes, everybody knew that they were lies. It was very simple. They were telling you one thing, but, when you’d walk out the door, you’d see another thing. There was no argument. Everybody knew it was a lie. Everybody had a “sixth sense”, if you will, to know how to read between the lines.

Bonanno: So, I assume there was no “Poland, right or wrong” attitude by which, even though they would tell you something yet you saw something else, you’d believe them rather than your own eyes – as there seems to be in some cases in the US.

Kupsc: Yes, because, unfortunately for Americans – and I’m an American, too, now. I have been for the last 15 years. That’s one of the reasons why I do care about America and its people. My son and my wife are American. That’s one of the reasons why I made this movie.

In general, in America, people have been pretty much conditioned to trust the media. There was never anything presented to the contrary. There was always like, we have an independent press, all these freedoms guaranteed to us in The Constitution – like freedom of expression. So, why would the media lie to us? Why would Walter Cronkite lie to us? We had all these great news anchors who were always being very honest with us. We should not question anything we hear on the 6 o’clock news.

The so called Fairness Doctrine, which was issued around 1928 for American radio, virtually forced broadcasters to provide equal air time to both sides of any argument. That doctrine went into effect, of course, with television in the ‘50s. We still had balanced debate between Left and Right or whatever the opposing forces were.

In 1988, Reagan, I should say his handlers, basically took The Fairness Doctrine out of the equation. Bill Clinton, I think around 1996, created The Telecommunications Act which abolished any semblance of balanced discourse in the media between opposing forces.

That led to a complete corporate takeover by the media and consolidation of media outlets which culminated with what we have now. We have 5 major news corporations controlling 5,000 TV stations and 14,000 radio stations in America today. This basically means that 5 CEOs tell the rest of the world what’s going on.

If you look at who these individuals are, you know that they have agendas. You know that they’re connected with the military/industrial complex and you can draw your own conclusions.

Bonanno: I’d like to direct you, if I may, to OpEdNews. Ray McGovern, who worked for the CIA for many years, posted an open letter to Colin Powell on OpEdNews. It was on the first page about three issues ago. The letter is an indication that Powell has expressed regret, but not to the extent that you’d like to see him express regret. At least he’s expressed some regret and McGovern is sort of asking him, “Why go half way? Let’s go all the way.”

Kupsc: I’d love to read it. I’ll look it up.



<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&amp;BB_id=110716">To what degree was the US government complicit in the events of 9/11?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash</a>

To friendship,
Michael

“One is tempted to define man as a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.” - Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist, part 2, 1891