Get David Ray Griffin to oversee a 9/11 Political Action Fund

There is a frequently cited estimate that 16% of Americans think the buildings were blown up. This is full-on MIHOP.

Be conservative, let's say only 5% of Americans are full-on MIHOP.
US population = 280 million
5% X 280 million = 14 million
If each of those 14 million gives $100, that would equal $1.4 BILLION.

Think about it.
A computer costs $1,000. A decent internet connection about $300 per year.
Everybody kicks in $100, the cost of internet for 3, 4 months.

Anyone too cheap to poney up is full of crap.

The money will get things going. Effective policy will follow immediately.
I trust Griffin. He only needs to oversee the money and give some advice on how to spend it.

It's time for us to start putting up some real MONEY. The best way to do this would be to get David Ray Griffin to oversee an account. We all trust him and believe he is wise and parctical. He could get plenty of help and make the spending 100% transparent. Congressional and presidential andidates that are in favor of a real 9/11 investigation get money. Candidates that are not infavor get ads targeting their stupid positions.

If anyone can get in touch with DRG and get him to agree to this, I am sure that many of us will be more than willing to send in one week's pay or better.

Count me in!

I posted this answer to "moodforaday" in one of my other posts. I believe the subject of goals for 9/11 Truth is of paramount importance and I hope that this discussion will both inspire us and help us move forward.

To moodforaday:

I also am "heartened to see the movement grow" and agree that "we probably will get the media before we get Congress."

But ultimately, this issue will have to be investigated and only Congress has the power and jurisdiction. I mentioned Kucinich only because he has already decided to open a "limited investigation" in September.

I have been making the point about a new Congressional investigation for three main reasons:

1) It is the logical next step and in perfect accord with the scientific method. (If the theory contains serious anomalies, it must be reconsidered.)

2) Only Congress has the legal authority to require testimony under oath.

3) It is the clearest way to state our argument. For this reason, it is fairly easy to defend. It is hard for the average person to disagree with it.

1) What we already have:

We have terrific leaders--Griffin, Tarpley, Zwicker, Jones, Ryan, Hoffman, etc.

We have fantastic PR--Videos, photos, papers, essays

We have great slogans--9-11 Truth, 9-11 Was an Inside Job, etc.

We have the truth--And we can express it in simple terms, e.g. the collapse times completely refute the official story

We have the internet--And we dominate it!

2) What we need:

Focus on a clear outcome--New Congressional investigation (best would be a special prosecutor)

Keep the basic argument more or less the same--The official story is wrong and therefore we need a new investigation.

More pressure on mainstream institutions--academics, media, Congress, religious groups

Keep the energy growing--keep going with the blogs, the signs, the grass-roots, talking to people, etc.

Continued discussion of the facts and details of the case (avoid having these detract from the main public message)

3) What we should avoid:

Fighting among ourselves, name-calling, being egotistical, being insulting to those who disagree with us

Why we need to focus more intently on the goal of getting Congress to authorize a new investigation into 9/11.

Part One:

1) We have very strong evidence that the official story is false.

2) We do NOT have evidence strong enough to lead any prosecutor to take the case to court.

3) We will probably NOT find any new material evidence (WTC steel, dust, material proof of explosives). And even if we did find it, it would not have a reliable chain of custody and so would be mostly worthless.

4) We are not supported by any major institutions--mainstream media, academia, the gov't, etc.--though there are a fair number of individuals in some of these institutions who do support us.

5) As a movement, we do not have a clear goal.

Some conclusions that can be drawn from these points:

1) Haggling over space beams or thermite is a waste of time for most of us because neither case can be proved due to a lack of strong material evidence for either. It is fine for some people to spend time on this question.

Item: Jim Fetzer, Steve Jones, etc. Jim's blog of a few days ago went on and on about the evidence, what shows what, etc.:

Comment: I do not believe that there is any viable material evidence from the WTC and that there most likely never will be. Analyses of the dust are interesting, but not definitive. There will never be strong evidence from any of the steel or other rubble because 1) most of it has been destroyed, 2) what is left is not representative, and 3) there has been no credible chain of custody, so we will never be able to make definitive statements based on this kind of evidence.

Item: Flight 93 crash site, the Pentagon:

Comment: Much the same as above. There never will be good physical evidence from these locations because if it has not been destroyed it has been tampered with.

Item: Phone calls from the planes:

Comment: There MAY be some evidence here if we can find the phone records. But these, too, could easily be tampered with.

Item: Atta's luggage, the passport.

Comment: Ditto.

Item: What evidence do we have?

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/5718

A thinking person needs just one or two facts to begin understanding that there is much more to either story than we are normally told.

Some similarities:

—It is not possible for the bolt-action rifle allegedly used by Oswald to have fired that quickly. Similarly, it is not possible for the WTC Towers and WTC 7 to have collapsed at free-fall speed for the reasons given in the official story.

—The "single bullet" theory is obviously absurd. Similarly, it is absurd to claim that two airplanes were capable of destroying three buildings in precisely the same manner on 9/11.

—The Warren Commission was tightly controlled by Johnson and Hoover. Similarly, the 9/11 Commission was controlled by the Bush administration through its appointment of Phillip Zelikow, and others.

Justin Raimondo just wrote a piece and posted it on Antiwar.com.

The title is: "Our Captive Media"
In it he says:

"As the editorial director of Antiwar.com, my job is to make sure that we cut through the government propaganda and get at the truth about what is really going on in the world..." --Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com

Hey, Justin:

Airplane damage + fire + gravity do not have enough energy to make the Towers turn into dust at free-fall speed.
That is the truth.
The collapse of the Towers is the main excuse for the wars.
When are you going to cut through this propaganda?

Alvin

Link: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10881

Democrats: Bush in denial on Iraq war

True, so do something about it.
Also, you Democrats and Republicans are all in total denial about 9/11. The official story cannot be true as stated, and this fact is more than obvious. Next time someone asks you a question about 9/11, do not claim that you "have never looked at the evidence" or you "never heard anything like that before" or "send me the info and I'll get right on it." It's over 5 1/2 years now and if you are still not informed about that day and the controversy surrounding the absurd gov't explanation of it, you better "get on it" real fast because the tide has turned. ABN
_________________

Apr 23, 2007, 22:11 GMT

Washington - US President George W Bush is in a 'state of denial' about the war in Iraq, a top Democratic lawmaker said Monday, as Congress headed for a showdown with the White House over war spending.

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/5596

Below is an excerpt from an excellent story in the Canadian.

This one is worth sharing with friends who are still sitting on the fence.

9/11 facts on the Sudden Implosion of WTC Building 7 are inconsistent with official Muslim conspiracy scenario

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/04/03/01472.html

FACT 1: WTC Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in downtown Manhattan. It was 47 stories tall, about half the height of the Towers, and took up an entire city block. It was 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower (the North Tower, WTC 1), and was a steel-framed, concrete structure.4

Violence never solves problems. It just starts another problem.

The official 9/11 fairy tale is weak because it is not supported by reason. Therefore, the best way to combat it is with reason.

Anger dissipates and wastes energy. If we feel angry about the lies, it is important to focus our energy on tasks that promote reasonable thought and analysis. This transforms the anger into something useful.

9/11 Truth has grown not because we are violent but because we are right and many people are starting to see that.

9/11 lies are being defeated because they are violent and wrong.

When I feel angry about it, I try to do something productive--blog, talk, email, letter to the editor. By keeping a reasonable argument in the public view, we will defeat the lies and violence that characterize and support the official fairy tale.

In this vein, we probably should expect a "false-flag" act of violence by holders of the official lie--an act of violence that will be attributed to the 9/11 Truth movement. A single act like that would do much to discredit us.

These comments refer to an article in Inside Edition: http://www.insideedition.com/ourstories/inside_stories/story.aspx?storyi...

From the article:

James Meigs, editor in chief of Popular Mechanics said as much as 25% of the building was scooped out by the falling debris. He added, "There were intense fires that burned inside the building that weakend the steel frame."

OK, let's look at what Meigs is saying:

1) As much as 25% of the building was scooped out by falling debris.
--There is no photo anywhere in the public realm showing 25% damage to this building.
--Even if Meigs' statement were completely true, such damage would cause the building to topple over to the side, not collapse at free-fall speed straight down.

So, due to 9/11 the FBI breaks the law to get secret information about American citizens. OK. Now, when do we, those same citizens, get to have the secret information from 9/11 that the FBI is withholding from us?

And why is that information--videos, photographs, steel from the towers, black boxes, airplane parts, autopsy reports, the contents of Atta's suitcase, chemical analyses, etc.--being kept from us anyway?

Does the FBI have even more to hide than the "deficiencies" just admitted to by Mueller?

With a significant number of US citizens now having realized that the official story of 9/11 is not supported by the evidence so far released, one wonders--to borrow a rhetorical technique used recently by our president--which is worse? That the FBI is keeping this valuable evidence from the American people because it demolishes the official story of 9/11, or because it doesn't demolish it? And which is most likely?

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4913

About 13 minutes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&hl=en

"It looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. It was horrifying. About a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. We saw the building crash all the way to the ground. We were in shock."

This is a quote from an emergency worker who was near World Trade Center Building 7 just prior to its collapse on 9/11/01.

Now ask yourself is there such a thing as a fire hot enough to weaken the entire steel frame of this building but NOT hot enough to blow out its windows?

The quote above can be found at time: 3:56. ABN

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4823

The American Empire and 9/11 

Introduction

After the attacks of 9/11, I accepted the blowback thesis, according to which the attacks were revenge for U.S. foreign policy. This view led me to undertake an extensive study of the American empire, the very reality of which had been an embattled issue.

The American Empire