NTSB Release August 22 2006 - 911myths.com

On the 2nd of July we submitted an FOIA request to the NTSB, asking for the document "Flight Path Study - American Airlines Flight 77", as cited in footnotes to the 9/11 Commission Report. The idea was to get a clearer idea of the final approach trajectory, and we were hopeful of success, as it seemed hard to imagine why this information could possibly be witheld any longer.

We weren’t alone, though, and a few days ago this same report (and plenty more) was released to the National Security Archive. If you’re interested in the details and haven’t grabbed their documents yet, then read those first.

It seemed our application was suddenly irrelevant, then. But maybe not. Soon afterwards a package turned up from the NTSB, and it did have more information than we’d expected.

Thanks JT for the heads up!

'World Trade Center': Reviews and Insight - npr.org

One of the best-known "9/11 widows," Lorie Van Auken, tells me that she went to see a comedy recently. She settled into her seat, waiting to laugh -- and then the trailer for Stone's movie exploded across the screen. "And I see people trapped under the rubble and I start crying and running hysterically out of the theater," Lorie says.

Her husband, Kenneth, worked on top of the North Tower, in the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald. Lorie and other family survivors played a key role in pressuring Congress and the federal commission to investigate Sept. 11. "I am not going to see the movie," she says. "I've spent five years imagining a million different ways of how my husband was trapped and died, and I've seen a lot of them in my nightmares. I can't handle going to a theater and watching them."

Lorie says she doesn't begrudge Stone for making the film, but says "If I had made it, I would have made it a lot more political and investigative. There are still so many questions about Sept. 11 that the government has never answered."

The article is a couple weeks old, but is newsworthy none the less.

Thanks Jon for the heads up!

In Oklahoma's historic 5th district congressional race, the State's largest newspaper utilized an underused adjective to describe '9/11 Truth' candidate Matthew Horton Woodson's statement 'any objective observer realizes that domestic criminal must have been involved with the horrors of 9/11' as 'malarkey'.

History was made when this very conservative newspaper in the 'home of the heartland' printed the words 'controlled demolition' of 'one of the buildings that collapsed near the Twin Towers'. The Daily Oklahoman has only printed the words "World Trade Center 7" twice in it's history. So I call this progress!

It should be noted that the Daily Oklahoman's office building was damaged in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and now has it's headquarters in a modern high rise.

While Mary Fallin and Mick Cornett have tried to win Republican voters in the 5th District congressional race, an independent seeking the office has gone about advancing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Matthew Woodson sent an e-mail this week that mentioned a "controlled demolition" of one of the buildings that collapsed near the Twin Towers. "Any objective observer realizes that domestic criminals must have been involved with the horrors of 9/11." That kind of malarkey, similar to state House candidate Charles Key's fixation with the Oklahoma City bombing, costs a candidate all credibility.

The purpose of this blog is to suggest rhetorical strategies for refining the 9/11 Truth talking points. As more so-called debunking sites appear, we cannot ignore them and proceed in an echo chamber of self-congratulation. We must adjust our message to reflect a wider selection of evidence.

In this first entry, I would like to suggest dropping references to Larry Silverstein's famous "pull it" comment in the 2002 PBS documentary. Most Truthers believe Silverstein means "demolish building 7". Critics charge he really means "pull the personnel from building 7".

I recommend avoiding Silverstein's remark not because I think WTC7 fell via a gravitational collapse, but for the following reasons:

• both interpretations are plausible, so an audience is forced to accept one on the basis of predisposition alone
• it does not change the physical evidence one way or another
• for some, this charge reinforces the unfair accusation that 9/11 Truth is about "blaming the Jews"; notice, for example, how this reasonable argument devolves quickly into a discussion of "Zionist circles"; later, Killtown makes excellent points about Silverstein coincidentally having a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, but this information will be overshadowed in a debate by ad hominem attacks