War Protests Sprinkled with 9/11 Truth Activists

I've been perusing all of the pictures from the multiple anti-war rallies held over the weekend. I was glad to see that some 9/11 activists showed up in different areas with signs and banners and such. I really liked the image above as the shirt Cindy is wearing and the 9/11 sign in the back really tend to fit together.

In any event, there were tons of pictures taken, and so here is a list for those who want to check them out and hunt down the 9/11 activists in the crowd.

Washington, DC - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
San Francisco - 1, 2
Oklahoma City
Los Angeles
Salt Lake City

Big special thanks to whatreallyhappened.com, bradblog.com, and Gold from yourbbsucks.com for the great pics, and to all the 9/11 activists out there who put forth the effort to get out there and be seen.

It was a great experience.

It was a great experience. Thanks to all from 9/11 Truth who participated, and thanks to everyone who showed up regardless of your cause. Our mutual cause is America's wellbeing, and there is no doubt in my mind that we were heard this past weekend. If the Government doesn't listen to us, then we need a new Government. Plain and simple.

(edit: removed several

(edit: removed several comments including a comment faked to appear posted by a frequent visitor - please do not try to fake other's identity when posting)

As for Roger's "oh no, more

As for Roger's "oh no, more evil lihopers!" post which links to whatreallyhappened.com, that's quite ironic, to say the least.

Michael Rivero's whatreallyhappened.com site does practice the disinfo agent's art of "limited hangout" by taking Bush's incriminating witness statements and (mis)labeling them as "lies", despite the fact that none of us, including Mr. Rivero, have any evidence whatsoever that Bush was lying when he made them.

What better way for Mr. Rivero to promote the notion that "there's nothing to see here, citizen; move along"? (When one asks Mr. Rivero about his site's gross lapse in logic, one gets accused of just being divisive. {Anyone can make a mistake; it's how they react once it's pointed out to them that is so telling.})

Apparently wrh.com's motto, about the history the govt hopes you don't learn, has an invisible sub-heading, which goes something like, "but if you do, we hope you learn it the way the government wants you to".

And to those of you who still don't get it, I'd like to point out that
people don't get partial credit for revealing partial truths
at the expense of keeping bigger truths hidden. People get
properly labeled as limited-hangout disinformation agents for
doing that. (If word of the Iran-Contra cocaine connections
had become widely known, 9/11 probably would not have occurred
as it did, because the perpetrators likely would have been
removed from power. The 'resolution' of Iran-Contra was a
"limited hangout": give up some truths/perpetrators in order
to protect the really big ones. That may not seem intuitively
obvious to you, but that's how it works. Time after time.)

LIHOPers are intellectually dishonest: How can anyone continue to blame 9/11 on hijackers even after we know that we cannot blame the collapse of the towers on planes?

There is no way to take the lie out of LIHOP, contrary to what Roger and Jon would have you believe.

blimp, 'contrary to what


'contrary to what Roger.. would have you beleive.'

how do you figure that i am trying to make someone believe in lihop? i cover demolition, and all sorts of other things as well, you just read into everything what you want to read into it.

there is no need to attack me in your quest against 'lihopers', i do not advocate lihop or mihop, im just covering 9/11 related news, no matter what 'clique' it fits in.

You may not believe that you

You may not believe that you have taken sides, Roger, but it certainly appears that you have. (Don't look now, but your words and actions reveal your preferences.)

How about that ATTA T-shirt you promote? As indicated in my previous post, it is intellectually dishonest at best, and pure disinformation at worst, and definitely lying-government-friendly misdirection, to try to pin 9/11 on "hijackers" when we know that we can not pin the WTC collapses on planes.

You also go out of your way to promote dishonest LIHOP sites, including 911truth.org: it covers up all evidence which reveals the dishonesty of their stance. You frequently add a personal "thank you" alongside your link to LIHOP sites, as if you are happy to be lied to by them. You may find it to be just an "innocent coincidence" that 911truth.org and 911citizenswatch.org suppress the very same evidence as does our lying murdering government, but I do not. Actions speak louder than words, and also louder than feigned friendship.

You clearly do take sides, Roger. From my point of view, you are either in denial or being dishonest about it.

And one of the tell-tale signs of a disingenuous person is when they claim to not take sides when clearly they do. 911truth.org's fraudulent use of that tactic taught me to be wary of it.

When I once made one post under another, unknown, handle, you felt obliged to reveal to the world that the post had been made by me. But when someone (and I have a very strong hunch you know who it was) made a fraudulent post under my name (trying to impersonate me) today, you just deleted it (and others) and moved on.

When your LIHOP(er-loving) pal Jon Gold replied to a post of mine using foul language, you threatened to ban Jon AND ME, under the pretext that you dislike hateful arguments. Your LIHOP(er-loving) pal Jon Gold subsequently repeatedly used foul language here, but with no visible reaction at all from you that time.

Clearly you do not filter your friends as carefully as you filter those you do not perceive to be your friends. And from here, it sure looks like you have a lot of LIHOP friends who you go out of your way to support, in a variety of ways.

So I guess it's pretty obvious that you come across as a LIHOPer, by your words and your deeds. I can't say that you are sympathetic to the LIHOP point of view because you've told us that you don't take sides. (You also have failed to tell us what you DO advocate about 9/11. (Endless pursuit of the truth?) So your actions and other words are doing your speaking for you.)

Just answer the question, Roger:

How can any honest person continue to blame 9/11 on "hijackers" even after we know that we cannot blame the collapse of the towers on planes?

This isn't about "cliques", Roger. (Nice try, though.)

No one here blames 9/11 on

No one here blames 9/11 on the "hijackers". I think, for the most part, people believe the "hijackers" to be patsies in a scheme laid out by our Government.

That's a MIHOP statement if I've ever seen one.

Both LIHOP and MIHOP can

Both LIHOP and MIHOP can co-exist. In my experience, LIHOP eventually turns into MIHOP anyway.

A lot of people have a hard time accepting that our Government would have a hand in it. It's until they see all of the evidence that they eventually follow suit.

I just think of my own experience with 9/11. At first, I wanted to carpet bomb the entire Middle East. Then, I started to see the reactions of our Government, and although I originally agreed with the idea of invading Afghanistan, I now know it was wrong.

Then I saw how the families had to fight for the creation of the Commission... Because the Bush Administration opposed it. It's not rocket science at the point. "Hmmm... what are they trying to hide.", and generally at that point, most people are "off to the races" as they say.

Other people research differently, and other people require different amounts of information. They get to a certain point in their research where they've been convinced, and make a decision that the truth must be told. For some, it's a different point than others. For others, we have to know everything.

The point is... just because someone isn't as far along as someone else in their research, doesn't mean we can chastize them. As I said, most LIHOP turn to MIHOP eventually. It's about having patience with other people around you. We don't have to get along, and we don't even have to like each other. We do, however, have to have a common goal, and that has ALWAYS been absolute truth, and absolute accountability. No matter where it leads.

blimp, as i pointed out


as i pointed out before, i tend to cover alot from 911truth and 911citizenswatch because they tend to post alot of articles, if i am missing 9/11 related articles please send them in as they come out.

as for my atta shirt, if you dont like it, dont buy it. if you have another shirt you would like to see then suggest it.

as for the hijackers, i dont 'blame them for everything', which is why i post stories suggesting they were drug runners, or about demolition, or whatever, just as i cover articles on able danger, i post it all so that others can be aware of everything coming out and do their own research.

as for my opinions, they don't matter, because they are just that, opinions, and i am not going to allow anyones opinions to divide the greater point, paying attention to 9/11 related news.

attack my credibility all you want, your desire to attack brings just as many questions to your intentions. your problems with all the 9/11 groups is not my problem, i am just covering new things as they come out, and i dont need you attacking me as supporting any opinion just because i link to it, i am just as apt to link to an article of the alternative opinion if/when i come across them.

you attack me for linking to 911truth, but yet you give no credit for linking to your site, and as i have said before i am not going to get involved in this type of bickering and i am going to continue to do what i have been doing for the last 12 months despite your opinion or the opinions of others like oilempire who has the same sort of divisive motives as you.

i will keep your link to your site, and i will keep your abilities to post here, but i will not continue this type of crap on my site. any more of this waste of time and division will just be deleted straight off the bat, and then you can add me to your 'gatekeeper' list and publish it along side oilempire's 'bogus 9/11 sites' list. with the irony being that i link to both.

if you have any comments in the future to post feel free, but this divicive crap is going away, so if thats all you can contribute then i would assume you will find little use in posting here much in the future.

Jon wrote Both LIHOP and

Jon wrote Both LIHOP and MIHOP can co-exist. In my experience, LIHOP eventually turns into MIHOP anyway.

In theory, that's true, but in practice, LIHOP always ends up seeming like "the sensible compromise", permitting the baddest of bad guys to get away, to live to mass murder another day, as intended by the baddest of bad guys via the limited-hangouts built into all their scams, as per the narrow-formatted example in what is now the 3rd post in this thread (see above), which was our best chance of stopping 9/11, back in the 1980s. But John Kerry ("The Kerry Committee") managed to discover the cocaine smuggling portion of Iran-Contra without really uncovering/headlining it (ie, a limited hang-out), permitting false faith in our fake government to persist and flourish. (And now some of us wonder how a 9/11 could happen, and why most people believe the government and not us about 9/11?)

That is what makes LIHOP deadly dangerous (it's just playing into the treasonous perpetrator's escape plans), rather than the MIHOP-lite or intro-to-MIHOP most people always want to see it as. Limited-hangouts are just a cost of doing business to such institutionalized perpetrators!

Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it (or have it repeated at/on them!).

Jon made what I felt was one of his best comments ever at the top of this thread, when he said that, "If the Government doesn't listen to us, then we need a new Government. Plain and simple." (That echoes the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Bravo.)

I promise and guarantee you that LIHOP will wind up being incompatible with that sentiment, based upon the experiences of history.

9/11 still has the power to harness enough anger (and, yes, hate) to reach some kind of tipping point fast and hard (NOT gently or gradually), sufficient to drive We The People to really clean out the barn (ie, not just another regime rotation). Selling short the size and scope of The Big Lie is an attempt, a buffer, an insurance policy of sorts, to prevent that from ever happening.

It is a LIHOP(-serving, 911truth.org practiced and published) survival tactic to dismissively mislabel and denigrate such important truths -- especially pointing out how LIHOPer equates to LImited HangOut Practitioner -- as "divisive crap" or "personal bickering" or "personal animosities" or "cliques" or anything like, that when nothing could be further from the truth, especially given that it is intellectually dishonest on its face to only present some truths and to hide others which, just 'coincidentally', comprise the same ones the lying government has also buried, even though these folks claim to be opposing the lying govt, and are very friendly in some ways to some of us...

You can't successfully fight lies with half-truths. LIHOP is not only insufficient to get us to where we need to go, but history insists that it will prevent us from getting there.

Mark my words. Fact-check my words. Ignore my words. Or censor my words, at our mutual peril.

blimp, thanks for the


thanks for the sensible response. i dont want to censor anything here, no matter who agrees with it or doesnt..

i was a bit confused with your use of LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) in conjunctions with whatreallyhappened.com and 911truth.org as both have published to some degree the idea of controlled demolition, which is directly against 'let it happen on purpose'. your definition of 'limited hangout practitioner' is a good bit different i think.

could you provide a specific listing of what items these two sites refuse to cover? i am wondering if your issue with them is that they refuse to cover certain subjects, or if it is because they do not stick to a few specific items which you beleive should be the primary focus.

typically these types of discussions should be saved for a forum or something like that.. the comments on a blog are typically to comment on the article/topic which you are commenting on.

in any event, i am all for open discusison, but i dont want these things to take over my comments and keep others from asking questions, or being scared away from commenting because they dont want to get involved in an arguement. perhaps you could carry this conversation to john's board, and perhaps we can keep this site a bit less confrontational, since this site is more for awareness for all info rather than supporting any specific set of beleifs.

(edit: removed the

(edit: removed the lihop/mihop/disinfo/gatekeeper waste of time crap)

Please recocile your stated sense that 911blogger is for awareness of all info, with the reality that some of the site(s) 911blogger promotes are for the awareness of only selected info and for the suppression (or mis-framing and mal-presentation) of more revealing info, and how that contradicts their and your and my stated purpose.

(edit: what sites do that i link to are not under my control, take your arguements with those sites elsewhere. i will not have you continue to waste peoples time reading your lengthy and largely repetitive and pointless diatribes. take a break and realize you are wasting your time arguing with 1% of those who care about 9/11 instead of the 99% who we need to be focused on. take it elsewhere, this is not a blog for you and your issues with others.)Edited By Siteowner

look at it this way, no one

look at it this way, no one should be so naive as to think they can get their information from only one source.

Anyone who does, won't even bother with a site like this in the first place. (that's why fox news has such a sick following, they don't watch anything else) if a person comes to this site, it means they are probably open-minded enough to look at various angles of research.

thank you rayrayjones, well

thank you rayrayjones, well said.