9/11 Truth Starting to Break Through Leftwing Gatekeepers


Is 9/11 truth starting to break through leftwing gatekeeper media? Stories questioning the official version of 9/11 have run in the last couple of days in:


Common Dreams


Air America's Charles Goyette and

Air America's Mike Malloy.

Now that the gate is open an inch, we must redouble our efforts to get the truth through to the public.

I'm not knocking Scott

I'm not knocking Scott Ritter. I think he's got a strong, loud voice, and people listen to what he has to say. However, I also think people need to listen to what he has to say with a grain of salt.

re: attack iran remember the

re: attack iran

remember the news that a laptop with iranian plans for "nookular" bombs was found last autumn?

german first television magazine "report mainz" discovered that was some more blatant lie- http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID5211082_TYP6_THE_NA...

Search for David Albright in english!

Deja vú all over again!

Ok. NOW I'm knocking Scott

Ok. NOW I'm knocking Scott Ritter...

Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran

Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent

By Brandon Garcia

02/06/06 (Santa Fe New Mexican, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."

"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.

Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

The only way to prevent a war with Iran is to elect a Democratically controlled Congress in November, said Ritter, a lifelong Republican. He later said he wasn't worried his advice would be seen as partisan because, "It's a partisan issue." He said the problem is one party government and if Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, he would advise people to elect Republicans.

Most of Ritter's hour-long speech focused on Iraqi weapons programs from shortly before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq. He also discussed the weapons-inspections process during that time.

Ritter was in charge of U.N. weapons inspections until he resigned in 1998. Before the Iraq invasion, Ritter said, he told Congress that inspections needed to continue.

He also said he was a Marine in the Persian Gulf War and was part of an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s.

Throughout the 1990s, Ritter said, America's real policy for Iraq was regime change -- not forcing Iraq to disarm and destroy chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. The U.S. insisted on regime change, he said, because it believes transforming the Middle East countries into democracies will help ensure American access to oil.

The policy, he said, was borne from a political problem, not a threat to national security.

Ritter said the CIA knew Iraq had no ballistic, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by 1995. "We knew there were no WMDs in Iraq," he said.

Ritter blamed Americans' apathy for allowing Bush to claim there was an intelligence failure. Presidents can lie to the public too easily about national security issues because Americans aren't paying attention, he said.

"It's a damn shame there's so many more people interested in the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers," he said in reference to the two teams that played in Sunday's Super Bowl.

After his speech, Ritter took questions from the audience. The first questioner wondered whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were faked. Ritter, a fiery speaker, seemed irritated by the question and said the attacks were real.

Someone else asked if he was interested in running for Congress. While the question drew applause, Ritter responded, "I hate politics."

Ritter, 44, was promoting his book Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speech was sponsored by Peace Action New Mexico.

re Malloy: I believe in

re Malloy: I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I am keenly aware of how positive activist energy and interest is dissipated by following sub-optimal strategies, in many cases promoted by folks that want to keep the status quo. No, I don't believe that Malloy wants to keep the status quo. But I am questioning his judgement in doing such a mediocre job (IMHO) in BUIILDING A CASE for LIHOP (or even MIHOP).

Why would he have a show mostly dedicated to letting callers call in with their 911 stories? Aren't there articulate spokespeople who do a fine job of this, who could field the questions? Would Malloy DIE if he yielded control of the platform to somebody more able, and less caustic at the same time? And furthermore, did this a number of times?

I think not.

hows that god complex going

hows that god complex going blimp?

blimp attacking Malloy?

blimp attacking Malloy? blimp attacking other people in general? you dont say.........

Hey Sitting-Bull, don't be

Hey Sitting-Bull, don't be discouraged, remember how great it is to see someone else with a 9/11 Truth flyer or carrying a copy of Loose Change around.

Even if you don't realize it, your hard work is being noticed by someone, somewhere, who is being reassured that they are not alone.

I can't wait for the day when someone puts a flyer on my windshield.

re: attacking

re: attacking Iran.

impossible. the JCS just like to advance the idea as furthest as they can, in order to have it as an option, in case, wait for this:

- 911 truth is about to hit the media
- the dollar collapses

honestly guys, if you want "Nukular" war, just go on and push 911-truth and thereby undermine the dollar, and provoke the blacks and muslims uniting in the street.

the whole thing is blackmail.

In yet other words:

what would you rather have? A monetary collapse and the poor of the world have to suffer the consequences ... or continued madness.

Think of 911 as sort of a sacrifice for the best of the planet. A little asbestos and some sad deaths, nice and quick... painless, shock-endorphinised.

like morphine.. keep calm.

Maybe this angle would find a big echo in the media. In fact yous could invent a MEDAL OF HONOR... the

Medal of service to peace by unique
forethought and tangible planning,

maybe start collecting money to make
is a high award...

I hereby tap Hugh Shelton.

Scolars are great. For the

Scolars are great. For the first time since I joyned the 911 truth movement in early 2002 I am not ashamed to spread my thoughts- and less people call me conspiracy nuts. I hope my experience encourage other people...



Could they be that stupid? Could they actually bomb Iran?

Bombing Iran is so stupid,

Bombing Iran is so stupid, that it is clever.

Have you observed how the Bush-people have adopted


Thats a joke actually. WE are supposed to think that THEY are failing, so we don't flog the dead horse.

The alternet and common

The alternet and common dream articles were COMPLETELY lame. They do nothing but reinforce by rock solid belief in the gatekeeper phenomenon, and were more or less what I expected, before I even read them. The counterpunch article only mentioned 911 briefly, although it did give a reference to Scholars for 911 Truth.

IMO, activists would be better off focussing on what they CAN accomplish. If activists approaced every civil engineering professor in the country, they might get 1 in 50 to join Scholars for 911 Truth.

Activists HAVE been trying to get the media to focus on the biggest problems with the Goverment's 911 Fairy Tales, have mostly failed, and will mostly continue to fail (if history is any guide).


As for creating a new media, where YOU pick gatekeepers that you trust, please see my post "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" at http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406

The Charles Goyette

The Charles Goyette interview of Fetzer IS impressive. While Mike Malloy's courage in adopting the MIHOP hypothesis is duly noted, and appreciated, what exactly has he done to support his (and my) belief? Had he invited Professor Fetzer onto his show? Professor David Ray Griffin? Jim Hoffman?

Mostly, we get his "opinion", which is strongly and emotionally anti-Bush, and thus of questionable objectivity.

If Malloy was seriously interested in BUILDING A CASE FOR HIS OPINION, he would approach the subject very differently.

The only thing that's

The only thing that's changed with malloy is that he has now stated he unequivocally has NO DOUBT that it was inside job. But he has been talking about it for years, long before he joined air america. He has had ruppert on several times. Everyone here should give him encouraging feedback and suggest some guests that they would like to see on his show. I wrote him and recommended Griffin and Tarpley.

That's nice to know - I mean

That's nice to know - I mean that Mike Malloy now has no doubt - but why does he do such a lousy job of backing up his opinion?

I have an educational background in science, so my "prejudice" is to determine an issue based on the strongest arguments. In the political area, things are very different, but I see no reason why Malloy cannot supplement his more political arguments (and ranting :-) ) with some more scholarly ones. In fact, if he was concerned about changing people's minds, I would think he'd be eager to do so.

Instead, I get the impression that he is mostly interested in venting.

His interviews of Ruppert are steps in the right direction. Why are such invterviews such a rare occurrence?

Yeah, venting and ranting

Yeah, venting and ranting are pretty much his style. Not trying to do PR for Malloy, just wanted to mention that it's not really a new thing with him. I was suprised that air america added him to their lineup in the first place.

Capt May tears apart the

Capt May tears apart the media code on 911


If you listened to Malloy

If you listened to Malloy tonight (Monday) you wouldn't be so fast to criticize. He opened up his program promoting Dylan's "Loose Change 2". He gave it a huge plug. He even plugged Dylan's web site. He says Loose Change is as good a documentary as anything Michael Moore puts out. What more can the man do? Give me a freggin break!!! What do you want? A full confession from Bush.

> Now that the gate is open

> Now that the gate is open an inch, we must redouble our efforts to get the truth through to the public.

That sounds good to me. It seems to me like interest and activity remains up, world-wide, in the aftermath of that Aussie TV program last month. Interest and activity on the part of the seekers and keepers of the truth, IMHO.

We must not assume that those who keep the gates are not opening them very selectively, to those who are in league with them, and at a very controlled, slow rate. (If the person who gets out in front of the truth movement and moves it in the best direction at 1/10 the optimal rate, and no one gets out in front of that person [or is prevented from doing so by that person's minions, however well-intentioned], that still helps the perps...)

Re: Malloy - I gave up on him years ago, so when I heard [of] his unequivocal "conversion" in 2005, I found it sudden, surprising, and not praticularly well substantiated. And, as pointed out above, his actions do not seem to back up his words. It's as if he's saying that it's hopeless, it doesn't matter... To me that says that Malloy('s show) is.

maddog, I saw your comment


I saw your comment after posting. Your post is encouraging (except for that part about being comparable to what "Michael Moore puts out" - yuck). But, yeah, through the miracle of modern technology, I can make Bush say either of his incriminating 9/11 witness statements at the touch of a button, any time I want, so why can't Dems? What can't Malloy?

I just downloaded Monday's 3-hr show; a very quick and incomplete audio skim did not provide any indication of 9/11 truth, but I did hear lots of false Republicrat-Demican banter helping to perpetuate that false paradigm -- it still sounds to me like Mike remains much more about distracting listeners from the bigger picture, and helping divide We The People, than about doing something to help us get the U.S. Constitution back. That's not what I want to hear when I listen to "resistance radio".

What's the point of knowing, and having the goods (evidence) on the suspects if we keep it hushed up (for them)?

About bombing

About bombing Iran:

From a comment:
"Yesterday Scott Ritter spoke in Sante Fe. He said he talked to John Bolton's speechwriter and the speech has already been written wherein Bolton tells the UN that regardless of whether the UN approves sanctions on Iran or not, the US has the unilateral right to "defend outselves" and attack Iran.

And today in Israel's Haaretz paper, a senior State Department official confirms this by saying that if the UN does not impose sanctions on Iran, the US will anyway.

I repeat, there is absolutely no doubt that the US and Israel will attack Iran within the next two to six months.

It will be the biggest diplomatic, economic and military disaster in US history."

Scott Ritter has said a lot

Scott Ritter has said a lot of things over the years.

Here's one where Scott said

Here's one where Scott said we were going to bomb Iran in June 2005


And when we didn't, he wrote this...


Yes, but it seems to me that

Yes, but it seems to me that the Iran issue has been delayed...Seymour Hersh said similar things back in 2005, and he was wrong too.


Family Guy: "It's so

Family Guy: "It's so brilliant, it's RE-TAAADED"

Malloy update. Last night

Malloy update. Last night Mike said he will try to get Griffin on his show. I will keep you all updated. I listen to Malloy every night. I love his rants. He keeps me fired up. I especially love the way he handles right-wing Bush supporters when they call in. It is a thing of beauty when he chops them up and spits them out.

Griffin on Malloy's show

Griffin on Malloy's show would be awesome...please keep lobbying him.

I only pop in on these boards infrequently. So until next time, keep up the great work everyone.

Over and out,

I just e-mailed Malloy

I just e-mailed Malloy asking him to have either Griffin or Dylan on his show. I urge others to do the same.

got a link maddog?

got a link maddog?