9/11 Truth is Not a Left or Right Issue

Conservatives for 9/11 Truth - TPM Cafe

Most people, when they encounter 9/11 skeptics for the first time, assume that most members of the 911 truth movement would be drawn from the left of center politically. In fact, most of the strongest and most respected voices speaking about 911 truth are conservatives-- old-school republicans who speak out of a profound respect for the truth, the constitution and the rule of law.
Paul Craig Roberts was the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan where he developed the theory of economics that came to be called "Reaganomics.".
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during George W. Bush's first term.
Steven E. Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. .. Professor Jones describes himself as a life-long Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000.

The simple facts are that most people who question 9/11 are disgusted with both the democrat and republican parties - as both continue to ignore the questions surrounding 9/11. In fact, a good number of those who question 9/11 are more likely to subscribe to older conservative values which included limiting federal powers, limiting federal spending, and holding government officials accountable for their actions.

A couple of other 9/11 skeptics who might appeal to the 'right' would include Stanley Hilton (former chief of staff for Bob Dole) and David Schippers (Top Clinton Impeachment Lawyer). Who else can you think of?

Thanks Matthew for the heads up!

The 9/11 Card

nice find gold, thats what

nice find gold, thats what it looks like when bush flat out lies.


about 10min 30sec in..


I added a little bit to the

I added a little bit to the kos...

Nice work Jon, too bad about

Nice work Jon, too bad about the peanut gallery.

Dude... I'm kickin' their

Dude... I'm kickin' their ASSES... if I do say so my damn self... I could use some help though...

good work over there jon.

good work over there jon. one thing i'd add to make your post even better. add some

html to distinguish the quotes. other than that...impressive.

i think we're really making a difference over there at dailykos. or at least we're pissing people off. And I think Plutonium Page used to be a front page poster. (they rotate a group every year). he's a joke.

http://ny911truth.org. *pleas

*please forward liberally*
*send responses to trahila@earthlink.net*

Dear Friends of Truth and Justice for September 11th,

When Hollywood stars like Charlie Sheen feel secure enough to acknowledge they don't believe the official lies about 9/11, then you know we're having an impact. (See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060321072815695)

This week's New York magazine article by Mark Jacobson is a major breakthrough to a potential 1.8 million readers in the Metro area and it's going to bring a lot of new people to our events and our web sites. (See commentary and article archive at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060320164312944)

We urge you all to write to the editors today so that they acknowledge of a flood of responses from genuine 9/11 skeptics. Their contact page (http://nymag.com/contactus/index.html) includes a webform and the following information:

>If you want to submit a letter to New York magazine, e-mail nyletters@nymag.com.
>To write to us the old-fashioned way, send mail to:
>New York Magazine
>444 Madison Avenue, 4th Fl.
>New York, NY, 10022

Please be sober & serious in all your contacts, whether to praise or criticize, and see below for some suggestions about things to say.


TIME: 12 pm â?" 2 pm
LOCATION: 120 Broadway (south of Fulton St. - The building belongs to Silverstein Properties!)

2 pm demonstration at Ground Zero
4 pm demonstration at Wall St. & Broadway to engage the financial district

In November of 2004, NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office received "Justice for 9/11," an indendent Citizens Complaint & Petition demanding an investigation and grand jury into the unsolved crimes of September 11, 2001. (For complete document, see http://Justicefor911.org - and don't forget to sign the petition!)

Spitzer's deputy, William Casey, personally received the complaint. In public events Mr. Spitzer was asked for a response to this Complaint, which he acknowledged knowing about. To this day there has been no response. ...

Read about the action at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060315102054599

See you there!


6PM Sunday, Mar 26
At the Parish House, 10th Street and Second Ave., Manhattan

This week: Video of David Ray Griffin's lecture on "9/11 and the American Empire" (as seen on C-SPAN last year). To be followed by discussion. It is an excellent summary of the case for 9/11 skepticism and the need for immediate action, and therefore ideal for you to invite new people to St. Mark's.

For more on the event, see http://ny911truth.org.


*send responses to trahila@earthlink.net*

e-mail nyletters@nymag.com

If you're feeling venturesome, you could also write to one of the daily papers to
point to the Voice article and ask them: Why aren't they covering this stuff? (I
recommend Newsday as the most likely to respond, e-mail letters@newsday.com.)

Some points you might choose to make, in your own words of course:

You might praise the article for being even-handed and detailed.

Or you might criticize it for its failings.

Either way is fine, long as you convey your own disbelief in the official story
and the urgency of doing something about it.

Always keep it sober & serious. Remember, YOU are the one representing the
reasonable position.

You might identify yourself as a long-term skeptic of the Official Conspiracy
Theory of September 11th, or as a newcomer to the 9/11 truth idea.

If you attend the weekly meetings at St. Mark's Church every Sunday evening,
don't neglect to mention that. Especially that these are weekly, every Sunday,
at St. Mark's. Let's get some new people!

9/11 was the pretext for two wars and a transformation of the country. Trillions
of dollars were shifted from butter to guns. It's all based on the idea that foreign
terrorists are the primary threat to our security. The truth of 9/11, that the threat
actually lies within, will help end the wars and reverse the destructive Bush policies.

The antiwar movement cannot make inroads within the pro-war base until the myth
of 9/11 is eroded. As long as people fear and believe in the phantom menace, they
will support the government that promises to protect them.

In the news right now are stories about the Moussaoui case and the failed hand-over of
security at US ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates. You might point
out that the Emirates, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, are
a hotbed of terrorist financing. Yet the Administration considered a UAE company
safe for running US ports, including New York. Does George Bush even believe his
own lies about 9/11?!

And does anyone remember the Oct. 2001 story that, two months
prior to 9/11, Osama Bin Ladin spent 10 days at a hospital in one of the Emirates,
Dubai, where he was visited by a CIA station chief? Long as we're hearing all about
the Emirates-Qaeda connection, why not any news about the CIA-Qaeda connection?


FBI Agent Slams Bosses at Moussaoui Trial

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Mar. 21, 2006

(AP) The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 testified Monday he spent almost four weeks trying to warn U.S. officials about the radical Islamic student pilot but "criminal negligence" by superiors in Washington thwarted a chance to stop the 9/11 attacks.

FBI agent Harry Samit of Minneapolis originally testified as a government witness, on March 9, but his daylong cross examination by defense attorney Edward MacMahon was the strongest moment so far for the court-appointed lawyers defending Moussaoui.


Some of these conservatives

Some of these conservatives understand the no plane theory. I wonder if Charlie Sheen understands the absurdity of an aluminum plane filled with hydrocarbons striking a solid steel structure like a hot knife into soft butter?


In the real world a jet plane would explode upon impact and break into pieces with most of the pieces falling to the street below. Jets do not disappear unscathed without a bent wing tip a spark or flame. This is almost as amazing as the Pentalawn!


Amanda... do you have

Amanda... do you have footage of a commercial jet slamming into a building? I've been looking for something to compare it to.

9/11 CHECKMATE An Open


An Open Letter to:

Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Sam Seder, Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, Arianna Huffington, Markos Moulitsas, Atrios, Skinner, New York City Fire Department, New York City Police Department

We know you know. The world knows you know.

What kind of professional future do you see for yourselves? How will you explain yourselves? Are you aware that you are naked to the world? Do you believe you will be able to ride this out and plead ignorance? How scared are you? How complicit are you? How weak are you?

We are not scared, and we are not weak. Our friends and family members are dead. They were murdered. To what degree do you realize what your silence is doing to their memory? To what degree do you realize what you are doing to our lives? To what degree do you realize what you are doing to your own professional futures?

The truth has you in checkmate. Stop being weak.


dz, Jon- please post and/or circulate. Thank you for all that you do.

9/11 music: From the

Charlie Sheen on NBC, "WTC a

Charlie Sheen on NBC, "WTC a controlled demolition"!!


that's what he posted. i'm on the west coast and it comes on 45 minutes. hope it's true!

Ian C. If it is... please

Ian C. If it is... please record it... dz will put it up!

Can someone tell me how

Can someone tell me how video of a plane slicing into a building like butter as absolute proof of holograms and/or video fakery is any better than video of a pod underneath a plane being absolute proof of the planes being swapped?

There is no difference that I see, both sides attack each other for how they are interpreting video footage and each side is convinced they are right based on their interpretation.

Each side considers the other side crazy for how they are interpreting the footage. Unfortunately both sides are basing their conclusions based on their interpretations of grainy footage.

Oh well, good luck with that, the rest of us will continue to work at uncovering some real evidence.

jon...i'm actually waiting

jon...i'm actually waiting for my tv input card in the mail right now! a few days too late. damn. hopefully someone else will catch it.

damn, i hope someone can

damn, i hope someone can grab a copy of it.. i dont see anything about it on their site yet..


let me know if you can confirm it was actually on the show, and any details on it if it was. thanks :)

Lots of interesting comments

Lots of interesting comments on 'talk-back' section of the official V for Vendetta site: http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/index2.html Probably a good place to leave some links.

Dailykos: Where

Dailykos: Where self-righteous pseudo-intellectuals never feel like coming down from their pedestal.

yeah...saw it half hour ago!

yeah...saw it half hour ago! it was in the first 10 minutes. it was about a 30 second segment, but it played two audio clips of him from Alex's show. I was increadible to see. the clip was him saying it didn't look like a plane he'd ever flown on, and the other clip was him saying "tell me if i'm crazy, but that looked like a controlled demolition".

that was about it. no counter argument. i thought it was pretty good for a tabliod show.

as for the clip, if no one else got it, i just talked to my buddy and he said he would record it tomorrow morning when it replays.

It was written, above: Can

It was written, above:

Can someone tell me how video of a plane slicing into a building like butter as absolute proof of holograms and/or video fakery is any better than video of a pod underneath a plane being absolute proof of the planes being swapped?

There is no difference that I see, both (sic) sides attack each other for how they are interpreting video footage and each side is convinced they are right based on their interpretation.

Arguing over what hit the buildings is rapidly becoming a national pastime. That acts as the diversion/distraction/disinfo campaign.

911blimp.net just presents video evidence, including what was recorded as it went out over the airwaves on 9/11. (I remain amazed that more people didn't record 9/11...)

The fact that the national self-proclaimed leading 911 truthers can't/won't link to 911blimp.net, as if they don't want people to even know of it, is obstructionist, and telling -- it makes them look like they're mostly a pack of wolves in sheep dogs' clothing (IOW, fake 911 truthers) whose job it is to suppress the truth, or at least any views of which they do not approve (as if that's somehow their job!), about 9/11.

They come up with labels (people tend to think of things in the simplest terms, using the most convenient labels...) to steer how people think about 9/11: So a single bulge in the supposed 2nd WTC aircraft is referred to as a "pod" (all the better to denigrate those who notice it as "pod people"). There is a blatant brilliant brief bright burst of light in the only known video of the 1st WTC impact. Gatekeepers such as Jim Hoffman of wtc7.net and 911research.com and 911review.com and the MSM and other supporters of (that aspect of) the official government fairy tale suppress that evidence. They also ignore the fact that, in the video we were all expected to be able to replay and review, there was a less blatant burst of light upon the 2nd WTC impact which lined up perfectly with the apparent bulge! Then they try to ridicule and dismiss (ie, suppress) most web sites which notice any of this by (mis)labeling (or should I say dislabeling) them as "a(nother) 'pods and flashes' site", and let the disparaged illogical incorrect labels do many people's thinking for them... (And as for their suppression/avoidance of any mention of "the 'h' word", methinks they doth protest way too much!)

So I guess the answer is that the arguments over all that serve as a side show (and, sadly, some people will think of those embroiled in that argument as "both" sides, which makes the suppression of other sites/sides/views more fully effective).

See, if those site-suppressing wolves in sheepdogs' clothing really wanted the truth to move, they would point out the simple truth that it is intellectually dishonest to continue to blame 9/11 on Muslim "hijackers" once we know that we cannot blame the collapses on "airplanes". But, instead, they'd rather argue over details, and accuse those who express doubt about the part of the government's fairy tale about "hijacked commercial passenger airliners are what hit the buildings" of having some kind of "no-plane" theory (which is not [necessarily] true), and use that as cover for their government-friendly form of censorship (ie, government-lie-breaking evidence suppression).

To take sides in that is to fall into their trap.

There were no planes or

There were no planes or buildings involved on 9/11. Anyone who says otherwise is a gatekeeper wooing people with phantom "collapsing buildings" and "airliners".

The attacks were, in fact, orchestrated by an advanced civilization from Alpha Centauri using high-tech hologram technology. Period.

yep blimp, youre right, we

yep blimp, youre right, we should tell people who have never heard that 911 was an inside job that no planes flew into the wtcs.... HAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!

you are a real nutjob...

i ask you this blimp, if the no plane thing was true would it even matter at this point????

i dont think so... so get over it...

See, just like I said: The

See, just like I said: The fake 911 truthers prefer to argue about the "planes" so very much in question (typically in support of the lying government, of course), and insult honest 911 truthers, and make personal attacks, and spew nonsense, than to help those people who just want to learn the truth about 9/11 to be able to recognize the obvious fact that once we know that we cannot blame the collapses on "airplanes", the govt lie is already shattered.

Given that, why would I even bother responding to them in order to demonstrate how baseless such points of view are? That would just add to their waste of bandwidth...

Constantly promoting the

Constantly promoting the most unrealistic, illogical, dubious phenomena as being fundamental to the 9/11 truth movement is an extremely bad idea, Blimpy! It makes us look not credible.

I do find all the

I do find all the peculiarities in the whatever-appeared-to-crash-into-the-towers worth a careful analysis, but I also find it a good idea to not begin with these issues when introducing the 9/11 issue to people. It is easier to convince people that the three towers were brought down by means of controlled demolition than that no planes, or even that no passenger planes, hit the twin towers.

Here's a video a friend sent

Here's a video a friend sent a while back of a plane disentigrating into a wall. It kinda reminds me of the Pentagon... plus the C-ring hole... minus the wing/engine damage. The narrator says the plane's going about 500 mph, but the details of the concrete wall aren't given, nor any context for further research. Take it for what it's worth.


I agree that the "no planes" argument degrades the movement, but no moreso than any other internal bickering. I completely understand the unquenchable thirst for information where there isn't much to be had. I personally feel like I've exhausted 90% or more of the relevant and prevalent data. It's at this point I'm finally reading into the possibility of "no-planes," for lack of a better reason than I've read all of the interesting (and well written) information I can find. I agree, it's ridiculous, but I don't think it's inherently out of order to consider the possibility. How am I any better than the various investigative bodies which avoided questions involving alternatives to the official account by choosing which questions are tolerable myself? I find the idea nearly insane, but I'm a philosopher, and unless it's seriously risking the credibility and success of the movement I can't judge any genuine pursuit of knowledge as counterproductive. Not to pinch any nerves, but our credibility isn't exactly the greatest just yet. We're barely breaking free of the "conspiracy theorist" labels, and that's strictly due to the Scholars' group which deserves all of our unending support.

Don't forget people... New

Don't forget people...

New Yorkers To Challenge NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer

This is taking place today. If you can be there... please go.

Hi Aaron I read your post

Hi Aaron

I read your post and mostly agree.

There is nothing wrong with speculating about remotely possible ideas, this is how leading edge inventions and concepts are realised.

However, it becomes damaging when major 9/11 websites like reopen911.org start touting ridiculous claims like "Proof Blue Screen Technology Faked 2nd Plane" - How offputting is that.

Everyone is entitled to think and believe what they want... But to be a credible movement (which is what I want to be part of) - You certainly don't lead with your absolute most ridiculous idea, instead you offer much more credible and provable evidence, like the witnessed 36 hour powerdown at the towers the weekend before 9/11 and the presence of many engineers, with spools of cable.

The noplane thing makes nosense.

Cheers :)

Running out the door to work

Running out the door to work but heres a quick note. Check out youtube.com. Put 911 truth in the search box. Theres lots of cool video clips includeing Sysyem Of A Down "Soldier Side" which shows the WTC collapse and WTC7. Tons of vids to check out! Crack a Red Bull!

The reopen911 site is full

The reopen911 site is full of great resources but the first impression of the site is that its like the proverbial refrigerator covered with news paper articles stuck to it with magnets.

We need better organized resources that will show the newbee the 911 continuum. It is the volumn of contraditions that convinces, not the individual component pieces.

WTC7 is the lone exception. How the hell do explain its perfect collapse?

Ramblin again.


Pondering the number of

Pondering the number of conservatives who have come forward with 9/11 Truth may be a nice topic for discussion, but I prefer to actualize my 9/11 Truth experience.

Today I will deliver copies of Loose Change 2 to the following local management offices of Westfield Mall. My next level of distribution will be to their tenant list.

Maybe there is a Westfield Mall near you.


4230 Belden Village Mall, Canton OH

500 Southpark Center, Strongville OH

5001 Monroe Street, Toledo OH

4954 Great Northern Mall, North Olmsted OH

3343 Midway Mall, Elyria OH

2209 Richland Mall, Mansfield OH


Pro-Israel Lobby In U.S.

Pro-Israel Lobby In U.S. Under Attack

"They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11."

Wow... a UPI story to boot.

Oh, so airliners can't bust

Oh, so airliners can't bust up skyscrapers???

Here what a small private plane did crashing into the tallest building in Milan, Italy in 2002!!!!




So stop your no planes at the WTC b.s.!!!!

Anonymous... great pictures.

Anonymous... great pictures. They look familiar don't they?

That pretty much ends the nonsensical "no-plane" debate.

Yes, very familiar Jon! I

Yes, very familiar Jon! I hope we can move on from the no planes at the WTC stuff now.

And if the "no-planers"

And if the "no-planers" can't see that, or refuse to see that, then at this point, I have to question their intentions.

Right on as always, Jon!

Right on as always, Jon!

Notice how the jet is

Notice how the jet is destroyed in this video?


And the concrete block it hit was only a very small fraction of the WTC mass.

This is the real world, not a Pentagon PsyOp one.

That isn't an attack, it's

That isn't an attack, it's an observation. The "no-planers" need to put the idea of "no-planes" on the shelf after looking at those pictures. If they continue pushing that theory, then there is a reason other than patriotism at work. At some point, you have to question what that reason is...

AR--it's time to let go of

AR--it's time to let go of the "no planes at WTC theory." Thank you.

AR--I do admire most of your

AR--I do admire most of your other research & analysis.

Notice how the jet is

Notice how the jet is destroyed in this video?

http://www.filecabi.net/video/pl.../ planewall.html

And the concrete block it hit was only a very small fraction of the WTC mass.

This is the real world, not a Pentagon PsyOp one.

real world for a wall designed to stop things from hitting a nuclear power plant not a building used for businesses with windows and viewing holes which wouldn't stop a tiny bullet going 700mph, much less a plane going 500mph.

nice try though! a man to reckon with...you started with good research and relevant information, then you suddenly became this huge blue screen, fake plane person...dare i say....out of the blue. what gives? what agency has taken over your brain?

rayrayjones... if they

rayrayjones... if they continue pushing the "no-plane" theory, then they are suspect. Let's just wait and see before we start making accusations.

That would also include

That would also include Morgan Reynolds.

"No Planer" Is An Imprecise

"No Planer" Is An Imprecise Term
Say What You Mean, Don't Be Lazy

Often people use blanket terminology to confuse 911 related issues. The term "no planer" is a good example. Does this term relate to the WTC or the Pentagon (or the other site)? Most people using this term make no distinctions.

At the Pentagon evidence of something other than a passenger jet being used is fairly compelling. Such as a perfect circle punch-out hole three defense rings into the building. For some people this indicates a directed charge explosive device being used. If you say this you will be called a "no planer"

At the WTC site evidence is less compelling, apparently relying on video clips of the impact alone. However there are shades of grey between the false options of "plane" or "no-plane". From the poor quality videos available it is impossible to verify that the specified civilian flights impacted the WTC Towers. There are no commercial logos visible or even windows. I'm not arguing they were not there, simply that they can't be seen. But often anyone that even posits that other aircraft were used is wrongly labeled a "No Planer".

Mr. Blimp, regarding sites not linking to yours, this cannot be held against them. All anyone can do is make a website as good as possible and hope for an interested response from the viewers. I worked on a 911-Truth site before there was a 911truth.org, so this comes from experience. Building traffic is always up to the site administrator and contributors, no on else. (www.EmpireWatch.org rip)

Republican back patting is rather annoying at this point. But if it helps to reach more people, I'll let it slide. If the article had just used the word conservative it would be more credible, but no, right in the first paragraph it claims that the people listed are "old school republicans". Did they really ask David Ray Griffin about his political affiliation?

Of course there's no use making fun of people actually inclined to help raise 911 awareness. I guess this article is good for it's intended audience. I'd rather give credit to independents.

This is the LAST frontier of the 911 Truth movement. Even people that voted for Junior Bush twice (cough cough, Republicans) are starting to question. So it is a good sign.
see: "911 For Real" http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/336448.shtml

a bit more Off Topic: Someone that saw the first plane from a distance of ~500 ft told me (in person) that there were no windows and the paint job was more like a delivery plane, brown/orangish. But I will not argue this because eye-witness testimony is the first thing to be dismissed by people looking to be argumentative. Take it as a pointer, or don't.

fair enough, i won't accuse.

fair enough, i won't accuse. But i'll damn sure suspect.

There have been a pair of

There have been a pair of doves roosting in front of the window of the master suite.



Keep in mind that whether

Keep in mind that whether George Bush knew exactly what was going to happen the morning of 9/11 is irrelevant to what happened.

WTC7 came down by controlled demolition. Who did it is not necessary to ask for a new investigation.

Just to insert a comment

Just to insert a comment into the no-plane discussion. Bamford books suggests the rescue of a man under a desk who saw the plane come toward him. Hard to refute that.

Two. Sheen. Hollywood shouldn't be afraid to come forward. Ed Asner could dance naked yelling 9/11 is a lie from the foyer of NBS and no one would mention it.

Lastly, I watch you guys on Daily Kos diaries. One of the most frustrating things is seeing people say, how is it possible for so many to continue this deception. To me it is all too easy. Bush was once CIA and probably still has many loyalists within that institution. Selling them on the next 40 or 50 years of America's economic and military dominance in the world (and securing the future for their families, and others) is an easy sell. Any like minded CIA agent would sign on to this. To quote star Trek - The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few 2 or three thousand killed.

"real world for a wall

"real world for a wall designed to stop things from hitting a nuclear power plant not a building used for businesses with windows and viewing holes which wouldn't stop a tiny bullet going 700mph, much less a plane going 500mph."

Very well stated, rayray!


http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghost...ane/ compare.htm
AmandaReconwith | 03.22.06 - 1:09 pm | #

webfairy has the pictures mixed up or inserted extra frames into his analysis.

#80 should be next to #119...you can tell by the smoke formation behind the plane, which is exactly the same in each. notice the little piece of smoke right behind the front tip of the plane...it is exactly the same in each.

and the pictures on the left have been slightly enlarged compared to those on the right so the analysis is faulty to begin with.

neo--Yes, daddy Bush had

neo--Yes, daddy Bush had been Director of the CIA!

I question the intentions of

I question the intentions of those who question the intentions of those who question all aspects of the government's impossible big lie of 9/11.

Attacking 911 truthers for honestly and logically questioning the government's big lie is the job of the lying government, its agents, and its dupes and useful idiots.

The fact that there seem to be so many posters here who fit into those categories neither dissuades nor impresses me. Where are the required-by-law NTSB crash site investigations/results?