Author of Recent 9/11 Article in New York Magazine On Air America

Just got word that Mark Jacobson, who recently wrote The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll article in New York Magazine, will be on Air America in the morning.

Here is the email:

Mark Jacobson, author of the NY Magazine article, will be on Air America Friday morning at 8:30am. [..] Eastern standard time, I assume.

Thanks Angie and Nico for the heads up.

Update: You can download the MP3 of the show here.

What the

What the "government-believers" don´t understand, is I don´t want to believe the government planned 9/11. I wish someone "debunked" it all so hard, I could say: "Hmm. I was wrong!"

Allthough, it is just a LOOOOONG and windy road back. I have to fight this battle. For the 3000 people at WTC, the US soldiers, the freedom soldiers, and OF COURSE the people of Iraq, everyone who´s lost their life because of this. At this present, theres no need for war. No need for these "terror"/inside attacks. Just NO need. Why can´t people see this?

Well, to all other truthers, and especially the ones contributing to the media outlet, I pass some love. Youre all doing a terrific job, and I KNOW were going to win this battle. It is just a matter of time! Exciting times!

Another talking point for

Another talking point for us, the 9-11 truthers:

Most people who buy the government's story aren't very informed about the details of what happened.

Everyone owes it to himself to dedicate some time to learning the details behind our questions. Only then can a fair and balanced decision be made on the re-opening of a 9-11 investigation.

We are too numerous to discount as fringe conspiracy theorists. We number in the many hundreds of thousands at least, if not millions, and just in the United States.

Foreign countries have been more receptive to this theory - an inside job - for years.

WTC7 is the holy grail

WTC7 is the holy grail

"WTC7 is the holy

"WTC7 is the holy grail!"

Agreed. Here's my WTC 7 blog:

If we think we've seen even

If we think we've seen even the beginning of this, we're wrong. If we do what we can, what we're actually obligated to do as citizens, all of this coverage is merely the preamble to a much, much larger force of our country's history. The public is ready for this, but we have to move quickly because their(our) average attention span isn't particularly impressive.

We couldn't ask for a more beautiful example of America's readiness. Fox News contributor Ellis Henican said, "What we're stuck with is either we have to unquestioningly accept everything Washington says, and I know that's not going to happen or we've gotta say, hey, let open inquiry prevail, let's debate these things, let the facts fall where they may,... if someone has evidence of [controlled demolition], I'd look at it, I'm skeptical about it. Show me the facts and I'll assess them."
Then while Hannity was busy misrepresenting the majority position of the victims' families, Betsy Hart responded to Ellis saying, "I think that's fine to question things ... I didn't know Charlie Sheen had a degree in Civil Engineering." This is Fox News, where the split-screen attack against Sheen is educating me about his relevant credentials!

1) It's time to pass out flyers.

2) If you've already talked to your friends it's time to talk to take a moment and meet new people.

3) A number of the videos online are free to download and reprint. That's meant for a reason! Invest in a few blank DVDs (whatever you can afford at all) and just pass them out with labels that say, "Show a friend!" None of them are perfect, but LC2E is a really good initiation for the young.

Reaching the uninitiated for their first impression is important, and could steer this movement one way or another. We still have time to get this word out positively before it gets misconstrued by a heavy media spin or even the first initial response. Take this opportunity, now.

If you have access to

If you have access to professors and other professionals, that's a really great boost as well. I've made it a point to discuss the issue and pass out videos to doctors I work with in order to get the information spread within their circles. You just can't argue against science. I haven't run into any resistance from them since they're a lot more willing to use their brains than others.

Notice how one of the examples of how conspiracy theorists are running amok is: "Does the $20 bill predict September 11th?" Sigh....

Hate to be harsh to all the

Hate to be harsh to all the "non-believers" out there but start digging, doing research and stop waiting for spoon fed answers. We don't know the entire truth. We want an investigation, That's all, because of the tremendous body of evidence. This is one time in history when the outcome matters. Do the research. Charlie Sheen said something I thought funny and useful about 9/11 mysteries. This is not the Zapruder Film. It's the Zapruder Film Festival. We all did and it took a lot of time but it was worth it in spades. And then when you've explored every avenue you will find that all roads led to "the government (if you can say that broadly".

I have been in a somewhat

I have been in a somewhat 'heated' debate on the forums for several days now, since the Charlie Sheen interview. One thing to note about the IG forums is that it is filled with hardened 'nonbelievers' of religious dogma. Coming to nonbelief in god or gods is much like coming to the realization that everything isn't ok in Kansas anymore.

The forum thread (page 15) can be found here:

I welcome truth seakers to enter this debate!

Get this up on the front

Get this up on the front page:

Scholars for 9/11 truth member killed

Rachel Maddow is on 8:37 AM,

Rachel Maddow is on 8:37 AM, in case anyone is AAR premium members. As AAR refuses to cover this (till now, with few tiny exceptions) I have not gotten my membership.

So far, very positive.

i got interrupted listening

i got interrupted listening to this...but at the beginning it sounded like the host was another left gatekeeper and then it sounded like she kinda believed us when she mentioned WTC7...and then when i came back, she said "i dont know if it changes my mind..but..."

she said something else very interesting, she said that she thought his article was like a 9/11 encyclopedia or something to the effect that he summed up all the different.................really? Ive read it, and it seemed to me to be more like a person who kind of believed 9/11 truth but is too afraid (whether the fear comes from external forces or internal) to report the truth without throwing doubt in the report. and he did this by once again giving to much lime light to 9/11 truth disinformation and hoaxes that the most credible 9/11 truth seekers do not endorse.

pentagon is the true holy

pentagon is the true holy grail of 9-11

no video, altered photos, making the whole story bullshit

insider trading at the chicago board of trade is a smoking gun of prior knowledge

who warned san francisco mayor willie brown not to fly on 9-11?

wtc-7 is also a holy grail, i agree

just be more open minded about the pentagon

here is a summary from

here is a summary from someone else who caught the show:

Rachel Maddou (spelling?) on Air America interviewed a guy this morning. I think his name was Mark Jacobson. Anyway, he wrote an article in the March 20th issue of New York Magazine titled “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll.” His interview was really good. Basically he said there are 4 groups of thought about 9/11:

* the official story
* the official story, plus the idea that the government had plenty of warning but was too incompetent to do anything about it
* LIHOP, or the New Pearl Harbor theory (he actually used these terms)

He said that he believed the second scenario, but that after talking to some people he is moving closer to LIHOP. He also said that these people (meaning 9/11 conspiracy theorists) are mostly intelligent, sane people, including physics professors, etc. He admitted that some of them seemed crazy, but that didnÂ’t mean they were wrong. But he really emphasized that most of the people are not crazy at all.

I listened to the interview.

I listened to the interview. It was probably right on target for the "newbees". The tone was generally, "this sounds crazy but can you really dismiss any possibility after what we've seen bushco pull off?"

"He said that he believed

"He said that he believed the second scenario, but that after talking to some people he is moving closer to LIHOP."

That was me too, but a long time ago! (I quickly went from that 2nd scenario, to LIHOP, and then to definitely MIHOP.)

But I'm not journalist, not a scientist, and don't travel in their circles either. I'm just a regular Joe. So what the heck is taking these “learned types” so long to catch on???

What do all the journalists,

What do all the journalists, engineers, architects, political science dudes, etc. talk about amongst themselves? Pamela Anderson & Madonna, over & over again??? Is 9/11 fraud not even on the table???

Structural Engineer Joe says

Structural Engineer Joe says to S.E. Jim, "Hey, what do you think about WTC-7?" S.E. Joe replies, "Oh, I don't know. Who cares. Did you catch that re-run of Pam on Baywatch last night???"

thanks for the recap dz.

thanks for the recap dz. sounds like it good...again!

Remember that the byline of

Remember that the byline of the Grassy Knoll article at the bottom right of each page of the article is:

"9/11: Conspiracy Theorists Run Amok."

Thanks for the summary

Thanks for the summary also.

I think the focus on dividing up the movement into LIHOP and MIHOP doesn't help anything, and likely is just another way to try to divide and conquer us.

This worked more easily early on in the movement, so that those representing MIHOP could act rabid an insane, and treat the LIHOPers badly -- that way no one looked forward to being associated with rude wacky nuthouse claiming MIHOP.

But it didn't work. Most joined that side because that's where the evidence went.

So notice what you are doing when you focus on this distinction. It's a way to separate, i.e., Steven Jones from Michael Moore. Effectively. There's no need to do that for the public also.

What we should focus on for a public message is what the MOST of us agree on - Building 7, Standdown, Demolitions, Lies in the Commission Report, etc.

The weakest evidence won't take us far in the long run. If you are counting on evidence like 'pull-it,' you won't get far because Silverstein's office already responded to this and has no other legal obligations. So we're left standing there saying 'We *know* he meant such and such in his head,' when in reality, we literally do not.

One can point out 'pull-it,' but that should be used as a starting point for the collapse videos and the facts - the speed of the collapse, the verticality, the small rubble pile, the squibs, etc.

They want you to STOP at 'pull-it' because that's a dead end without the rest of the information. 'Pull-it' should never be the entire focus or the only question.

I agree with the poster

I agree with the poster abover. we have to think of ourselves as a company that is selling a product, and what is the best way to present this product?

and leaving out the weakest points, like pull it, is our best way to build more people. remember no matter what a skeptic says to you, they or anyone else (including 19 muslims) can defy the laws of physics

Ok, but "pull it" is still a

Ok, but "pull it" is still a very strong piece of evidence. Modern, steel-framed buildings do not fall because the over-insured shyster landlord talks on the phone to a "fire chief." And if Sylverstein meant the firemen should leave the building (not that the fire dept would give a shit what Silverstein thought), he would have said, "pull out" or "pull back", not "pull it."

And what the hell do you mean LIHOP & MIHOP are like separating Steven Jones & Michael Moore. Mr. Moore has done zero, zilch, nada about 9/11 truth, to my knowledge. What gives you any idea to the contrary?

Air America audio interview-

Air America audio interview- 9//11 conspiracies

Rachel Maddow - 3/24/06 MP3
MP3 download;]

It's an interview with this author;]

I've been a Truther out

I've been a Truther out fighting in the forum trenches for some time now, and I finally realized that there is no point debating 911 facts with those who refuse to investigate; who love their own lack of information more than the truth. Therefore, I suggest that we:

1. Limit our posts to 2 - 3, which would include a powerful but basic introduction to 911 truth (basic facts including WTC 7, free fall speeds, etc), with links to and a few other good 911 truth sites.

2. Follow it up with a second post to answer whatever intial response you get. Ignore the morons who attack with labels (tinhats, unamerican, etc), Avoid getting wrapped up emotionally and taking stupid remarks personally. Only provide answers to reasonable posts.

3. Soon after step 2, make a final post stating that the truth is available at the links provided, and you wish them all well. Those who have the wherewithal to do so will seek out the facts. The rest we can leave alone, and use the time saved for more truth spreading. Whatever your thoughts on the above, Godspeed to you, brothers and sisters.

Operation Northwoods: In

Operation Northwoods:

In 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were going to paint a plane like a commercial airliner and swap it with a real one. Then they were gonna shoot it down and blame Castro for it. Then go to war against Cuba using this fake terrorism. This document shows a number of similar actions and they were willing to kill civilians to make these plans happen.

I think maybe they finally got around to using this tactic on Sept 11, 2001.

All you have to do is read history:::

WTC 7- THE KEY It is the key


It is the key because it is the easiest to prove the cover-up and the government involvement (CIA, DOD high-security building) and it is simply physically impossible. This is easy to show logically, mathematically or visually. 9/11 Revisted and Dr. Jones physics presentation are the most effective tools.

Definitely, the physical evidence is the key here. When you try to use the strength of the circumstantial evidence to prove what happened, you overwhelm the uninitiated with too much information. They need solid evidence first. WTC 7.