or, why not both??

still, another spot on CNN can't hurt...

Thanks for the air support dz :+:

Holy shit guys.

I think I just converted a christain conservative online buddy of mine. Will report back later. :D

I just checked out the "Flight 93" forums. Pretty scary stuff over there. Someone wrote a post condemning the movie for cashing in on the 9/11 tragedy, and someone replied with this gem:

"thats what america is, thats what we stand for, we stand for making money. Thats why the terrorist hate us, they want what we have"

Yeah...okay...so go and see Flight 93, and as you're handing your money to the person at the ticket window to see a disgusting and factually innacurate exploitation of a National tragedy, just remember that you're sticking it to the terrorists.

"I've been working on my ultra-conservative vietnam vet father for months and he still just can't bring himself to see the truth..."
Andy | 04.03.06 - 3:31 am | #

Andy, here's a book for your dad.

http://expendableelite.com/

VKMag, one of the bigger Dutch weblogs
started this morning a '911 week' on:

http://www.vkmag.com/zapruder

All in dutch ofcourse, and not a lot of surprises for readers of this blog. They keep away from any 'no-planes' theories and stuff (upto now).

Their announcement talks about both a 911 month or an week. So it might even last longer.

April Saturday 1st 2006 (21h45) :
LookinÂ’ for the 911 Truth

Last week Charlie Sheen made national news (CNN Showbiz Tonight 7pm) three nights in a row, with coverage continuing every day so far this week as well. What newsworthy event prompted such coverage? Mr. Sheen has announced that he thinks the government has been covering up the truth about 9/11. Charlie thinks 9/11 was an inside job!
Maybe you donÂ’t care what he thinks, heÂ’s just an actor. Perhaps you want the opinion of an expert like Steven E Jones, professor of Physics at BYU.

Maybe heÂ’s too theoretical for you. You want someone from the applied sciences. May I suggest Clemson engineering professor Judy Wood.

Maybe you donÂ’t care for Â’eggheadsÂ’. You want to hear from a true patriot, a military man, like former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman.

Maybe military types scare you. How about a lady of letters like poet Erica Jong

Maybe youÂ’re not into poetry. Prose is more your style. How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA?

Maybe you donÂ’t trust actors, authors or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology?

What could a theologian know about national security? You want to hear from an insider to the covert world. How about CIA analyst Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security whoÂ’s career spanned JFK to GHW Bush?

Maybe youÂ’ve had enough of Washington bureaucrats. What about an elected official like former U.S. congressman Dan Hamburg?

Maybe heÂ’s too far left for you. You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan?

OK, heÂ’s a Republican, but that was back in the Reagan days. Maybe you need to hear from someone in GWÂ’s administration. How about Morgan Reynolds professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and chief economist for the US Department of Labor during BushÂ’s first term?

Maybe you donÂ’t want to listen to any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans agree with them. Like the 83% of over 50,000 CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll respondents who think the government is covering up the truth of 9/11.

Maybe you donÂ’t care what the American people think?

Yea, we know.

Please bombard this woman with emails.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_4590...

"In any event, what the conspiracy theorists won't answer is why our government would do such a thing as 9/11 — and more to the point, if it committed this crime and then, essentially, got away with it, why hasn't it "finished" the job?"

That pissed me off.

Pakistan Military Brass Knew In Advance That 9/11 Would Take Place

1.) could someone explain to me what Zionist means?

2.) I dont think Mr. Maher has any religion any more, as a matter of fact he denounces it almost every show.

3.) I think it would do the 9/11 Truth movement a Great Deal of Harm if we associate ourselves with the type of comments you just posted. If i first heard that the "Jews" were behind 9/11, I would of left the whole thing alone. If you have your own beliefs about Isreal's connection to 9/11 then keep them to a subtle tone because you can turn A LOT of people off by using that kinf of talk

members of the tribe will not be disloyal, even to thier own detriment

what do maher and stone have in common?

religion?

yes it is a jewish/zionist/israeli issue

i guess the real question is, why are jews thick as thieves, even to thier own detriment

this illegal war benefits israel, and if you think 9-11 was an inside job, who benefited?

many innocent people died and were TORTURED

the cat is out of the bag, and jewish people should cut thier losses now, and jump from the sinking ship that is the coverup

sometimes you just have to let the chips fall where they may

1.) could someone explain to me what Zionist means?

A Zionist is a Jew or a Christian who believes in the protection of Israel over everything else.

2.) I dont think Mr. Maher has any religion any more, as a matter of fact he denounces it almost every show.

Not familiar.

3.) I think it would do the 9/11 Truth movement a Great Deal of Harm if we associate ourselves with the type of comments you just posted. If i first heard that the "Jews" were behind 9/11, I would of left the whole thing alone. If you have your own beliefs about Isreal's connection to 9/11 then keep them to a subtle tone because you can turn A LOT of people off by using that kinf of talk.

I agree. Saying the "Jews" did it is wrong. As a matter of fact, we don't have proof of Israel's involvement, but there is a plethora of information that may suggest this. People need to keep in mind that Israel is a country, and Judaism is a religion. If Israel was involved, that doesn't mean we hate all jews. Our Government was involved, but that doesn't mean we hate all Christians. Zionist is to Jew what Neoconservative is to Christian.

Maher is a comedian. He also has issues which in turn makes him funny as hell. 911 truth rocks the earth that people walk on. Not everyone can handle it . . . yet.

Thanks Jon.

I have another question.

how do you guys feel about the overall design and marketing of the 9/11 truth movement?

Me personally, i believe everything comes back to design and marketing. I think a lot of the 9/11 fliers are horribly designed, although i have seen some good, but few, ones. In my opinion, I think that Americans do "Judge a book by its cover." and with that said they probably look at a new site and say "if it looks professional, than it probably is" and vice versa. I live in philadelphia and their are people handing out fliers, some nutcases (e.g. cult-type religions, and ponzi/scam business proposals) and some are legitimate (independent political party views, alternative media) BUT the problem is, all of their designs look the same, so when you get one flyer that looks like the last, no matter the information you discredit them both.

I think that it makes sense to spend the bulk of our money or Expert Quality design and marketing.

here are a few problems i have had with some of desing/marketing

1.) a researcher is not a designer. people like jim hoffman, and Steven jones should not be desiging their own presentations and/or websites

2.) K.I.S.S. when your first give someone a flier you have less than 14 seconds to grab their attention. That is why the most effective fliers/posters/billboards/print campaigns are simple. (e.g. McDonalds new ads for its spicy chicken, Infiniti campaings, most movie ads, VW print ads, etc etc) if you give someone a poorly desinged flier with too much information on it, they will simply throw it away, not because their not interested but because its just too much for them at the time

3.) i think we all have to present ourselves in a professional way as well. in America, people CRUCIFY THE MESSENGER! no matter how great your message is, if the messenger is poorly representing him or herself, the message will not be recieved well. Remember we are all salesmen. even though our product is hard core truth that effects your life everyday, it still need to be sold. so we must take a "company" mentality and figure out the best way to "sale" the truth to people.

and another question?
why does jimmy walter have millions of $$$ but have a poorly designed websites and mediocre produced dvd?

Note
i dont mean to imply that Jim Hoffmans site www.911research.wtc.net and Steven Jones www.st911.org were designed by them but it just looks that way.

and 911blogger.com has an excellent design.

also a great example of expert design and quality related to spreading truth about the government is actually on this site.
go here:
http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/PNAC.mov

You like 911blogger.com's logo? I happen to know the guy who designed it.

Awww... little Dougie Thompson is upset that we destroyed whatever credibility he may have had.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8393.shtml

I hope the vile backstabber Thompson sees his reader counts go thru the floor.

yizzo, great points about marketing.

But speaking of conservatives, I've got some opinions on strategy lined up:

There's too much focus on recruiting leftwingers. Who cares what Harry Belafonte has to say about anything. An appearance on Air America by a 911 skeptic is irrelevant. It's only good that Noam "Khmer Rouge" Chomsky keeps his face shut about 911 Truth. Engaging Hugo Chavez (a socialist dictator!) has serious potential to backfire.

If some far-left entity embraces 911 Truth they can be effortlesly dismissed as only doing it out of hatred of Bush. (And that might even be true in some cases.)

Instead, more effort should be spent on enlightening true, non-Bushevik rightwingers. It's an uphill battle to be sure, but it's worth it since every conservative voice in this debate counts for ten liberal ones, given the political dynamics of the situation.

I don't quite know how to do this, though. Getting Weldon to comment extensively on the issue would indeed be fantastic, but I doubt that's very likely, although his recent commets were promising. Maybe talk to people who have written to the American Conservative magazine at http://www.amconmag.com/ -- Pat Buchanan's operation? Maybe Chuck Baldwin? (Or maybe try to get at least the damn Birchers on board -- see http://www.thenewamerican.com/ for W. Grigg's blog + email.)

I understand why it's easier for lefties to approach 9-11 Truth, and if it took an appearance from the ghost of Karl Marx to get 9-11 questions a fair hearing I'd be OK with it, but I find the left focus in strategy to be regrettable. = (I will now be educated as to the presence of Messrs. Roberts, Reynolds et al.)

Meanwhile, here's _ucker Carlson working the left angle:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060401205430911

Good morning all from the Pacific coast. Troll free thread and you folks up and working. What a great bunch.

"Zionist is to Jew what Neoconservative is to Christian."

uhhh a rather strong statement, neocons have no direct relation to christianity, and the current neocons are far more troublesome than zionists.

Regarding the general point about Israel, of course "the jews" did or knew nothing as to 9-11, and neither did "the Israelis", or the Knesset. Now, Mossad, that's another topic... but the only evidence is

oops message got away from me, will continue

...the evidence is the connection made by the Forward magazine, and even that doesn't mean that the Mossad leadership knew, it could have been rogue agents.

In any case, the neocon desire to protect Israel cannot be denied, but it's only a side issue. The primary motivation was definitely power, oil, and money, and those are the points that need to be pushed.

As things have heated up a bit on the Pakistan/Daniel Pearl angle, it raises the question -- where is the Wall Street Journal? I'm not talking about the tinfoil hatters at the editorial page. The WSJ is not devoid of good investigative reporters. For one thing, they had Pearl. They've done good work in the past on the BCCI scandal, the S&L scandal, Riggs Bank etc. One would think the incentives are there to find out what happened to their colleague. If one were to hazard a guess as to which MSM source would best break things for the better, trutherwise, maybe we have a good surprise coming down the road from the WSJ.

(ok one more post)

Arrggh that PNAC.mov is the sick "Barry says" passive-aggressive slam job. I'm no fan of the neocons, that's for sure, but that video is just too much.

Anyways, Im surprised Universal Pictures put a whole section for "conspiracy theories" on their forum, but then again...they kind of had to. You can't talk about 9/11 without talking about the coverup and lies.
pockybot
=================================
The idea is to always 'compartmentalise'. If there was no Conspiracy Forum there, we'd be slamming the regular forums where the ass-suckers go to tearfully recount their belief in a bullshit story.

Yes, the Bill Maher thing was disappointing. But what do you expect from a guy who can't even wrap his head around the fact that Bush stole an election?

Anyone who doesn't see the vote fraud that wrnt on in both OH and FL has their head way up their ass.

And I like Maher. I just don't go to him for a reliable take on current events. But it would have been nice for him to come out on the right side of this. I'm sure he's also remembering the last time he was controversial about 9/11.

Agnostic simply means unknowing. Maybe there's a God, maybe there isn't. It's different from atheism because it allows for the possibility that God does exist. I am an agnostic who doesn't believe in the Christian version of God, however I believe that the complexity of the universe indicates the presence of some kind of intelligent force....a universal "mind", if you will. I just don't think that mind belongs to an invisible guy in the clouds who you'll meet when you die if you've been a good little boy or girl.

Agnostic simply means unknowing. Maybe there's a God, maybe there isn't. It's different from atheism because it allows for the possibility that God does exist.

thats what i thought... lol.. im an atheist... ill believe in god as soon as he/she shows up...

A particularly cogent entry:

"9/11: The Ultimate WMD"
Scoop Independent News (New Zealand)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00019.htm

yizzo,

I think you're on to something. But please do not overlook the possibility that such marketing incompetence is intentional, by design.

I've been trying my best (I'm not a graphic designer...),
http://911blimp.net/graphics/blimpB.gif
http://911blimp.net/graphics/flagCloaked911truth.gif
but the LIHOP (limited hangout) crowd prefers to smear/marginalize/ignore fuller-truth sites, and thus 911blimp.net hasn't gotten much usable feedback (mostly it's just been unfairly smeared by Carol Brouillet (communitycurrency, deceptiondollar) and Mark Robinowitz (oilempire, deceptiondollar), who, for far too long, were able to count on my dislike of divisiveness to not say anything at all in response to their lies)...

Hoffman's sites also throw out an overload of info (that just happens to disagree rather narrowly with the official government account of events), which makes it seem as if it takes a huge investment in time (which most people don't have) to understand what's wrong with the govt's impossible conspiracy theory of 9/11. The oversized presentations also make it harder for most folks to recognize what evidence has been omitted/suppressed, same as with John Judge's 149-page http://911citizenswatch.org/9-11-omission-report.pdf (which omits the smokingest-gun omissions from the 9-11 Commission Report of which it pretends to be critical! -- see this more concise, comprehensive critique). But too many Americans still mistakenly believe that bigger is better...

Jones' oversized page doesn't make sense thermally; info overload helps conceal the widely-unrecognized unconventional truth about Ground Zero that is obscured by his conventional chemical hypothesis. (regardless of his motivations, and how it's presented, Jones' thermite hypothesis acts as a limited hangout)
______________________________________

Kurt Nimmo has a posting in response to the stuff that Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue has been putting out attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement:

The Disheartening Fall of Doug Thompson
Monday April 03rd 2006, 8:40 am

In the last few days, people have lamented the fall of Doug Thompson, editor of Capitol Hill Blue. Last week Thompson came out against the nine eleven truth movement, basically called those of us who believe the attacks were pulled off by elements within the United States government conspiracy nuts. I am not surprised by this. Capitol Hill Blue is a “liberal” website, often in favor of Democrats, and suffering from the disease most Democrats suffer from—a pathetic belief in the efficacy of government, if only we endeavor to elect good people.

In fact, those who are offered at election time are nothing less than jobbers for the plutocracy, water carriers for the transnational corporations in control of the political machinery of state, and a vote for Democrat or Republican is a vote for tyranny. Thompson has denounced “partisan puke” Democrats on numerous occasions. However, it would appear Thompson is simply upset that Democrats have become Republicans and Republicans are out of the closet fascists in the pocket of mega-corporations and moneyed interests.

One gets the opinion that Thompson would not complain so much if Democrats went back to their roots. The Democratic Party traces its origins back to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792. It was formed by small farmers and workers in opposition to the creation of the Bank of the United States, a central bank not authorized by the Constitution. By the late 1800s, the original Democrats morphed into the pro-business Bourbon Democrats, controlled by mercantile, banking, and railroad interests and worked against small farmers and working people. It was a downhill slide into corporatism from there—and as Mussolini later declared, fascism is in essence corporatism.

I really can’t say more about Thompson’s political opinion—the link to his column archive on the Capitol Hill site is broken and returns a vanilla “page not found” message. I know he hates and mistrusts the current crop in Washington and came out vociferously against the Bush clan’s attempts to dismantle the Constitution and set up a high-tech snoop state, beginning with the NSA revelations.

On the one hand, Thompson understands there is a concerted effort at work to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, while on the other he declares the government as bumbling and incompetent and thus unable to pull off the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“I know my government. They’re just not good enough to pull off something like this,” wrote Thompson. “I’m usually the first to suspect my government of malfeasance. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as Oliver Stone but I cannot buy into this one…. The 9/11 attacks succeeded because of the incredible improbability that such a ragtag group could pull it off and our lackluster intelligence agencies failed to act on credible reports of terrorist activity.”

Thompson’s reasoning is like a piece of Swiss cheese, shot full of holes. He ignores research demonstrating that it would have been impossible for a “ragtag” group of Arab cave dwellers to pull off nine eleven. How did Osama bin Laden get NORAD to stand down? Thompson does not bother to tell us.

It seems Thompson is a garden variety “liberal” or “progressive,” unable to accept the fact government is maleficent. One wonders. Like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, and other voices contra the gaggle of neocons in Washington, it appears Thompson is unable to admit that the very essence of government is engineered violence, coercion, thievery, and murder. According to so-called progressives and far-lefters, government can be reformed. Government can be trusted—so long as we are pulling the levers. Government is essentially good.

I consider September 11, 2001, the defining moment of government. Not only is the government—not the clerical workers and petty bureaucrats, but the upper, controlling echelon, those working directly for the plutocrats, the ruling elite—capable of such treachery and immorality, but they plot such things continually, if incrementally and usually less flamboyantly. Operation Northwoods, Vietnam, Waco, these are but the most recent manifestations of government malevolence and murderous perniciousness.

Unfortunately, Doug Thompson has fallen into mental quicksand, a philosophical impasse he will not be able to escape from. Once you accept the often pedaled excuse that government is simply a blundering and floundering giant, you have set yourself up to be victimized. I believe Emma Goldman had it right when she declared, “The political arena leaves one no alternatives, one must be either a dunce or a rogue.”

IÂ’d hate to think Doug Thompson, who has in the past written so brilliantly about the prevarication and ruthlessness of government, has become a dunce.

I couldn't agree more with Kurt Nimmo's article.
Just the fact that he had to respond to the questions about 911 and state his position says volumes about the current momentum of the 911 Truth movement.
There are always dark places even otherwise insightful people, do not want to go.
Lets keep the lights on by providing all of the illuminating evidence, without the name callng.

I hope the libertarians and traditional conservatives will also have to respond to this glare. 911 was not done just in the interest of this administration.

Doug Thompson went far out of his way to deliberately misrepresent "facts" in the "official story" that truthers have very effectively refuted/debunked.

Blimp is more subtle in the way he tries to smear/discredit specific leaders in the truth movement.

Bring it on, Anonymous. I discredit bogus behaviors. The people whose behaviors include such dishonest tactics discredit themselves:

But some folks in the so-called truth movement (if it takes 20 years to move, that's NFG) are no more able to see flaws in the people they follow than some voters are able to see the flaws in their political misleaders who (also) lie to us about 9/11.

Barrie Zwicker is a professional journalist who is highly regarded, if not revered, by many in the 'movement'. He is highly promoted by the large pack of fake (limited-truth) 911 truthers, apparently for, not despite, his incredible blunder, which, coming from a professional, seems intentional. George Bush never said "ordinary TV" in making his repeated incriminating 9/11 witness statements. So why would Barrie Zwicker say that he did? http://911blimp.net/sounds/BarrieZwickerMisdescribesIncriminatingBushTVs... How much "incompetence" do we tolerate from our 'leaders' before we begin to wonder about them? (When I asked BZ about this, his response boiled down to "Dems oppose Reps"!!! I maintain that the only thing more revealing than the content of Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements is the total non-reaction to them by Dems...)

Another widely, if not highly, regarded opinion leader within the 911 truth movement (sic) is Mike Rivero, of whatreallyhappened.com. In this page Mike/wrh trumpets the fact that Bush was caught lying. BUT THAT IS NOT A FACT; IT IS PROPAGANDA; THE PAGE/SITE/PERSON IS SMEARING BUSH WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. How much must we hate Bush to not have a problem with that? (How much must we hate those [fictional] Muslim hijackers to believe that they would attack the Pentagon, from Washington, by way of Ohio, even after NYC was under aerial assault?) Why would a supposed 9/11 truther want to let Bush off the hook for his very incriminating statements by declaring the statements null and void? (I asked Mike about this, and found his answer to be total BS; it was based on the predicate that I must love Bush! If you have doubts about the complete BSishness of Mike's reply, visit http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml )

In http://villagevoice.com/news/0549,murphy,70685,6.html Jarrett Murphy, another professional journalist, writes that "how the president was actually informed of the first plane striking: The president claimed erroneously that he saw it on TV". ERRONEOUSLY? Excuse me, but, as with Mike Rivero and fellow professional journalist Barrie Zwicker, Mr. Murphy has told us that Bush's statement has no basis in fact, WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN FACT. (When I asked JM about this, he acknowledged that he could not prove, and had zero evidence, that Bush's statement was in any way erroneous, but I haven't seen any correction/retraction in VillageVoice. Have you?)

Does anyone else see a pattern (or else one hell of a string of coincidences) yet?

By the way, when I asked the U.S. military for the records of the delivery of the video Bush said he saw (he was in the Presidential limo at 8:46 when the 1st tower was attacked), they didn't say, "What records?". They said that the White House [illegally!] claims ownership of those records. http://911blimp.net/graphics/DISAdenial.gif

John Judge of 911citizenswatch (and other sites) discredited himself (pardon me for noticing!) by failing to note the most glaring omission, or one of them, when he wrote a 149-page "omission report" in which he failed to note that the government had omitted the government's own evidence from the government's own report!!! http://911blimp.net/prf_911commRpt.shtml#pentagon
(When I asked JJ about this, he sang, chapter and verse, from the identical hymn book as did official 9-11 Commission spokesmen Al Felzenberg and Jon Stull. IOW, excuses, excuses, excuses.)

Other 911 'truth' 'leaders' (co-'leaders' with John Judge), including David Kubiak and Kyle Hence, have also indicated privately to me that they will not consider certain key pieces of 9/11 evidence, most notably the Naudet video. In fact, they avoid mentioning it even more than did the 9-11 Commission. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A911citizenswatch.org+naudet http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A911truth.org+naudet WORSE, they work against 911 truthers who do recognize some things for the damning evidence it is, as if they are the appointed (anointed?) keepers of what is and what is not allowed to be talked about...

Those same evidence-deniers respect and recommend and support Jim Hoffman, who denies some of the same evidence: http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/HoffmanOmittedFlashFrame+.gif

So how hard is it to connect the dots, folks? Many 911 'truth' 'leaders' oppose full disclosure, or even honest discussion, of certain govt-lie-breaking evidence, even as they praise folks who mangle and suppress some of the same incriminating evidence. There are other dots, too, but these are more than enough to begin to get the picture, unless one is willfully ignorant/blind....

So when you see people divisvely and baselessly (and emotionally) attack me here for pointing out that so many 911 'truth' 'leaders' are corrupt, you should wonder about them, not about me.

I wish I was wrong about the many fake 911truthers in the 'movement', just as I wish I was wrong about 9/11 itself. But once I recognize (ie, know) the truth, I have an obligation to share it with others, regardless of how happy they are to hear it...
______________________________________

911blimp,

i had never seen that letter regarding your request for the video footage bush claimed to see that morning, interesting response..

i think that bush incriminated himself in his statement.. however you cut it he has some questions to be answered.. he either doesn't know what he did on 9/11 (because he is lying about what he really knew when), or he slipped out a truth that he saw the first impact real time, something which i find equally as likely..

ever tried to follow up on that letter?