Hi brian,

I wish I had seen your post before I sent the letter - I would have toned down my dismissal of Meyssan. However, all I really said was that I had not heard of his work while I have been researching this, whereas Ive heard about the work of David Ray Griffin constantly. My point of mentioning him in the letter was just to say that I think it would have been fairer to reference griffin, a christian american, rather than Meyssan, as average joe will identify with him more. And evryone knows what average joe thinks of the cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys.

I hope you don feel as though I was attacking a respectful member of the movement.

I forwarded to her the Christopher Bollyn article, "The Judicial Hijacking of the 9-11 Victim Lawsuits," which points out the Zionist connections. You can find it at: http://rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read+87695

Look at her other articles. Nobody is going to change her view; in fact you'll strengthen her dogmatism.

The whole 911 Truth Movement is bogging itself down with lessons in physics. You're going to try to educate Joe Citizen about the speed of free falls? Good luck.

Hey, I'm a believer, but the approach is wrong wrong wrong. There needs to be an emphasis on the stock dealings, the slow (dec 2001) leadup to Tora Bora, verified attendence of the hijackers at govt flight schools, interviews with Atta's girlfriend. These people that we hear about who were peripherally connected should be interviewed on camera. Finally, simplify, simplify, simplify ! This is an incerdibly complicated story. Like a Hollywood pitch guy, you need to be able to distill the story in 2 or three sentences that makes the listener want to know more.

Sent!

I give her a lot of credit for even writing an article about this and mentioning websites! If you ask me, she obviously knows something is wrong with 9/11 and wants to get it out to the public, but just doesn't want to be seen as a "conspiracy kook".

Anonymous,

Whatever you have to do to sleep at night.

You can pretend that everyone who questions 9/11 is a crazy crackhead. Former members of the Bush administration, former members of the CIA and MI5, family members that fought tooth and nail for the commission, 30+ year proffesors, and 40%+ of new yorkers who think 'the government had prior knowledge and conciously failed to act'.

Whatever you have to do to sleep at night.

It is obvious you have made up your mind to make rude assumptions about the intelligence of hundreds of thousands of people who want a real investigation.. so don't bother looking at the many lists of valid questions about the events on 9/11, or heaven forbid reading any books on the subject..

move along, if that is what it takes for you to sleep at night, those of us that have taken the time to do the research will stay devoted, and you can go back to whatever it is that matters to you.

Ananmous coward who quoted me - it makes me laugh to see that my letter rattled your cage so much.

Please do not argue with this troll on my behalf - he fails to take issue with the actual point of my letter (to show that the piece was innacurate in its representation of the 9/11 truth movement)and is probably just trying to distract us. I cant see any other reason for his being here.

ok, so are you just going to continue to spew insults or are you going to explain why you are spewing instuls beyond "you are are conspiracy theorist whackos"

im waiting

"ok, so are you just going to continue to spew insults or are you going to explain why you are spewing instuls beyond "you are are conspiracy theorist whackos"

Are you denying that you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist whacko?

i just faxed this to the chronicle -

To: SF chronicle
Subject: errors in your article 'The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories'
by Cinnamon Stillwell Wednesday, April 19, 2006

to quote the author error #1: Never mind that the whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon

correction: The whole country has not seen a plane being flown into the pentagon, because absolutely NO videos of the event were ever realesed to the public. Still frames of an explosion occouring after the plane hit have been released, but no video of any kind has been shown to the media or any members of the public

to quote the author error #2 :
"one would have to be awfully cynical to believe that it would kill or allow thousands (at the least) of Americans to die, simply to accumulate additional powers."

correction:
has the author heard of operation northwoods? Here is a description of it in case you are interested. It was a proposed plan that is exactly what you describe is "cynical to believe"
_____________________________________________-
OPERATION NORTHWOODS

a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

to find the original unedited document go here -

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
_______________________________________________________

i appreciate if you looked into this matter, I had a very fair and balanced article written about my beheading hoax in the chronicle, and i hope you guys keep up the same journalistic integrity that i have been used to. Unfortunately this article is more of a hit piece, while at the same time having several extreme glaring factual errors. Please run a correction in your next issue of SF chronicle

thanks!

Robbie martin

Good idea George!!

Matthew, that is excellent.

Matthew... excellent, but I think Theirry is a "right wing" not a left-winger...

And welcome to the movement Matthew.

Why doesn't she just enlist and go to work for the government she has so much love for and faith in?

As a lefty, I continue to be embarrassed by this attitude that the government is capable of anything--except 9/11.

9/11 conspirators used a well working circumstance that "horrible" things are always much easier to cover-up than others.
Just take the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal: How greedy and eagerly all the world's media looked into it, as close as they could, as much information as they could. There wasn't anything that could escape them.

But 9/11, because of it's death toll and destruction, isn't touched, it's "locked away" in the closet of the media's minds, and never never never ever discussed and considered in detail. Like with O.J.Simpson: TV viewers said, oh my gosh, there's blood in the Bronco, and looked away. But for those select few that dared to take a closer look at the "blood", it was less than 2 droplets of blood, indicating a frame-up...

sent

Sent. I mentioned Mineta's testimony (vs. the Commission's claim that he even wasn't there) and the "investigation" of WTC-7. I also referred to the previous article in SFC, cc:ing its author.

I told her to please retract her story, she was making a fool out of herself.

note: interesting story about info discovered by Daniel Hopsicker about Tom Delay, drugs, and ties to Huffman aviation in Florida.

Cinnamon Stillwell? Married to Chester Flumsbottom?

Everyone should also write LETTERS TO THE EDITOR of the paper. Ole' Cinnamon is a flack -- she won't care what we say.

But a letter to the editor might get published!

Letters to the Editor:

To comment on news stories in the main section of the newspaper or to opine on views expressed on the Opinion pages, contact Letters to the Editor.

Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication.

The editor prefers e-mail. The address is letters@sfchronicle.com

(Please paste the text into the e-mail; do not send attachments. Our virus-detecting software will delete e-mail with attachments.)

Or Fax: (415) 543-7708.

Postal-mail is OK, too:

Letters to the Editor
901 Mission St.
San Francisco, CA 94103

Would you guys review my email before sending it? I havnt been doing this long and I dont want us to look stupid

___________________________________--

Dear Madam,

I am writing to express my views on your article 'The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories' which I viewed online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/19/...

I feel the title of this article is misleading, as what you write does not accurately represent the 9/11 Truth Movement at all.

Despite acknowledging that within the Movement there is a vast difference of opinion, you clump a whole host of differing views together in one blanket dismissal. Within this, you group the proposition that WTC 7 was not brought down by a plane, which is an established fact, with the notion that what hit the Pentagon was not a plane at all, which is considered only a speculative theory within the Movement.

In reference to this point, it would have been far fairer of you to comment on the fact that the reason the question of what hit the Pentagon is subject to such debate within the Movement is because no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon has been released, despite the certain existence of such footage. If you had made this point in your piece, rather than falsely claiming that 'the whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon' when the latter footage has never been seen by anyone, it would have not have been such a misleading assessment of the Movement.

There are other important elements of the Truth Movements case that you do not mention - elements of far greater significance than speculation about Flights 77 and 93. How could you write an article called 'The Truth about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories' and not mention the Project for the New American Century, or Operation Northwoods, two pieces of evidence central to the claims of the movement?

It is biased of you to publicly assess the worth of the Movement in the way you do without making reference to these two pieces of evidence.

You go into detail about French left-wing activist and author Thierry Meyssan. I have been studying 9/11 for about a month and I have yet to see his work referenced or commended by members of the Movement. Would it not have been fairer to discuss the work of a more recognised member, such as David Ray Griffin? As a Christian American, his opinions might have been intellectually closer to that of your readers rather than a French left wing activist, as there is a continued prejudice in America against France.

Your article also serves to make the Truth Movement synonymous with Anti-Semitic racism. This is the most blatant misrepresentation of the movement, as, while some anti-Semitic theories are suggested, they are certainly a minority view, and they are not theories which its established members, such as David Ray Griffin, Jim Fetzer or David Shayler support. Your overstatements of this minority view as “popular”; can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to discredit the movement in a false and unfair way.

You ended your column stating you knew you would get a response from readers who would disagree with you. Having 'defeated' the straw man you purposefully set up, it does indeed seem a likely outcome. My only point in replying to you, however, is not to try and convince you that my beliefs are accurate, but to ask you to print a fair and reasonable article on the 9/11 Truth Movement and its established members, and accurately describe what they stand for, namely, the reasonable request for a complete and independent investigation of the events of 9/11.

Sincerely,

Matthew Day.

Thats great everyone, keep sending them in. I sent one in a while ago, but I may send another one from a different email addr, I thought of a couple more things to say.

Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi And Bin Laden's "Media Committees"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Cinnamon Stillwell, say it isn't so...

Done!

it's in the mail ...

i sent her an e-mail asking her why Mark Morford was so much better than her.

Sent.

You have to give Stillwell some credit for directly linking readers to many excellent websites.

BUT she really is trying to confuse the uninitiated when she says: “conspiracists insist that airplanes couldn't have taken down the World Trade Center towers or the nearby 7 WTC building.”

This statement is VERY misleading.
SOME people in 911 truth movement believe that no planes hit the twin towers. Most people do not take them seriously.
No matter how much validity there is to their arguments, I believe that there are much more fruitful avenues of attack.

Most believe that the planes were a diversion for the real reason of the collapse: controlled demolition.

And.... EVERYONE believes that airplanes did not take down WTC 7!

I sent a thank you letter to Mark. Cinnamon on the other hand isn't even worth my time.

Jon, yeah I saw that Rumsfeld headline too. He's keeping the myth alive isn't he? Cinnamon is probably convinced of what Rummy says too.

Did the SF Chronicle let her loose because of the great Mark Morford piece a week or two ago? Probably. Fair and balanced.

Cinnamon needs to have her eyes pried wide open like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, and made to watch Loose Change 2nd Edition and several other of the best 9/11 truth films, whilst listening to John Ashcroft singing "Let the Eagle Soar".

Oh yeah, that might break her hypnotic spell, little miss denial.

My "favorite" part of her piece is this ignorant question: ... why on earth would [the administration] risk weakening the economy and creating instability for the foreseeable future? Not exactly a winning formula for the so-called ruling classes.

Is she really THAT stupid?

One thing I like about this article is that is that she's acknowledging a not-tiny 911 movement. Remember "Alice's Restaurant?"

"And friends they may think its a movement."

sent

Done!

I have 9/11 questions stored in my notebook file of my computer so I just simply copy, paste and click on send whenever it is neccessary. In case you're wondering, here are the questions...

How was it possible that Osama Bin Laden was named the culprit within 7 hours of the attacks when the Bush Administration claimed they had no foreknowledge of the operation being planned? Do you think the FBI were given enough time to gather evidence to support that accusation let alone Osama denied he had any involvement of the plot?

How was it possible for the amateurs pilots to fly planes off course, turn off transponders and were be able to find their intended targets, let alone defeating the most technology advanced defense system in the world? The incompetence theory is laughable.

The pentagon was struck by a boeing ONE HOUR after the first attack in New York City without any scramblings of Air Force fighter jets to protect the skies in Washington, DC. Where were they?

Why was the collapsing of the WTC7, which fell in a free fall, controlled demolition style, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?

"Never mind that the whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon"

She misrepresents the fact that most Americans only saw one of those 3 planes. I'm not saying the planes didn't hit the buildings, just that she is incorrect that "the whole country witnessed [that] horrific sight."

"Or that many studies on the twin towers have concluded that jet fuel combined with incredible levels of heat were to blame for their collapse."

That's oversimplification of the studies. Of course, if she tried to elaborate on the specifics, she'd find far less of a consensus.

"Or that 7 WTC sustained much more fire damage in the attack than initially reported."

Never heard the source of that, other than a single photo that may have been taken during the collapse of one of the towers. Citation?

the gate wrote the willie brown was warned not to fly article

ask her who warned him?

i linked it to craigslist and it was removed

craigslist is a great place to spread truth

alot of readers of rant and raves

we may never win - see jfk

but we can make them squirm

OJ innocent? come on now......

nice to see you again s.king. psyche.

How about a movie with OJ playing Moussaoui, running through an airport?

Sorry, extremely bad taste, but I couldn't resist.

Seve B. said,

"you have yet to challenge anyone on the facts."

You all are the ones saying the facts are wrong but you can't make a case.

How often does that have to be repeated to you?

"so you just came in here to make ad hominem attacks instead of facing up to any 9/11 truth accusations?"

I am make no such attacks. Denial is what all of you are practicing here since you deny in full what the facts of 9/11 are.

It is willful and blatant denial. This isn't rocket science.

"You can pretend that everyone who questions 9/11 is a crazy crackhead."

Don't you know the difference between a "question" and an "accusation?"

You are not questioning but accusing and when someone questions YOU about providing factual evidence, YOU accuse them of being ignorant fools, disinfo agents, sheeple...and everything under the sun.

So don't be a hypocrite. You're getting educated that we have every right to question YOU and why you find it necessary to repeat KNOWN lies and debunked material.