Chicago Report

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14168

You have to hate that the Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=2&oref=slogin ], with the most important piece of info in the article -- that being the direct link to the BYU webpage of Dr. Jones's controlled demolition hypothesis -- apparently, intentionally and purposely made the text seperated, therefor making the clickable link go to the WRONG PAGE!

"He composed an account of the destruction of the towers (physics.byu.edu/research

/energy/htm7.html) that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down."

Exposure is good! But when writers fuck up important links, which lead readers to a page that is NOT what the article says, and which has no clear directions to reach Dr. jones hypothesis, and use a continuous tone of "these people at the conference are all crazy", that makes me angry.

Fuckers.

Whats five years in history?

Well, you know.. you have to present it to them as if they were not at fault.

As a child you should have learned this. Be gentle to someone who you want something from.

excellent article! Things seem to be picking up.

That wonderful to see the NY times post that story. Excellent.

And the link works now.

This may have been discussed. Is there ONE page that can be printed that is skeptic friendly? something that hits all the major talking points in a nonconfusing manner? Like twenty points that will get people to think and doubt? With links to websites? I want to have something easy to understand and attractive that can be handed out to people who have no idea STILL that there's even a 911 truth movement.

Good Morning America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=1

2hours ago the NEW YORK TIMES
went online with a great article
on the Chicago meeting:

500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11

By ALAN FEUER

Published: June 5, 2006

CHICAGO, June 4 — In the ballroom foyer of the Embassy Suites Hotel, the two-day International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth was off to a rollicking start.

In Salon Four, there was a presentation under way on the attack in Oklahoma City, while in the room next door, the splintered factions of the movement were asked — for sake of unity — to seek a common goal.

In the foyer, there were stick-pins for sale ("More gin, less Rummy"), and in the lecture halls discussions of the melting point of steel. "It's all documented," people said. Or: "The mass media is mass deception." Or, as strangers from the Internet shook hands: "Great to meet you. Love the work."

Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

Whatever one thinks of the claim that the state would plan, then execute, a scheme to murder thousands of its own, there was something to the fact that more than 500 people — from Italy to Northern California — gathered for the weekend at a major chain hotel near the runways of O'Hare International. It was, in tone, half trade show, half political convention. There were talks on the Reichstag fire and the sinking of the Battleship Maine as precedents for 9/11. There were speeches by the lawyer for James Earl Ray
(a link! But only to proove that the NYT always fairly reported on the POLICE/CIA/MILITARY KILLING MLK.. ha ha ha .. it never made front page news, you know!)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/james_earl_...
who claimed that a military conspiracy killed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/martin_luth...
, and by a former operative for the British secret service, MI5.

"We feel at this point we've done a lot of solid research, but the American public still is not informed," said Michael Berger, press director for 911Truth.org
http://911truth.org/ YEY ! a link!
which sponsored the event. "We had to come up with a disciplined approach to get it out."

Mr. Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers — a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.

The former owner of a recycling plant outside St. Louis, Mr. Berger joined the movement when he grew skeptical of why the 9/11 Commission had failed, to his sense of sufficiency, to answer how the building at 7 World Trade Center collapsed like a ton of bricks. It was his "9/11 trigger," the incident that drew him in, he said. For others, it might be the fact that the air-defense network did not prevent the attacks that day, or the appearance of thousands of "puts" — or short-sell bids — on the nation's airline stocks. (The 9/11 Commission found the sales innocuous.)

Such "red flags," as they are sometimes called, were the meat and potatoes of the keynote speech on Friday night by Alex Jones, who is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band. Mr. Jones, a syndicated radio host, is known for his larynx-tearing screeds against corruption — fiery, almost preacherly, addresses in which he sweats, balls his fists and often swerves from quoting Roman history to using foul language in a single breath.

At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading "History of Government Sponsored Terrorism," Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft "stood down" on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a "controlled demolition" caused by pre-set bombs.

According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration "to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible."

The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.

The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers (physics.byu.edu/research

/energy/htm7.html)

Here they FUCKED UP THE LINK .. it would be impossible for grandma moses to find it!!
that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down.

Like a prior generation of skeptics — those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack — the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.

"Elvis and Area 51 — we're sort of lumped together," said Harlan Dietrich, a recent college graduate from Austin, Tex. "It's attack the messenger, not the message every time."

To get the message out, the movement has gone beyond bumper stickers and "Kumbaya" into political action.

There is a plan, Mr. Berger said, to create a fund to support candidates on a 9/11 platform. There is a plan to create a network of college campus groups. There is a plan by the British delegation (such as it is, so far) to get members of Parliament to watch "Loose Change," the seminal movement DVD.

It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.

Beneath the weekend's screenings and symposiums on geopolitics and mass-hypnotic trance lies a tradition of questioning concentrated power, both in public and in private hands, said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture."

As for the 9/11 Truthers, they were confident enough that their theories made sense that on Friday, as a kickoff to the conference, they met in Daley Plaza for a rally (though some called it Dealey Plaza). They marched up Kinzle Street to the local affiliate of NBC where, at the plate glass windows, they chanted, "Talking heads tell lies," as the news was being read.

"I hope you don't end up dead somewhere," a companion said to a participant, hours earlier as he dropped him at the Loop. "Don't worry," the participant said. "There's too many of us for that."

that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down.

NY Times, how obvious can they be. the most important link in the otherwise scattered article laced with crackpot inuendos is not the a working link. We should sue them. Perhaps the 911 Truth Movement should consider starting a Class Action suit against the Media and governmernt.

Another false flag attempt debunked in the UK:

Officials admit doubts over chemical plot. Intelligence behind terror raid questioned as proof remains elusive
The Guardian

Counter-terrorism officials conceded yesterday that lethal chemical
devices they feared had been stored at an east London house raided
on Friday may never have existed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790443,00.html

The link works for me. It must be a NYT's conspiracy against you.

You now have a dilemma. The MSM, the most important one being the NYT, quickly reported on your conference and you seem to think it was fair coverage.

You're now going to have to tip-toe about your criticism of the MSM. The article's ending says it all to the world, however:

"They marched up Kinzle Street to the local affiliate of NBC where, at the plate glass windows, they chanted, "Talking heads tell lies," as the news was being read.

"I hope you don't end up dead somewhere," a companion said to a participant, hours earlier as he dropped him at the Loop. "Don't worry," the participant said. "There's too many of us for that."

There's already a myriad of conflicting reports. Yesterday's claim that it was the brother who shot this man and not the police, was just bizarre.

Also, I don't understand why it will take upto 250 rozzers seven days to search a three-bedroomed terrace house. Especially as police initially claimed that they were expecting the largest chemical device ever discovered on British soil.

Anonymous at 06.05.06 - 9:13 am, the below post by me contains the November 10, 2003 article "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?" by Tim Howells, Ph.D., which is a very good, short introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government as a pretext in order to obtain more power and control. I append my own additional endnotes at the conclusion of Dr. Howells' article, in order to add further mainstream documentation.

From: James Redford
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternative,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.college/msg/cdb2f90b15ea3233?dmode=so...

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/tim-howells-september-11-islamic-jihad...

For more on government-staged terrorism, see the below post by me:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:

http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

I concur that the article was about as fair and balanced as we can expect from the NYT. Heck, It even informed me that there would be a fund strated to support 9/11 truth candidates for political office, which I didn't know and to which I will definitely be sending some cash once it's established. The key here is to use the fact that people are becoming aware of the issues to ramp up our visibility and recognition among those around us, both friends, family, and strangers and, importantly, keep the issue focused on OUR terms, not what the MSM suddenly decide are the most important aspects. As we educate our fellow citizens, we should stress that we are patriots deeply concerned about the state of our nation. ACCOUNTABILITY should be our mantra--NO ONE who was involved in planning, executing, and/or covering up what happened can be spared from indictment both in court and in the court of public opinion. From today's headlines it's clear that they still hope to strike Iran somehow and this must not pass. We can't let our story, the MOST important story of our lifetimes, play second fiddle to more Neocon propaganda. This is what we've waited for--this is it, y'all, this is WAR. Semper fi to the truthers out there--we will not fail! BTW, I just joined Veterans for 9/11 Truth's forum (www.v911t.org). Our men and women in uniform are among our strongest allies in this fight, for obvious reasons--let's support these dedicated public servants who know what it is to be on the front lines. We will take our country back together, or not at all.

With regards to the situlation with Iran, there's a good article concerning the petrodollar:

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/90428

So... tired...

Thanks, James. I just skimmed those and it seems perfect, yet I still fear these boobus americans I want to enlighten will find it too long.
In the past, I sent them a paragraph about this topic and a few wrote back "I'm not reading all that!"

I sometimes think they deserve the world that's being created for them.
The line that got me most was "I don't even want to THINK about what you're saying!"
Disgraceful.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

By the way, there was an emergency earthquake warning in Chicago. Either that, or it was my snoring...

Sorry Tonya, dz, and somebigguy.

Those who thought the NYT piece was a great article need to raise their sights and their expectations a bit. I thought it was a "hit piece", full of condescension and sneers. Did anyone grab the e-mail address for "hummux", the fellow who lived on and off in a cave?

My favorite was the line which said that the 9/11 Commission didn't achieve one fellow's standards for coverage of the collapse of WTC7; this was a lie by omission because the article failed to mention that the 9/11 Commission Report barely acknowledged the existence of the building, let alone who was housed in it or how and why it collapsed.

Barnum's maxim that any publicity is good publicity doesn't work in a topical area that pertains to something of the gravitas of what we are suggesting... or the fact that exposure of the lies, cover-ups, and facts of 9/11 will bring the government down in near-free-fall speed.

If you think this was great MSM coverage, you need to re-think the matter.

Jouet,
You may be expecting too much too soon. That article was really the first mainstream exposure to a topic that most people have never even heard of, or want to think about.

R

No... he is right which is why dz had "side notes" in his posting.

The title alone is a smack in the face. "Conspiracy Buffs". Does that mean I follow court cases where someone is being charged with a Conspiracy? Does that mean this is a "hobby" to me? No. This is a cause, and I and we are part of a movement. A movement of individuals who know that murdering 3000 people is wrong. Period. A movement of individuals who care about and love this country, and this world, and don't want to see either destroyed by our fascist leaders.

The title alone is a smack in the face. "Conspiracy Buffs".

At least it didn't say "conspiracy nutjobs."
On a serious note what do people use as a gauge to track the growth of the truth movement?

This may have been discussed. Is there ONE page that can be printed that is skeptic friendly? something that hits all the major talking points in a nonconfusing manner? Like twenty points that will get people to think and doubt? With links to websites? I want to have something easy to understand and attractive that can be handed out to people who have no idea STILL that there's even a 911 truth movement.
Anonymous | 06.05.06 - 9:13 am | #

Other Anonymous, I think there are some free handouts on this blog you can print out?
Also, my favorite is these cards, which are rather pricey, but make a great handout or enclosure inside snail mail. (click on them several times until they're large enough for you to read.) http://www.peaceproject.com/dollars/CR4.htm

I agree with Greenback & Mssr. Jouet. The NY Times article has a disbelieving tone & makes many insinuations against truthers.

Who is this "long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years."?

Perhaps a fake (agent provocateur) to make the movement look bizarre?

People! You're not going to get a better chance to defend the 9/11 truth movement at Alternet: 9/11: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns; By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 5, 2006. There are already 104 comments there. [I have also posted this message in another comments section here at 9/11Blogger to catch the greatest number of people.]