The New York Times Covers the Chicago Conference
500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11 - NYTimes.com
For the record, I am not a 'conspiracy buff' - nor would I consider many of those at the conference 'conspiracy buffs'. In fact I am a concerned citizen that believes my own government was involved in 9/11 - an opinion that came after many months of reading and researching, an opinion I believe any open minded researcher would reach as well.
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.
..
"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, which sponsored the event. "We had to come up with a disciplined approach to get it out."
..
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.
I don't think I have ever seen Alex Jones use 'foul language', in fact he avoids it.
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.
..
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.
For those that missed it, the government released new documents at the end of last year proving that the Gulf of Tonkin never did occur, you can find them here.
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.
..
"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."
I did hear/see a few responses at the plaza including being flipped the bird, and "I hope the terrorists drop a bomb right here and kill all of you" - typical emotional responses.
Be sure to send the author of this article, Alan Feuer, a thank you and encourage him to continue his coverage of the subject. You can find an email link to him on this page here.
Note: You can vote in an AOL poll related to this article here.
- Login to post comments
Congratulations to everyone.
Congratulations to everyone. Les Jamieson was funny... "I had to go to Chicago to get the New York Times to cover 9/11 Truth."
A new hit
A new hit piece...
http://newsbusters.org/node/5681
Just a point to prove the
Just a point to prove the media is not a arm of the people is simple, the downing street memo... It took a month for the media to cover the documents, a month for a strategy to developed, a month before the words about this damning news was aired on national TV.
Who takes a month to read a one page document, acknowledged by the British government as being correct? Someone not working for the people, someone who is told what is important, who is told what to say and doesnÂ’t decide what is relevant.
The fact that "the facts were being fixed around the policy", is a ghostly reminder of how far they are willing to go to get paid; damn the rest of and damn the truth.
2/13/2001 - 3 weeks after
2/13/2001 - 3 weeks after Bush Co, takes office, NY Times reporter Alan Feuer instantly goes from Regional NY Sports writer to Terrorism writer?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/alan_feuer/...
again - it appears that the
again - it appears that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is a catch-all phrase for denigrating entire bodies of well-vetted research. It is a way of referring to the work of historians and legitimate researchers as "tin foil hat"-types. Its insulting and clearly out of proportion to the existing body of knowledge - and i think it is somewhat of a psychological failsafe for people - an intellectual cul-de-sac - a way of avoiding personal responsibility to truly educate themselves on the facts.
When Germany descended into fascism - the intellectuals were the first casualties. And when I see America's brightest and most respected intellectuals and scholars (such as David Ray Griffin) - with impeccable lifelong records in academia, ethics, scholarly research and public service - suddenly taking a backseat to media "pundits" who refer to them as "conspiracy theorists" - I would really challenge to you weigh that in your mind.
New York Times is owned by
New York Times is owned by the people who profited from attacks, so expecting it to report the 9/11 truth movement objectively is naive.
Nevertheless, any hit piece is publicity.
great article - captured the
great article - captured the enthusiasm of the movement rather than dig into the meat of the evidence.
this is why Chicago was so important
if it was a hit piece, it
if it was a hit piece, it hit quite softly - maybe that was what the writer had to do to get it past the paper board.
People! You're not going to
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.
Great point John.
Great point John. "Conspiracy theorist" has many negative connotations that do NOT apply to men like David Ray Griffin & Steven Jones.
have any UK readers heard
have any UK readers heard about the false flag warnings for today?
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/false_flag_june_2006.htm
Congratulations to us
Congratulations to us all!
Plus, the keepers of this blog should change the logo. This is no longer "alternative news" :)
Yes thanks Matthew we have
Yes thanks Matthew we have them posted on our board www.nineeleven.co.uk
hey andrew - thats where I
hey andrew - thats where I got the info from myself!
I post as 'is'.
just wondered if anyone else
just wondered if anyone else had heard it and how seriously they take the numerology stuff.
I don't pay much attention
I don't pay much attention to occult stuff - maybe I should. That devil-in-the-smoke effect was scary though, but it bore an uncanny resemblance to studio design work.
My only concern about
My only concern about 06/06/06 is that some nut-job could use it as an excuse to do something stupid.
Joshua Holland @ AlterNet is
Joshua Holland @ AlterNet is a typical fraud. He just added an "extra" article that includes this b.s., & more:
"Yet, despite the well-crafted videos and "independent research" -- I think that the World Trade Center was brought down by airplanes -- including building 7 -- that flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 was not shot down by a jetfighter (although, when it comes to "Let's roll!" and all that, who knows what actually happened on that flight deck?)."
HTF was WTC-7 brought down by airplanes???
Lot more to UA93 than shot down or not shot down!!!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37127/
that's why i am such a pain
that's why i am such a pain in the ass when it comes to physical evidence.
now - if you can get this guy to explain why a two-star general ordered Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer to ignore Atta - and put yellow stickers over his face.....
Personally (and i usually do not give opinions) - Atta was a paid patsy - an invented persona - more associated with oraganized crime (drug smuggling, etc etc) than Al Qaeda. His ties to Huffman, and Sun Cruz and Vegas SMACKS of organized crime, drug running and money laundering.
John, let's use both
John, let's use both physical & behavioral evidence. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Of course Atta & his buddies were patsies, probably drug-trafficers in training. They were coke-head, lap-dance, party-boys; NOT "Muslim jihadists."
The writing must really be
The writing must really be on the wall for the Perps if the Bible bashers are getting wise to, and mad about, 911 truth .
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
That should have read : The
That should have read :
The writing must really be on the wall for the Perps if the Bible bashers are getting wise to, and crazy about, 911 truth .
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
Geez, even religous fanatics
Geez, even religous fanatics are beginning to see that Bush is Lucifer!
I agree that BOTH physical
I agree that BOTH physical and non-physical evidence are important.
I just stick to what i know.
My only concern about
My only concern about 06/06/06 is that some nut-job could use it as an excuse to do something stupid.
John Albanese | 06.05.06 - 12:04 pm
____________________________________
You talking about an independent nut job, or one of the nut jobs that run the USA/UK?
Fair enough. IMO, any
Fair enough.
IMO, any honest, sincere person who merely devotes 2 hours of his/her life to watch LC2E followed by EGLS, would have to conclude that most or all of 9/11 was an inside job. There is just no way we should not demand answers to all of the outrageous questions & evidence exposed in those 2 videos!
just because our evangelical
just because our evangelical leaders do not believe in dinosaurs - but make all their money from fossil fuels - does not make them crazy. It makes them rich.
dz, you wrote: "" I don't
dz, you wrote:
""
I don't think I have ever seen Alex Jones use 'foul language', in fact he avoids it.
""
Alex Jones does in fact avoid the use of cuss words. Alex just said on his show in reading over this New York Times article that what he did was quote Lyndon Baines Johnson saying to his admirals concerning the U.S.S. Liberty, "I want that goddamned ship going to the bottom!"
I've only ever heard Alex Jones use a cuss word once our twice, and I've been listening to him since well before the 9/11 attacks.
""
For the record, I am not a 'conspiracy buff' - nor would I consider many of those at the conference 'conspiracy buffs'. In fact I am a concerned citizen that believes my own government was involved in 9/11 - an opinion that came after many months of reading and researching, an opinion I believe any open minded researcher would reach as well.
""
People who attempt to support the government's line often use words and phrases such as "conspiracy buff" or "conspiracy theory," etc., as an ad hominem attack.
So far as conspiracies go, they are ubiquitous. Everyone is in agreement that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy. But those who are genuinely knowledgeable and care about the truth reject fallacious conspiracy theories, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks.
More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.
Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that.
Maureen Dowd: "The
Maureen Dowd: "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."
"Its basic claim"? Really?
Well, there you have it: this is how it's going to be spun. From Popular Mechanics to the New York Times, they're all telling us that the indispensable claim - the very essence of 9/11 Truth - is this:
The insistence that the towers were blown up.
In light of the Pentagon's careful stoking of the "no-plane" myth, Dowd's Maureen Dowd: "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."
"Its basic claim"? Really?
Well, there you have it: this is how it's being spun. From Popular Mechanics to the New York Times, they're all telling us that the indispensable claim - the very essence of 9/11 Truth - is this:
The insistence that the towers were blown up.
In light of the Pentagon's careful stoking of the "no-plane" myth, Dowd's "sine qua non" twaddle is just further evidence that Ruppert was absolutely right: this "physical evidence" stuff is a fly-trap - and too many sceptics have flown slap-bang into it already.
- Sine qua non:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non
Gwynne Dyer, a relatively
Gwynne Dyer, a relatively mainstream Canadian war commentator who subscribes to the official 9/11 story, nonetheless notes the following in an article for the Cyprus Mail:
...
"There is no shadowy but powerful network waging a terrorist war against the West: the whole thing is a fantasy. There are isolated small groups of extremists who blow things up once in a while, and there are web-sites and other media through which they can exchange ideas and techniques, but there is no headquarters, no chain of command, no organisation that can be defeated, dismantled and destroyed.
There never was much of an Islamist "terrorist network" anyway – certainly nothing to compare with the extensive co-operation between the extreme left-wing "urban guerrilla" groups of the developed world (Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy's Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army, etc.) and the various Palestinian groups of secular nationalist radicals in the 1970-1985 period. Even in al Qaeda's heyday, before the US invasion of Afghanistan effectively beheaded it in 2001, there were only a few hundred core members.
According to US intelligence estimates, between 30,000 and 70,000 volunteers passed through al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan in 1996-2001, but their long-term impact on the world has been astonishingly small. The average annual number of Islamist terrorist attacks in Arab and other Muslim countries has been no greater in the past five years than in the previous ten or twenty. For most of the people who went to Afghanistan in those years, it was a rite of passage or an exotic form of ideological tourism, not the start of a lifelong career as a terrorist.
The West has been even less affected. The 9/11 attacks on the United States were a spectacularly successful fluke, killing almost 3,000 people, but there have been no further Islamist attacks in the US. The two subsequent attacks that did occur in the West, in Madrid in 2004 and in London last year, cost the lives of 245 people. And those attacks were both carried out by local people with no links to any "international terrorist network".
The contrast between the received wisdom – that the world, or at least the West, is engaged in a titanic, unending struggle against a powerful terrorist organisation of global reach – and the not very impressive reality is so great that most people in the West believe the official narrative rather than the evidence of their own eyes. There must be a major terrorist threat; otherwise, the government is wrong or lying, the intelligence agencies are wrong or self-serving, the media are fools or cowards, and the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism." ...
Full article at http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=26228&cat_id=1
"When September ends" By
"When September ends"
By Barbara Taormina
Sunday, June 4, 2006
North Shore News
http://www2.townonline.com/lynnfield/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=509...
Not a bad article.. truth seems to be catching on everywhere!
The NYT article is currently
The NYT article is currently the feature news story if you go over to AOL.
Found some stuff regarding
Found some stuff regarding the conference...
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/340467.shtml
There's a poll on AOL.com
There's a poll on AOL.com asking if you believe the government was complicit. 17% say yes, 27% are suspicious, and 57% say No.
Also, they have a forum to disuss the article. It's amazing how may people are ignorant and aren't even will to research this before posting. Typical responses are along the lines of "you're only an idiot to believe goverment complicity", "there's no way the goverment would muder their own people", "there's no evidence that suggests Bush and Co. were involved", "we're all just a bunch of nutjobs", etc, etc. etc.
The majority of posters on this thread seem to be true deniers who refuse to look at the evidence.
Does anyone have an AOL account so that they can start a new thread with links to good 911 Truth resources?
John Albanese: Here's
John Albanese: Here's perhaps the best intro to the physical evidence:
http://www.911proof.com/ (especially the pages titled "9-11 Commission", "Experts" and "Firefighters").
Thanks for your opennness, and maybe it will end up in your next film?
The physical evidence
The physical evidence refutes www.911proof.com entirely.
You guys must have a very poor concept of what is an what is not physical evidence. And to depend on a discredited conpiracy site is really not too intelligent.
Sorry for this huge post,
Sorry for this huge post, but I thought it may be helpful--I got this reply from Mr. Holland at Alternet. He seems pretty clueless and surprise! is relying on Ben Chertoff's PM piece. For any who are giving him the treatment in comments, see below for his weak spots (yeah I'm an asshole, tee hee):
Popular mechanics had one:
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
There's another analysis by a structural engineer who talks also about the heat created by pressure and friction as the towers came down. I'll dig through my files later and I'll send it your way.
Best,
JH
Joshua Holland
Staff Writer
AlterNet
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for taking this subject on. I wonder though about your statement that the molten steel issue has been rebutted. The presence of red hot spots is clear from this video, from 6 weeks after the collapses. What is the heat source that could have made this possible, if not a thermite reaction as expounded on by Steven Jones in his paper (I assume you've read it...) Or the presence of molten steel dripping out of the south tower? Could you point me to the rebuttals?
i just sent everyone
i just sent everyone possible at the Chicago Tribune an email asking why zero coverage for the 9/11 truth event - included NYTimes story
Chicago newspapers didnt
Chicago newspapers didnt cover the event? Geez. And let me guess, the Chicago area anti war and youth activists were a no show and could care less about 9/11 truth. Lovely.
Folks, the NY Times thing was not a "hit piece". First off, there are guidelines, and I believe he had to word things a certain way to not be fired or to not have it edited. My main problem was the "conspiracy theory" tag: I see it as 9/11 activism, not the typical black helicopter chemtrail new world order freemason mumbo jumbo. I see it on par with the people who tried to expose the lies that led to Iraq.
I also didnt like how the writer made it seem like the Gulf of Tonkin is a theory...he should have said "some conspiracy theories turn out to be true decades later, like the gulf of Tonkin" incident.
Anyways, the only thing worse than typical official line toting right wingers bashing us or 9/11 truth expos is democrats calling us crazy.
are you sure Dowd wrote
are you sure Dowd wrote this? it seems to me she didtn even write it yet everyone here is bashing her.
2/13/2001 - 3 weeks after
2/13/2001 - 3 weeks after Bush Co, takes office, NY Times reporter Alan Feuer instantly goes from Regional NY Sports writer to Terrorism writer?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/re...&inline=nyt-per
valis | Homepage | 06.05.06 - 10:41 am | #
damn, interesting find.
The Times fixed the link to
The Times fixed the link to Jones' paper
about the AOL Poll..i dont
about the AOL Poll..i dont understand AOL...
49% NY'ers agree with us according to Zogby, 43% want a new investigation according to Zogby, and 90 to 98% of CNN pollers ABSOLUTELY agree with us..so how come AOL is also the sore thumb?
Something odd about the AOL
Something odd about the AOL poll. It's been stuck at 57, 43, 17 since 20,000 votes. Now ofver 120,000 with same results.
"The writing must really be
"The writing must really be on the wall for the Perps if the Bible bashers are getting wise to, and mad about, 911 truth ."
"Geez, even religous fanatics are beginning to see that Bush is Lucifer!"
So "conspiracy theorists" and "conspiracy buffs" is off limits, but not "Bible bashers" and "religious fanatics", huh? I just so happen to be all of them...so HA! What some of you STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND is that there ARE Christians who see the coverup in 911, and have for some time now, but you all are too busy attacking our faith and lumping us all in with the "Christian" fakes out there.
"Folks, the NY Times thing
"Folks, the NY Times thing was not a "hit piece"."
It's pretty clear that the last two paragraphs pretty well socked it to the Truth Movement by innuendo.
"I wonder though about your
"I wonder though about your statement that the molten steel issue has been rebutted. The presence of red hot spots is clear from this video, from 6 weeks after the collapses. What is the heat source that could have made this possible, if not a thermite reaction as expounded on by Steven Jones in his paper (I assume you've read it...) Or the presence of molten steel dripping out of the south tower?"
Why would it have to be Thermite or explosives? First, the claims of "molten metal" remain heresay. Second, what was seen spilling out of the south tower has not been determined to be metal.
Just because Jones wants to you to believe there was thermite and molten metal is not valid without evidence. He hasn't presented evidence, just speculation.
Everyone has seen the picture on Jones's website claiming to be solidified "molten metal" but is actually concrete with metal rebar coming out of that. Why would he want you to believe it's solidified molten metal?
You need to question people like Jones and Fetzer and not accept what they claim at face value. They've been caught twisting the truth for their ends too many times.
"Conspiracy theorist" has
"Conspiracy theorist" has many negative connotations that do NOT apply to men like David Ray Griffin & Steven Jones."
It actually applies to those two 100% since that is exactly what they are claiming.
911poller, please get a real
911poller, please get a real job. im begging you.
How a Typical New York Times
How a Typical New York Times Article is Really Bushevik Propaganda Disguised as News
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Okay, okay, letÂ’s get this straight once again.
The New York Times is schizophrenic. Its editorial page is liberal, in the old establishment sense of the word, while its news section (despite infrequent expose stories like the NSA domestic eavesdropping one) is generally pro-Bush (although in an understated insidious way). Now, why do BuzzFlash and many other progressive websites make this charge?
Because if you read the NYT carefully day after day, most of its news stories about the White House, Bush and foreign policy subtly reflect the administration perspective and spin, but written as though the NYT is offering up a third party “balanced” perspective.
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/06/ana06038.html
MY LETTER TO THE
MY LETTER TO THE EDITOR...WRITE YOURS NOW:
In response to 500 conspiracy buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11:
As an attendee of the 9/11 Truth Conference in Chicago and soon to be U.S. Congressional candidate from Oklahoma City, I would like to assure your readers that I am not a “conspiracy buff”, but an advocate of truth, trust, and transparency in Government. The last building to collapse prior to the start of the “War on Terrorism”, was 7 World Trade Center (7WTC). Dr. Steven Jones of BYU has scientifically proven that this building collapsed due to controlled demolition. There has been no conclusive Government explanation of its collapse from either FEMA, NIST or the 9/11 Commission. The NIST has refused to release several videos and photographs of 7WTC from 9/11/01. The fact that 7WTC collapsed due to controlled demolition and that the NIST has refused to release photos and video of it would make any non “Conspiracy Buff” believe our Government might be trying to hide something.
Link to NYTIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html
The NY Times article is the
The NY Times article is the 19th "most emailed" in their popular stories currently:
http://www.nytimes.com/gst/mostemailed.html
The term "asshole" applies
The term "asshole" applies to you 100%, 911Troller.
Maureen Down DID NOT write
Maureen Down DID NOT write this piece for anyone thats confused.
Authors email
Authors email is:
feuer@nytimes.com
Anonymous says: "The
Anonymous says:
"The physical evidence refutes www.911proof.com entirely.
You guys must have a very poor concept of what is an what is not physical evidence. And to depend on a discredited conpiracy site is really not too intelligent."
Sir, please answer the following questions:
(1) What physical evidence refutes which parts of the website 911Proof.com?
(2) What are your qualifications (other than being a troll?)
It looks like me being your
It looks like me being your conscience is working, chris and anonymous.
You're really bothered by having to face that which you are fighting not to admit.
"(1) What physical evidence
"(1) What physical evidence refutes which parts of the website 911Proof.com?"
Most likely he meant the part where George Washington proclaimed, "Here's perhaps the best intro to the physical evidence..."
"(2) What are your qualifications?"
Probably the same if not better than George Washington's. I've seen how G.W. has screwed up quite a bit.
FYI - The reporter had
FYI -
The reporter had nothing to do with headline...attempts are being made to get the contact information of the copy editor.
AOL MIND CONTROL? Look at
AOL MIND CONTROL?
Look at the AOL link of Feuer's NYT article.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060605100209990018&nc...
There is a link below the Pentagon still image slide show to a video. The title of the link is:
"Watch Video: Plane Hits Pentagon"
Uh, really? What plane?
Does this tend to potentially mislead, obfuscate, and deceive what could be millions of readers? How many have looked at the title and assumed that the video actually shows a plane hitting the Pentagon? How many have looked at the video and not seen a plane but, afraid to believe that the emporer has no clothes, agrees that a plane hits the Pentagon in the video.
Mind control techniques are subtle. I believe that this is intentional deception and manipulation by AOL news editors.
I have emailed Feuer for comment because these media links do not appear to be a part of his original article at NYT, as currently available.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html
Anyone else find this as interesting as I do?
Michael Parenti...
I don't know if you took the time to listen to it, but Michael Parenti addresses "Conspiracy Buffs" in his lecture about JFK, which to me, is probably his best lecture ever.
"And this is why for 30 years, the mainstream press, has suppressed or dismissed out of hand the findings about JFK's death. The findings of independent investigators like Peter Dale Scott, Harold Weisberg, Carl Oglesby, Mark Lane, Anthony Summers, Philip Melenson, Jim Garrison, Sior Wette, and dozens and dozens of others. They're called assassination buffs. They're not buffs. Even that word is a limiting and marginalizing and diminishing term. A buff is kind of a hobby pursuer you see. It's a kind of a quirky person who follows quirky little interests. Would you talk about Holocaust buffs would you? No. They are serious investigators of a very serious crime which leads to all sorts of serious understandings about the criminal nature of the state."
I apologize for getting the spelling of the names wrong. I know I did.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton