Just googling around and found some interesting first-person WTC accounts at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/SoulMates1PlayGround/911_Personal_WTC_Accoun...

Two excerpts - note explosions heard before collapse begins:

"through the smoke we started to see huge aluminum strips of the building tumbling down the side of the building. Then all of the sudden we heard an awful screech of metal warping and twisting, then a massive explosion as the concrete supports failed. I knew instantly it was the building and looked up in time to see the top thirty floors of the South Tower dropping from the sky, huge chunks of the building blowing out away from it, as a huge ugly brown cloud of debris and ash engulfed the entire structure..."

From another account on the same page:

"...As we were waiting for instructions. We heard this loud rumble, I looked up and saw the tower starting to come straight down on itself."

I thought Kevin's performance was brilliant. He never loses his balance and totally frustrates his host.

Here's another attack that's gonna backfire big time:

by IraqVet4Peace @ 9:00 am

The following is a statement that is being circulated regarding an incident at the military recruiting station on Orange Street in New Haven on Wednesday, June 28. A baseball bat-wielding Marine recruiter engaged in an unprovoked assault on two demonstrators outside the recruiting center and then seized the cellphone belonging to another demonstrator who had witnessed and photographed the assault. There are plans for a rally and press conference outside the recruiting center for July 5 at 5PM.

The National Lawyers Guild was contacted immediately after the incident by organizers who were looking for legal assistance because, among other things, the New Haven police were trying to discourage the victims from making a complaint against the recruiter — apparently at least one officer expressed the opinion that having an anti-war demonstration outside a military recruiting center was a “provocation.”

The question that this incident must raise is this: if a US Marine recruiter, while safely ensconced behind a desk in an air-conditioned office in New Haven, working in a position that plainly keeps him in the public eye, feels free to use a baseball bat to beat a protester . . . then how much restraint do we imagine that his compatriots use against Iraqis?

I would strongly urge people to participate in the rally on July 5. The movement needs to respond in a strong and clear voice to violence against demonstrators, and all the more so when it comes from government personnel and is calculated to discourage political opposition.

Peter Goselin
NLG-CT

The far right's attempt to slander 9/11 truth I think will backfire. People EVERYWHERE will say to themselves "wait, there was something odd about 9/11".

We need MORE Kevin Barrets, not people talking about no planes, alive passengers, etc.

Become a Kevin Barret Pockybot.

DHS:

Loose Eyewitness, is a milk-snot riot!

I think I will use that one for those still watching FOX. Call me silly, but I can't help thinking it WILL touch their soul.

Barrett was promoting several falsehood's in the first few minutes of Clip 1 of that interview; I couldn't even listen any further.

Barrett was promoting several falsehood's in the first few minutes of Clip 1 of that interview; I couldn't even listen any further.
- Ø®£Z - | 07.02.06 - 3:44 pm | #

Such as?

Seymour Hersch - Top Military Don't Agree With Bush Administration Over Iran

“The policymakers are in love with Special Ops—the guys on camels.”

Great job Kevin,

I love listening to you and D.R.G. speak. When you guys speak I don't hear screaming or over passionate views, instead I just hear the truth. Keep leading the way to the truth for us.

Thanks,

Nick.

P.S. Has anyone noticed that Yahoo forums are banning some accounts for trying to spread 911 truth? This has happened to me specifically after posting numerous post pointing to Noman MinetaÂ’s 911 commission testimony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=norman%20mineta

that was pretty much perfect as far as I could hear. well done Kevin

Kevin Barret OWNS. Oh man, just heard the interview. He was NOT afraid to say Mohammed Atta was a double agent, and clearly is one of the most well researched yet cordial speakers o n the issue. Why cant Fox get HIM to speak?
THANK GOD the mainstream is covering his story of being barred. This man should have been on the 9/11 commission.

Lets make sure and get the cbs and yahoo wire news of this guy's story to every corner of the internet.

thanks for the Sy Hersh article.

The neocons are clearly hell-bent on attacking Iran. This is very, very bad. Apparently Bush's messianic complex is more than a public front to snooker the bible belt. He is honest-to-goodness off his rocker. He views himself as the saviour of "western civilization" against the Mongolian hordes, with oil and Israel as the key.

Should the US attack Iran, the entire region will explode. You simply can't predict what will happen.

We might see:

The price of oil skyrocket. Economic collapse. Coups across the middle East. Hezbollah going nuts. Real terrorism brought to America's shores. The end of any semblance of democracy in America and other countries. Civil war in the United States. The skies the limit. Make that the pits of hell.

How will the neocons justify their attack?

We might see Israel launch the first salvo. Iran will counterattack. Pictures of dead and dying Israeli children will be broadcast around the world; the "international community" will then begin the destruction of Iran in earnest, with the US taking the lead.

God help us./

thanks for the Sy Hersh article.

The neocons are clearly hell-bent on attacking Iran. This is very, very bad. Apparently Bush's messianic complex is more than a public front to snooker the bible belt. He is honest-to-goodness off his rocker. He views himself as the saviour of "western civilization" against the Mongolian hordes, with oil and Israel as the key.

Should the US attack Iran, the entire region will explode. You simply can't predict what will happen.

We might see:

The price of oil skyrocket. Economic collapse. Coups across the middle East. Hezbollah going nuts. Real terrorism brought to America's shores. The end of any semblance of democracy in America and other countries. Civil war in the United States. The skies the limit. Make that the pits of hell.

How will the neocons justify their attack?

We might see Israel launch the first salvo. Iran will counterattack. Pictures of dead and dying Israeli children will be broadcast around the world; the "international community" will then begin the destruction of Iran in earnest, with the US taking the lead.

God help us./

http://www.house.gov/paul/

The video of Ron Paul's exchange is up, but it's not working for me. Can somebody, somewhere grab this, and convert it to something usable? Thanking you in advance.

Zarqawi Buried In "Secret Location" In Baghdad

Bush Admin. Has Acknowledged That Saudi Arabia Financing "Al-Qaeda" In Somalia

In case you missed it.

By the way... for those who remember, one of dz's better pieces...

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/07/mainstream-media-plays-religionrace.html

The Case of Kevin Barrett and the Ward Churchill Canard

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/07/churchill-canard.html

Folks, please be sure to vote for Dr. Barrett's academic freedom:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/9457154/detail.html

Spread the word!!!

-

Go post a favorable comment defending Kevin Barrett and his viewpoints on this site which published a smear story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657968/posts

"Ward Churchill canard"

Your blog contains fallacies. As I wrote above:

In fact, Churchill made it clear that he was not referring to janitors or office workers with the "little Eichmanns" comment, but rather the "technocrats of empire" who grease the wheels on the process known as globalization. Nor did he claim the attacks were justified, only that they were justified according to the Pentagon's own military doctrines -- the WTC complex contained "legitimate targets" such as the CIA, for instance, and the other people were merely "collatoral damage". Again, he was not saying it was just, he was saying it was just according to the Pentagon's definitions. He was shining a light on the brutal logic of US military doctrine.

Churchill's stance on 911 ("blowback")is untenable, obviously, but it was shameful for Barrett to attack a fellow professor who was once in circumstances similar to his own, using the same techniques of defamation currently being used against himself.

If you consider it repugnant that lies are being spread about Mr. Barrett in an effort to stifle freedom of speech, you should consider it equally repugnant that the same tactic was used against Mr. Churchill.

wow, that Ron Paul speech is great. Well written.

It makes me sick how some on the far left say the US brought 9/11 on itself
for aggressions in the middle east, and that the WTC represented corporate fascism or some shit. These people make me MORE SICK than the far right believing in the 9/11 lie...as at least a lot of people arent distorting the fact that 3000 innocent people died.

I have lost all respect for people like Chomsky and other leftgatekeepers who rally against the government but say its crazy to think they are covering anything up, or that 9/11 "doesnt matter". Sadly, thats a bulk of the left activism today...and we need to change that, wake people up.

POW!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/02/opinion/edkeller.php

wn.com

If it's still up on wn.com, the "When do we publish a secret?" title is placed with a photo of Ground Zero!

Perhaps you guys could enlighten Barrett about Churchill.

Other than that, a great interview performance! The interviewer sounded increasingly like a complete idiot.

"It makes me sick how some on the far left say the US brought 9/11 on itself for aggressions in the middle east"

Makes you sick, eh? What planet are you living on? Do you deny that such aggression has been the norm since the US inherited the British Empire's imperial legacy following (and to some degree, prior to) WWII? Do you deny that killing and enslaving millions of people may, at some point in time, have consequences to the killer and the enslaver? Is it not inevitable? How can elmentary logic make you "sick"?

"and that the WTC represented corporate fascism or some shit."

What did it represent, if not corporatism? (which does indeed mean "fascism" for the majority of people in the third world) Truth, justice and the American Way? What are you twelve? There were dozens of banks, transnational corporations and several intelligence agencies housed in the complex. What do you think these institutions do? Spread freedom? No, collectively they are reponsible for millions of deaths every year, year after year, more, in fact, that the Nazis during their brief time on the planet. Saying that all of these individuals were "innocent" simply because they were performing their insitutional role is ludicrous, just as ludicrous as claiming that Eichmann was innocent because he didn't actually pull the dragger or flip the switch on the people who died in the concentration camps. As Churchill wrote in the original article:

"They [the WTC] formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire—the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved—and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance”—a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore”—counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in—and in many cases excelling at—it was because of their absolute refusal to see."

Innocent? Who's innocent? Are you innocent? Culpability is a matter of degree, and I'm inclined to think that if ANYONE is guilty of this travesty you call "corporate fascism" it is the people at the top of the pyramid. Does that mean they deserved to die? Who can say? Maybe we all deserve to die.

the point is that Churchill never said that the attacks were justified. He said they were inevitable (which indeed they were, and frankly it's astonishing that America hasn't suffered a real, large scale terrorist attack -- yet)

What Churchill did was hold up a mirror. He asked Americans to think in the same terms and hold themselves to the same standard that their leaders apply to other countries.

The WTC contained legitimate military targets for foreign enemies; the rest of the casualties were "collatoral damage". Not Churchill's opinion, but the opnion of America's rulers -- at least when military doctrine is applied to people outside your borders. Your country has been at war -- mostly covert -- against peoples in the middle east for a long, long time.

"It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that’s my point. It’s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name."

Now if you wanna criticize Churchill for his stance on 911 truth, I'm all for it.

Vesa: thank you for that link. If that site is accurate, then I'm 98% certain that is Bin Laden in the tape. As far as the validity of what was supposedly discussed in the video, I don't know yet.

As I posted in a different thread: The 911 Truth movement must dump the qausi-claims, like the above "fake" video or the claims of "two small fires" at WTC 7 while ignoring other damage (I still think it was demolished). No more parroting the unconfirmed. It muddies the waters. I'm not talking about speculating within the movement - that's necessary. I'm referring to presentation of the facts to the uninformed.

At least the photo of the guys carrying the tent at the Pentagon is rarely claimed to be some mysterious blue tarp covered box anymore. That's a start:
http://www.rense.com/general70/bluett.htm

I posted this story the Madison (Wisconsin) Indymedia site with some interesting results:

http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/38278/index.php

The Bush apologists don't even try to refute Dr. Barrett.

They merely emotivate. Then again, what else is left when they have know facts?

I don't know if I've been here long enough to mouth-off to you like that..... The people here have been tolerant of my own ranting so far...

Thanks.
Peace.
Erin S. Myers | 07.02.06 - 9:50 pm |

__________-

Actually, you've been here way too long. Now go away, please.

As I posted in a different thread: The 911 Truth movement must dump the qausi-claims, like the above "fake" video or the claims of "two small fires" at WTC 7 while ignoring other damage (I still think it was demolished). No more parroting the unconfirmed. It muddies the waters. I'm not talking about speculating within the movement - that's necessary. I'm referring to presentation of the facts to the uninformed.

At least the photo of the guys carrying the tent at the Pentagon is rarely claimed to be some mysterious blue tarp covered box anymore. That's a start:

Let me help clear the waters. There was very minor damage to WTC-7 & a few small scattered fires. Nothing that could account for it imploding except for incendiaries & explosives, just like Larry "pull-it" Silverstein said on video.

It takes 10 big dudes to carry one of those "tents"??? Such "tents" are a great way to conceal & remove evidence. What was inside the tent that made it so heavy???

Pockybot - why are the insults on Al Gore's movie?? I saw it. It was good. It's a good cause. Why are you against saving our Earth??
TRUTH SEEKER | 07.02.06 - 9:00 pm | #

Gore should have done a 9/11 truth movie first, the coward! Then he could have gone on to global warming.

With regards to the Fatty Bin Laden matter and the 911myths story...

I would agree with most folks - that Osama Bin Munchin' is not the strongest argument in the arsenal. As a subject of discussion / speculation, I think it should be limited to conversations within the Truth body- not made a basis for any proselytization efforts to the unbelieving masses. (German media among others made a big stink about inaccuracies in the translation, anyway, so even if it IS him, we can't trust it.)

However- having said that- the screen captures posted in that 9/11 Myths site come directly from the Pentagon, and to my own semi-trained eye, show signs of heavy photoretouching. (Notice the variability between pixelated images and blurred ones. (Those two images also have color-temperature variations that would not happen unless the shooter reset the white-balance on his video camera... Or the photo-retoucher was lazy/inept.)

My first instinct was to go to google video or youtube to watch the confession video in its entirety, to reconcile those stills with the video (or reject them as bogus retouches, produced as a cleanup effort by a Pentagon propaganda unit, in response to Truther comments about the bogusness of the confession video).

Strangely, I can't find a confession video online to compare it to. Hoffman's clips are dead. I did find brief lo-res samples at 911blimp, but nothing long enough or high-resolution enough to work with.

I think the very real possibility exists that those stills are doctored retouches of a poorly cast piece of Pentagon-authored propaganda. If that could be proven (by somebody uploading a high-res version of the video from back in the time when it was broadcast), we could demonstrably show with screen-caps from the old video compared with the new stills that the Pentagon is revising their own propaganda videos- which, if nothing else, is freaking hilarious.

Alternatively, if a nice resolution source video gave us stills which matched the ones shown in the 911myths page, we'd have a basis to downgrade the Fatty Bin Laden matter further than it already is (or should be).

Why doesn't someone invite those two eggheads, Churchill & Chomsky, to this board for some comments? I bet we could open their eyes a bit.

First off, I myself highly reject certain 9/11 truth "facts" that keep getting regurgitated.

Namely that al Qaeda was in no way shape or form involved(false)

That thats a fake Osama in the video(false, never believed it was a fake Osama...he just takes credit for everything)

I dont know what to make of the hijackers alive story, but why would they be alive...if it was a US ops theyd be killed...cept maybe Atta?

And yeah, I never go with the "WTC7 was some pristine building with two fires". Skewing the truth isnt going to help the cause, when theres so much overwhelming evidence to break down the official story

This was a pretty funny post someone had posted on a comment board:

All of you so-called "9/11 Truth" folks really get my goat. Just because I as the leaseholder on the World Trade Center buildings personally admitted demolishing WTC building 7 on September 11th, and just because we used explosives to do it, does NOT mean that we demolished WTC 1 and WTC 2 the same way. Yes, the fact that we took down building seven did require us to put explosives in those buildings before the 9/11 attacks- since we obviously didn't have time to do it after... But that remains an unfortunate coincidence.
Also, please pay no mind to any footage of firefighters on September 11th who were claiming to find bombs in the WTC buildings. Clearly, they are just shills for your "Truth" movement, shills that you conveniently sent backwards into time, so that they could appear on the scene and create a PR problem for those of us who know the truth.
You 9/11 Truth people are shameless. Just because our government lied to us about Saddam's WMD, and Jessica Lynch, and Pat Tillman, Al-Qaeda's ties to Iraq, and just because our own Department of Defense called for blowing up civilian aircraft and shooting innocent Americans on the streets in order to frame Cuba for terrorism and create a pretext for war 40 years ago does not mean they would still want to do something like that. We're the good guys, remember?
Or have you forgotten?
Posted by: Larry Silverstein at July 2, 2006 12:47 AM

P.S. does anybody know of any footage of firefighters who were claiming to find bombs in the WTC buildings on 9/11? I don't remember ever seeing such footage.

Jeff...

I am ALMOST sure that it's on this film...and if it is, I don't know which of the three parts..

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/020506martiallaw.htm

If it's not, enjoy the film anyway..

:-)

There's at least one clip on google video from September 11th of firefighters telling each other, "Bomb in the building- start clearing out."

The Pentagon Bin Laden confession video is a fake, no matter if it's the real Bin Laden.

There a several flaws: First, Bin Laden denied three times any involvement in 911. As far as I know, had terror goals and terrorists owed terror acts with pride and admitted it as soon as possible. Two times Al Jazeera, one time pakistani newspaper Umat.
You never heard of it, because it was silenced, as they said it could activate sleeper cells.
Then, as lucky guys the neocons are, they "found" a video in Jalalabad.
No other circumstances about that are known. Does that sound suspicious? Not for sheeples.
They present a already english translated version. with several errors, as someone here mentioned, (german newsmagazine Monitor) with a Pentagon press briefing to promote this "confession" with a massive scale.
They let Osama escape several times.
And now they don't have any hard evidence to connect Bin Laden to 911.

disinfo agent: "and to my own semi-trained eye, show signs of heavy photoretouching."

You need to look harder to see the most obvious then.

The fat Bin Laden version of the video is of a lower quality resolution, darker in color and more blurry, distorted widthwise etc.

The 911Myths pics are a higher quality resolution, brighter in color and clearer, non-widthwise altered etc.

You can't take a low-res quality and make it higher-res quality; that doesn't work.

You can, however, take a higher-res quality and shrink it to a lower-res quality -- and also distort it, as the fake, fat Bin Laden version of the Bin Laden confession video shows.

The fake, Fat Bin Laden version of the Bin Laden confession video is what is known as Non-evidence. It is a hoax, most surely by design, and not some innocent prank.

I don't know who was the first to start its propagation, but I believe the first place that I saw it was www.WhatReallyHappened.com

Continued >

wtf

911Blogger is not letting the rest of what I wrote be previewed or PUBLISHED!

Screen capture of text edit file of what my whole comment was > http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6831/911bloggertext9gr.jpg

First off, I myself highly reject certain 9/11 truth "facts" that keep getting regurgitated.

Namely that al Qaeda was in no way shape or form involved(false)

That thats a fake Osama in the video(false, never believed it was a fake Osama...he just takes credit for everything)

I dont know what to make of the hijackers alive story, but why would they be alive...if it was a US ops theyd be killed...cept maybe Atta?

And yeah, I never go with the "WTC7 was some pristine building with two fires". Skewing the truth isnt going to help the cause, when theres so much overwhelming evidence to break down the official story
pockybot | 07.02.06 - 11:15 pm | #

Who said al Qaeda was not involved in any way...they made fine patsies.

I don't know what to make of the "alive" hijackers either. Shouldn't they all be dead if they flew planes into buildings as per the "official story"?

WTC-7 had very minor damage. Nothing to account for its perfect implosion!

Wake up!

- Ø®£Z - | 07.03.06 - 2:52 am | #

Sorry, but AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

That thats a fake Osama in the video(false, never believed it was a fake Osama...he just takes credit for everything)

Then why the previous denials by Osama? Then why has he not been captured or killed yet? (Answers: fake Osama tapes)

I think Barret need not talk about Ward Churchill any more. He's really not worth mentioning.

"Sorry, but AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.
Anonymous | 07.03.06 - 3:09 am | # "

Only in fairytale, non-evidence land.

Kevin Barrett is fantastic, he's a real ambassador for the Truth Movement as far as I'm concerned. Those articles on Mujca are some of the most powerful and inspiring I think I've ever read on almost any subject not just 9/11.

We need MORE Kevin Barrets, not people talking about no planes, alive passengers, etc.
pockybot | 07.02.06 - 3:09 pm | #

^ Exactly!

Perhaps the "Larry Silverstein" message posted by jeff is one good way of promoting truth... Pretending to be a 9/11 believer and leading the arguments to their absurd conclusion! I wish I saw more posts like this.

Again, anyone who says "no plane hit the Pentagon" must first explain the 5 cut lamp poles that require an object with the minimum width of 100 feet. The promotion of no planes must stop.

I also have noticed that everyone talks about "two small fires" in WTC 7. Even by just looking at the pictures one can see that there were fires on at least three floors. Why not just say "some" minor fires or something like that? Actually, the fires would not need to be (and perhaps should not be) discussed at all, as it is clear that a steel-framed building simply does not totally collapse as a result of fires, and certainly not symmetrically and at a nearly free-fall speed. Heck, even a wooden building does not necessarily collapse totally as a result of fires raging for hours, as shown by a recent mediaevel church fire in Finland...

The above was by me, your trusted Finnish correspondent. :-)

Pockybot - why are the insults on Al Gore's movie?? I saw it. It was good. It's a good cause. Why are you against saving our Earth??
TRUTH SEEKER | 07.02.06 - 9:00 pm | #
again, you have to understand that pocky is an angry republican who doesnt let a thread go by without bashing what he sees as "the left". in sticking with his angry republican ways, he thinks Al Gore's movie on global warming is "lame", as he said. hes a good rightie, which means he ignores all scientific evidence of global warming.its just too "lame" for him.

9/11 Press For Truth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330418413919565384&q=Press+for+...

this looks like its gonna be amazing. it could be the perfect 9/11 truth film if it includes physical evidence,CD,WTC7 etc. sadly, i dont think it will.

it actually looks like its only gonna be LIHOP,sadly.

i love how Bob Mcilvaine says how pissed off he is at the american people and the government at the end of the trailer. im pissed off and i didnt lose anyone personally, i cant imagine how a guy like that feels. he is proof positive that our media fears the real story of 9/11.same with Rodriquez. how could the media ignore the last man out of the towers who saved 13 or so lives? its easy to ignore him when hes speaking of bombs in the buildings.........

Again, anyone who says "no plane hit the Pentagon" must first explain the 5 cut lamp poles that require an object with the minimum width of 100 feet. The promotion of no planes must stop.

I didn't rule out some aircraft hitting the Pentagon. It just was NOT AA77!

After all, no one ever has been converted 'back' to believing the 'official version', no one ever.

EXACTLY, Greg, awesome point.

Since 9-11 truth is a one-way street, the counter-truth movement (of whic so many posters here are proud members) has adopted the strategy of putting roadblocks on the way to real truthdom. They basically pick one or two things to accept and talk about, then a few others to deny. That way, people new to the movement get the impression that there's a lot of mystery and disagreement and will either decide it's not worth trying to figure out who's telling the truth, or they will go with whoever they think SEEMS liek they're telling the truth. I always tell people in the street to take what they read online with a grain of salt--even my stuff. I tell them the most important thing is to decide for themselves what makes sense. Now, some people can look at the tiny hole in the Pentagon and say, well, since the lampposts were knocked down, there must have been a plane. Unless you found plane prints on the lampposts, this is pretty silly. It is obvious that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. I tend to side with Hufschmid that if it was a plane it was likely a small drone like the global hawk. The video frames show what is more likely to be a missile, because of the vapor trail, and that--not a plane of any kind--would be consistent with the bunker-busting little wormhole going in through the third ring. No hollow plane is going to puncture like that. WTC7--who the f*** cares if the fires were small or if the damage to the outside was large? EVERYONE who sees the collapse can tell it was a result of controlled demolition. In fact those are the two most obvious smoking guns--the Pentagon and building 7, which is exactly why they are the targets of the disinfo brigades. The twin towers--heck, even I had my doubts until I became aware of the molten steel, and the many eyewitnesses to explosives.

Let's be VERY clear here. LIHOP is pure nonsense, and the shills are hoping beyond hope that they can make it stick. I've had personal dealings with VERY obviously insincere LIHOP supporters who worked in tandem with LIHOP deniers to give the impression that the real debate was LIHOP vs. NOHOP. Pathetic. Al Qaeda is not real. Watch the POwer of Nightmares. Do some lunatic would-be jihadis fall for the same propaganda that some stupid americans have fallen for? Sure, why not. I love this site because it welcomes the shills and exposes them to our scrutiny. I won't name names (anymore) but I will set the record straight when I notice them playing their roles.

I posted the fake Silverstein comments in that message board. Unfortunately- the links I included were all dead, so it took some of the usefulness of the post out...

I do believe that one of the best ways to make a small difference is for Truthers to make informed, humorous (if appropriate), *hyperlinked* posts in widely-read message boards. Direct name calling or flaming of others who reject alternative 9/11 theories is foolish and only strengthens the resolve of the attacked to dislike the message and messenger. But confronting them with humor and substance (by this I mean the strongest of the arguments, not "no cell phones", "fake osama", "missle hit it" distractions) has a chance of getting people to at least reconsider their presuppositions.

I think if 911Blogger lets us know as soon as major blogs / news sites have 9/11 Truth stories (like LittleGreenFootballs did recently), we can react quickly and hopefully plant a few seeds.

The same is true with radio interviews. Calling in to big shows- like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. - with an angle that can get past the screener (like "how do I shut my 9/11 conspiracy friends up? they're good, reasonable conservatives- except for this one subject...") gives us a chance to reach millions with the message, even if we're not overtly taking the 9/11 Truther position.

disinfo agent, i like how you think! we must do everything they do, but better.

"it actually looks like its only gonna be LIHOP,sadly."

It's neither. It's just a presentation of the facts as put forward by the media, from the perspective of the family members.

disinfo agent....

thats a great idea!!!

whenever something at a fake msm site comes up----someone brings the link here ----and they get hit by the cyber paul revere brigade!!!

Ø®£Z wrote:

"You can't take a low-res quality and make it higher-res quality; that doesn't work."

You are actually incorrect about this matter, although in bringing it up, you are missing my point altogether.

First- to your specific comment about the impossibility of increasing the resolution (and resolution quality) of an image... Here's a quick primer on how that works.

Software like the Genuine Fractals plug-in for Photoshop lets an individual take pictures and create "resolution independent assets". The software turns them image itself into an algorithm, and having done so, lets the user increase the scale of the image to their hearts content without creating the pixalization that would normally occur by enlarging a lower resolution source image.

Sound like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo? Read a review and see if you still think so.

--

That notwithstanding, that wasn't my point in the first place.

The fact that higher-resolution-than-we've-previously-scene photos are coming from the Pentagon is not really relevant. They possess the source video- whether they created it, or whether it was discovered in Kandahar.

They released video via the networks back in December of 2001. It was broadcast on television- and even if the quality of the broadcast was bad- the resolution was probably 720x486ish (camcorder range).

I have not seen a broadcast quality version of the video on the internet- though surely somebody has a copy of it somewhere.

What I was saying was that the individual stills released by the Pentagon recently do not appear to correspond with the original footage itself. I am saying that it looks like someone in the Pentagon retouched stills from the original video to make the figure look more like Osama than Fat bin Laden ever looked. The resolution is not relevant to this point.

If I could see a broadcast-resolution version of that old video from 2001, we could match up the stills the Pentagon recently released with the original video- and see if, in fact, they would overlay- or if instead someone took some stills from the big video and then tried to retouch them to make the hammy actor look more like the ex-CIA employee.

Does that make sense? Even if it doesn't, I can make it make sense if someone can point me in the direction of a good resolution version of the old Osama confession video. I'd love to have the whole video if anyone knows where to find it.