Is 9/11 Truth Dying?

Before you get too excited by the Democratic sweep of Congress and the ability of the Dems to "balance the power" of the Executive Branch, read Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones' scathing attack on the velvet gloved branch of the one corporate, imperial party in America. Read this, then post your ideas on making sure that the feel-good, do-nothing Democratic leadership doesn't take the wind out of the 9/11 truth movement:

"9/11 Truth Is Dying

Many in liberal, progressive, truth community pacified by sham re-arranging of the deck chairs, desert movement, dilute focus, as Dean and Pelosi promise to protect Bush from impeachment

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 9, 2006

The empty "victory" of the Democrats' sweep of Congress has injected an anesthetic of apathy into the body politic and slowed the momentum of the move to have those responsible for 9/11 and the ensuing mess in Iraq brought to justice. Many people have swallowed the fraud and the 9/11 truth movement is dying.

The mandate of the 9/11 truth movement is to educate the world on the fact that the official story is a fraud and then use closely scrutinized independent investigations to ascertain precisely the guilty parties so that they may be brought up on charges and such a horrific event, including its freedom crippling aftermath, may never be seen again.

Since leading Democrat power-brokers have already completely distanced themselves from investigating even the Iraq WMD scandal, how on earth can we expect them to look into 9/11 and it's ramifications? In that context in what way was Tuesday night a defeat of the Neo-Cons if all it has done is allowed them to escape the consequences of the last six years?

Far from being a victory for the 9/11 and alternative truth community, the mid-term elections seem to have pacified large sections of activists into believing the job has been done when in reality it's only just beginning. This is prompting a kind of desertion and a dilution in focus, which will only spell the end for the 9/11 truth movement as it withers on the vine through the lack of united anger and discontent.

Many on the political left have betrayed themselves as partisan hypocrites for not calling to task Democrats who are openly indicating they will protect Bush from criminal proceedings. The trend is becoming painfully clear as left-leaning websites across the blogosphere revel in associating their power with the newly elected Democrats while poo-pooing problems that were not fixed overnight but have seemingly evaporated into thin air for some just because Democrats were successful.

The talking points of elite sycophants Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are reverberating across the political spectrum - no impeachment of Bush, no investigation of Iraq and no independent inquiry into 9/11. Establishment phonies who previously railed against Bush are lining up and following orders.

Nancy Pelosi again repeated her assertion today that impeachment was "off the table," echoing Howard Dean's comments to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night that, "we're not gonna do that."

The progressive community has put itself to shame by proving they only ever cared about one party and not about America. Bellwether liberal websites like Crooks and Liars are already slavishly drooling over "Speaker Pelosi," even though that position is yet to be voted on. Bush and pro-torture Pelosi (she voted against condemning torture of Iraqis) meanwhile are busy kissing up to each other and scheming on how they can push through Bush's mass amnesty program that his own Republican House rejected.

Do we really expect Pelosi to stand up to the war-hungry Neo-Cons when she personally attacked the Iraqi President for not supporting Israel's absolute butchery and destruction of Lebanon? Memories of liberal excuses for Bill Clinton's Serbian holocaust come flooding back.

Bush has signed into law the framework of a dictatorship under the Military Commissions Act, the updated Patriot Act and other bills, but the Democrats have not uttered a sound to suggest they will attempt to repeal any of this horrendous legislation.

The proto-dictatorship could never have been put in place without the seminal event of 9/11 and it is imperative that the 9/11 truth movement not be pacified by a sham re-arranging of the deck chairs. We must push like never before for a new independent investigation of 9/11 and if Democrats stand in our way they will be considered collaborators and part of the cover-up.

Where's the call to repeal the torture legislation? Where's the call to repeal the Patriot Act? Where's the call to stop the NSA spying on Americans? What we should be hearing is repeal, repeal, repeal, but instead it's betrayal, betrayal and more betrayal on the part of the brown nose Democrats. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Lest we forget it was Bill Clinton and the Democrats who covered up the truth about the first World Trade Center bombing and the April 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, both being pre-cursors to what happened on 9/11.

We were called right wing fascists when we opposed Clinton and left wing extremists when we slammed Bush - so now it seems we'll be labeled fascists again simply for standing up for freedom, and not the temporary power monopoly of one political party.

We don't seek to create divisions between the progressive community and the so-called "conspiracy crowd" but unless immediate action is undertaken to ensure Pelosi does not become Speaker of the House nothing whatsoever will have been achieved by Tuesday night.

Liberals need to decide if they are on the side of a political party or the side of America. The first step is to lobby for John Conyers to take the position of speaker. Conyers has at least raised the possibility of investigations into Iraq, illegal domestic spying and ultimately impeachment, while Dean and Pelosi have repeatedly assured Bush and the rest of his criminal cabal that they will be given safe passage.

Tony Soldo outlines the course of action required to truly achieve justice for the hundreds of thousands that have died at the hands of the Bush administration over the last six years, including the victims of 9/11.

"A Resolution , calling for the immediate with-drawing of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the trial and prosecution of Bush , Cheney , and Rumsfeld , for war crimes, is completely valid and covered in detail in a document called the United States Constitution."

"In Article II , (the Executive Branch), section 4 , it states ; The President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment For, and Conviction of,

Treason , Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"If there is any doubt as to the blatant violation of the rule of law, both Constitutional and International , there can clearly be no defense for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, in their role as war criminals, and war profiteers after three years of chaos and mayhem in Iraq."

We also need to encourage Democrats to join Ron Paul's Liberty Committee, so that Republicans and Democrats who actually believe in the bill of rights can come together and roll back Bush's trashing of the Constitution, and not scheme with him to pass legislation that the majority of Americans oppose like mass amnesty for illegals.

If mobbed-up sycophants like Pelosi and Dean block investigations into war criminals then they too should be treated as collaborators and exposed for helping aid the cover-up of the 9/11 attacks and the pre-planned invasion of Iraq under deceitful pretenses.

If America falls for this good cop bad cop theatre again the 9/11 truth movement will wither away and die and Hillary Clinton will simply inherit the unitary decidership that Bush has set up in 2008."

The truth movement

must adapt to the changing political climate. The victory of the Democrats should not be taken as a victory for us. We cannot rest until the 9/11 issue is opened wide for all to see. Take heart, and keep your eyes on the prize.

Show "911 Truth was never alive to begin with" by CHF (not verified)

and yet your life is so

and yet your life is so empty and pathetic you find the time to come here. what does that say about your life? what does that say about you?

It says he believes in education

You do want to learn the truth, don\'t you?


It's not about people "taking us seriously," it's about doing the research, looking at footage and what has happened since 9-11, and deciding what you believe makes the most sense.

Obviously if you went to college you didn't grasp the whole idea of making your own hypothesis about something. Probably much too "liberal" a concept for you.

As far as the movement only existing on the Internet, that is just laughable. Thousands of people at Ground Zero this year proved that, as well as many other events all around the country. Perhaps for your comfortable world view you wish we were relegated to the depths of cyberspace.

It's time now for the truth movement to change, to adapt to the new political environment.

It's certainly to early to be branding all Democrats as part of the problem. That will get us NOWHERE.

After all, you go for the truth with the government you have, not the government you think you should have.

The truth will come out, there will be hearings, people will be put on trial, it's just going to take a little patience.

Change is a slow process, but it has started, much of it thanks to netroots efforts such as our movement.

Show "You\'re right" by Anonymous (not verified)

Hi, 'Ernie'. Bet you

Hi, 'Ernie'.

Bet you didn't expect me to find you. It's really not that difficult--if you're connected.

Don't like 'Ernie'? Then pick a bloody name already.

Be seeing you...again.

No, he's stuck with "Ernie" now

At LEAST until he gets the backslash key on his keyboard fixed.

Don't bloody tell him! He

Don't bloody tell him! He might listen!

And I was enjoying my 'spooky' mystique. "pout"

I guess you just gotta laugh...

Whatever makes you feel good

And reveals you can\'t come up with a cogent reply.

On the subject matter, in case you missed that salient point.

That's an ironic statement.

That's an ironic statement. Tell me, why are you even here then?

Show "Why am I here?" by CHF (not verified)

"Relish in your failure"

That's the best line since "Slush your drivel." Congrats!


I just gave you a point for that. That was hillarious. Course then I had to look at the original post...

There should be a book:

"911Blogger OUT-Takes: the Trolls in their own Words"

We have to come to grips

We have to come to grips with something regarding 9/11 - this is NOT your Father's govt conspiracy. The reason the JFK plot is still seen by 60% of Americans as a govt operation is because they used to old "hide and deny" tactic. You let that stuff bubble underneath the American consciousness long enough, and people reach their own conclusions. That doesn't fly in this day of the internet, and they knew that.

This is why there was such a plethora of 'evidence' - both real and planted - in this scenario. Because they needed, and still need, to confront this issue head on. Instead of simply nay-saying the charges, they needed to have them surface - just a bit - so that the phony investigations can pretend to confront the issues, when in reality, they will help bury them. They have one bullsh*t phony investigation under their belts, and next up is Phase Two.

Phase Two will be the Democrat Version - and it will be successfully buried to the back pages under the Presidential Impeachment food fight we're about to see happen in Congress. It's all about the % of public attention an issue gets, and if you thought Bill Clinton Penis Theater was a ratings draw, wait til you see the George Dubya Homo-erotic Jeff Gannon show start up on prime time. Talk about MSM news sleaze... Why do you think we're seeing all these "Is Bush Gay?" websites showing up? He sent flowers to his old Yale gay cheerleader bud, his spiritual advisor is a gay meth freak, every other GOP congressman is gay, etc. This is the 'evidence' being laid out in prep. It's the same as Clinton's "numerous affairs" when he was running for the Dem nomination. It's to be used later, as the continually sexually-repressed American public salivates over a Super Bowl tit and powerful people's sex lives.

Anyway, in the end, a few sacricial lambs will be judged guilty of "incompetance", and like Lynndie England, thrown to the gallows to protect the real perps. That's all - okay, so we missed a few rats who may have helped "allow" this to happen, but the govt essentially "got it right. "

And once the people see that 2 fairly expensive Commissions have found "nothing terribly wrong with the govt's official story", the issue will have been put to bed in the majority of the public's mindsets. That's how it's starting to look from here, anyway.

great analysis Rumple--and that's where I think LIHOP comes in

LIHOP is being constructed as a face-saving escape hatch. Hey, it's bad enough they LET it happen, why do you people keep obsessing on trying to prove they DID it and that the war on terror is a COMPLETE farce? Are you NEVER satisfied? Gosh, I think you DO just hate Bush and America. Something like that. Or, of course, that we're anti-semitic because we want to see Israel, not Pakistan, receive the closest scrutiny.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


The Real Enemy Within

It all starts and ends with THE MEDIA. That is the critical control component, the real weapon, that they have. If this new Congress of Democrats were REAL, the first thing they'd do is go after the anti-trust legislation they've TALKED about for years, and try to break up this corporate monopoly of the news and wire services. We are POWERLESS to change minds when all the masses hear is the corporate goosestep bullshit message of the bankers' whores. The MSM system is set up to insure the survivial of it's owners, nothing more.

If the Founding Fathers came back today, and saw how the message delivery system is set up, they would take pickaxes to Capitol Hill and tear the fucker down.

Don't be fooled people!

Let's not be fooled into into complacency! The same corporate/bank interests are at the helm.
This a challenge for 9/11 truth. Let's answer the challenge by re-doubling our efforts!

Show "Corporate/bank interests my ass..." by andrewkornkven

Zionists made NORAD stand down??? I don't think so!

Take this extremist junk to some neo-Nazi board where it belongs.

Oh, for fuck's sake...

And I had a vaguely reasonable impression of this poster before this

If you can't see what you wrote hurts the credibility of the Truth movement, you need to have the same sit down as David Shayler.

As for what you wrote here:

" the participants of 911blogger, are too cowardly to face the fact that 9/11 ..., perpetrated by Israeli intelligence, with the assistance of Zionist/Neocon moles in the federal government and military.."

Actually, ignoring the slant, many Truthers here DO believe MOSSAD was involved as well as ISI, MI6 and other spooky initials.

You're obviously not paying attention. And how precisely different in effect is what what you're asserting from corporate/ bank interests?

Sounds like you just want to start a stupid argument with people you basically agree with because they're coming to the same place from an angle YOU don't like.

Grow up.


... and what article would have been posted by the same hand if the Neocons won? Blah blah frigging blah.

I'm sorry, but posting crap NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME is useless. It's the sign of a parasite. No matter what happens it will be torn down. Would they really be happier with a necon win? What would that entail? A bloodbath.

Maybe it's time to stop spinning chicken little tales and start looking at reality and what is POSSIBLE.

Personally, I've had enough fucking pointing out of the obvious problems and am waiting for some fucking solutions.

Solution--Educate and develop local networks

If your looking for solutions to expose 9/11, do you really think it'll come from the democrats?
No, it'll come from public pressure and insiders speaking up. There wouldn't even have been a 9/11 commssion (lame as it was) without the 9/11 widows bagering the congressmen.
If the neocons won this election, there would be an obvious boogiemen to fuel the 9/11 movement. Now, with the democrats, you have do-gooders (and some do some good) who wouldn't touch 9/11 with a ten foot pole.
The illusion that they will pull us out of the march to a new world order, is in a way, more dangerous than the obvious war mongering neocons.
The solution is to educate the public about this facade and 9/11, and develop our local networks independant of the system. Start with growing your own food. That's empowering!

serious question...and maybe some solutions

Who/what is the "CORPORATE POWER STRUCTURE" that the democrats are a part of?

From my observations, the democratic party is moving away from Corporate/centralized/D.C. power and to people powered structures. They aren't fully there yet, but they seem to be moving in that direction. And if goal of the 'netroots' movement is to decentralize politics, with politicians being powered by their constituents (which is the goal of this movement), then I think it is a good thing that democrats won.

And yes, Kos is fucking idiot. But he and the 'netroots' are moving politics away from corporations and back to the people - WHICH IS US! There's plenty of shit talking we can do about Kos and other blogs, but why don't we harness what they're doing and use it to help expose the truth about 9/11.

tsoldrin is right...this knee jerk reaction shit is ridiculous. Okay, Pelosi says no impeachment hearings. But she has to say that. And remember, we do have congress members that have been critical of the "9/11 Commission Report".. We need to approach this in a sensible manner.

And how about this for hope?

From Oct. 30th, Dennis Kucinich (who probably will be chair of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations...i think 9/11 fits that bill) said this:

I will not prejudice with any criticism or charges any oversight hearings of any committee I may chair in the next Congress. However, I do know that the American people still have unanswered questions about 9/11, WMDs, the abandonment of international law and the Geneva Conventions, the war in Iraq, the White House Iraq Group, the Rendon propaganda machine, Afghanistan, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, the Pat Tillman case, Iraq war casualties, the missing $10.8 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds, the human and economic toll of the war, rendition, wiretapping, domestic spying, and plans for an attack on Iran.


Instead of freaking out at Pelosi being speaker, we should take this shift in congress as an opportunity. What I think needs to be done is this:

  1. We find out which Congressional Representatives feel there are still "unanswered questions" from 9/11
  2. After after creating a target list of willful Reps., we need begin a campaign to pressure them into holding hearings

This will take time. But that's just how our Congress works.

And don't forget the release of LC Final Cut next year. If can do the ground work before the film is released in theaters, we might be able use the momentum of the film as part of the strategy to have Congress hold 9/11 hearings.



Corporate power structure

You're right in that it's not totally f**ked. There are a few in Congress that aren't bought off, but the majority take big money from corporate special interests in order to get elected, then, when they are in the committee meetings actually making the legislation, those same corporations have high paid lawyers watching their every move to make sure the details of the laws serve their needs. The people are not generally present at these meetings, but the corporate lawyers are, and the politicians owe them. The Washington lobby machine is made up of mostly corporate interests, and it's big money. Both Democrats and Republicans are completly complicit in this. They use the revolving door--working as CEOs in the corprations before or after their government service. As George Carlin says of the corporate/political power structure: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it!"
Just look at the Iraq war, supported by democrats, that made billions (trillions?). Don't tell me that policy wasn't influenced by corporations. War is big bucks! And the media, don't tell me they aren't run by a few corporations that have narrrow interests. And the most powerful corporation, The Federal Reserve, is a private bank that Congress gave the authority to issue money, creating the economic cycles by expanding or contracting the money supply. They have the ultimate control, because they know the economic cycles in advance. (See "The Money Masters" dvd, an excellent history of banking and the Fed)
The democrats are definitely a part of this corporate/political system that is operating in Washington IMHO.

Show "I've got a solution" by CHF (not verified)

Impeachment protection

Can someone please tell me when Pelosi and Dean "promised" to protect Bush from impeachment?? When they say "impeachment is off the table", they don't really mean it. First you need investigations -- investigations which are sure to come once Waxman and Conyers take Chairmanship in the House. I will bet anyone here $1000 bucks on that. A sure fire way to lose the midterms would have been to hype up impeachment. Once the necessary inquiries take place, the proper consequences will follow. Noone can say for sure if they will investigate anything having to do with 9/11 but Senator Leahy -- who will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee -- has expressed frustrations over Bush's handling of that day. I quote from his interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! from September 29 of this year:

"And, of course, the two questions that the Congress would not ask, because the Republicans won’t allow it, is, why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama bin Laden cornered, why didn’t they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions, these questions would have been asked years ago. We’d be much better off. We would have had the answers to that."

Again, once the hearings get underway and all the facts come out, heads will roll. Just be patient.


While I applaud that notion, I must point out that since the Dems do not have the 2/3rd needed to override vetos and such, they must withhold the impeachment card as their only real power, to be raised as a threatening club, unless they plan to use it and go all the way, impeaching until Pelosi is president. -- That would be painted as a hostile takeover and would certainly bar them from winning anymore elections for the next generation or so.

The only possible way impeachment will come up is if SOME investigation or another arbitrarily uncovers some smoking gun evidence that cannot be ignored.


"That would be painted as a hostile takeover".

Can't see how it could look anymore hostile than the stolen election of 2000. Bloodless coupe that was.

It's long past time for the Dems to stop being timid because they're worried they'll lose. The only thing they've got out of that strategy is a reputation as useless compromised insiders.

As for smoking gun evidence that can't be ignored, we have the original EPA report from ground zero, as well as numerous memos/PDB's--the only reason they were ignored is because the political climate made it possible.

The Dems must be shown and told they CAN'T afford to ignore what we know anymore without consequences. But I can see where calling for a new independent inquiry first would seem less heavy handed.

But frankly it's time for the heavy hands. Impeach these bastards all the way. That is the only way to take 9/11 away from them and revoke Patriot Act I, II, the military commisions Act, etc.

Sorry, but you cannot afford to let these people stay in power any longer than you have to.


What now? "Pelosi and Bush are Burying the Hatchet" bush

What does she mean she's not going to impeach Bush? She and the creep are "settling their differences," what? Who in the world does she think she is? First off, she's not even chosen yet to be the Speaker of the House. Sorry, Nancy, but there's actually a process and competition for the position. As well, we the people have not spoken on the matter yet; though CNN and FOX and the others have weighed their desire for her quite heavily. The Democrats have been put in power on a mandate of the people to investigate the actions of this Administration which has steered the nation nearly off a cliff, and she's to set the process of restoring America's standing in the world and our quality of life, security, and health at home. Pelosi is there because we the people want our Constitution and Bill of Rights restored as of 4pm, friday afternoon, January 5th, 2007. We the people put the Democratsi in charge of the House because we want to get to the bottom of the massive number of deaths in the Gulf Coast which is directly connected to the Administration's handling of the matter. Katrina was not just a glass of spilled milk, it was negligence to the worst degree demands independent investigation. We the people put the Democrats in power because we no longer want to be dependent on foreign, filthy and archaic Gas & Oil for our energy needs, and we are not going to be happy with simply raising the standard automotive mpg from 21mpg to 25mpg (1925 Ford Model T got 25 mpg). We want alternative energies now, not because we are dreamers, we want it because it is cheap, clean and fucking available. We the people put the Democrats in charge in charge to investigate why the Administration scared the bejeezus out of all of us with the notion that Sadam was minutes away from nuking Disneyland and the rest of America, when in fact we all now know that it was a bold face and well planned out lie. More than that, we now know that the small group in the Administration have had plans for invading Iraq since at least 1999 when they pressed Bill Clinton with the idea of Iraq invasion and US hegemony of the Middle East. We know about the Bush White House meetings with Oil executives and their 2000 pre-invasion plans for private profit pipelines throughout the region. We the people did not put Nancy Pelosi where she is today so that both she and Bush can feel comfortable together at dinner parties. We the people want transparency in government and we want results. We the people put Democrats in charge of the Congress so that we can IMPEACH BUSH!

Speker of the House Kucinich sounds much better than Pelosi. This guy is ready to clean the House. Pelosi is readying to go to dinner parties with Bush.

check out this press release

check out this press release by him from oct. 30th (it's the one I quoted above)

And think your link isn't working...this one should work.

A hostile take-over would

A hostile take-over would not hurt the Democratic standing.

It would insure them future elections as well as restoring a great deal of respect for the American way. This government needs an overhaul.

Impeachment is inevitable

There is overwhelming evidence that this criminal regime of BushCo is guilty as hell of Treason, High Crimes, Crimes against humanity, War crimes, and breaking so many national International, Constitutional laws & treaties that it would take years to investigate them all.

As long as a REAL and Honest investigation is done which could only come to one conclusion because there is tons of well documented evidence of guilt then Congress would have no choice but to Impeach & Convict as they would be duty bound by Constitutional law to do so.

Impeachment is only off the table until the investigations are done, after that it dont matter what Pelosi or Dean spew as Constitutional mandates take over.

"We the People" just need to make certain that real & honest investigations take place.




The president cannot save himself by vetoing the impeachment process. That's just downright silly thinking. Maybe Richard Nixon, a former president, can help clear up your thought. Bush's impeachment is what we the people voted for this last election day. IMPEACH!

86% think Bush should be impeached

It is interesting how the media doesn't press this impeachment like they did over a certain other issue.


I think a few months back we

I think a few months back we reached MASS AWARENESS. This would be the point at which almost everyone who has their head not stuck in a bodily orifice is aware of the controversy/questions/truth movement surrounding 9/11. I think South Park was a good indication of that.

At this point, everyone knows there are issues, movements, smart people asking qeustiions, celebs asking questions, etc... and pretty much everyone has to make up their own mind. In this MHerald story linked on Drudge currently:

a Chavez admin official says ''for the rest of the world, there is no longer any question'' that 9/11 was not an al Qaeda attack.. That says alot, I think. I don't know what more we can do. I think at this point we have to just work torwards defeating American Union, Illegal Amnesty, Toll Roads, HR 6166, Patriot Act, ect..

9/11 is getting old...

Show "i think people wish it would" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "do you thin that the people" by Anonymous (not verified)

In decline..I dont think so

I dont buy it, more and more people are openly skeptical of the official line of crap, Ray Mcgovern, Gore Vidal, and the list goes on. Where I work people arent afraid to openly entertian the idea that 911 was self inflicted, Im seeing awareness continueing to grow. What I dont like is all the speculation going on when we have concrete facts to work with i.e. CGI instead of stand down orders. By the way does it bother anyone else that Nico is on the back of 911 Synthetic Terror as reviewing it??







Beyond the seal of approval

David Montoute lifts the lid on the hidden world of Deep Politics, the everyday interaction between the constitutionally elected government and forces of violence and crime - from the revolving door between Wall Street’s financial institutions and US intelligence agencies, to state sponsorship of private armies and death squads; to secret societies such as Skull & Bones and P2, to election rigging and the private looting of national treasuries, to government-protected drug trafficking networks recycling cash into the global banking system, this is the dark underbelly of our modern ‘rational’ world. - Israel Shamir

Beyond the Seal of Approval

by David Montoute

“Today’s mass media… are the foundation of the totalitarian ‘gestalt’ which the privileged impose on the mentality of the masses…a ‘seal of approval’ that authorizes the reality of events”. Din Vantari

Given the impact of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington five years ago, and the events that they helped to unleash –the declaration of a war which “may not end in our lifetimes” and the acceleration of a global police-state agenda –it is no easy task to discern or exploit positive countertrends. One such trend, however, may be emerging. With a reported 36% of the US population rejecting the official account of September 11th 2001, something unexpected appears to be taking place. The collapse in public confidence with respect to the official “War on Terror” narrative could illustrate the beginning of a wider breakdown in elite brainwashing and mass submission to the top-down dictation of reality. For this new process has affected not only the corporate media. It has opened up a huge breach between the comfortable ‘alternative’ media of the traditional US Left, and a new, more diverse community that pursues the harder task following where the evidence leads.

With the new phenomenon of Internet publishing allowing for a surge of unregulated media, networking, responding instantly to events, and unconstrained by corporate censorship, independent researchers have, in the last five years especially, lifted the lid on the heretofore-suppressed world of Deep Politics.

Peter Dale Scott coined this term, defining it as "the constant, everyday interaction between the constitutionally elected government and forces of violence, forces of crime, which appear to be the enemies of that government." (1) From the revolving door between Wall Street’s financial institutions and US intelligence agencies, to state sponsorship of private armies and death squads; to secret societies such as Skull & Bones and P2, to election rigging and the private looting of national treasuries, to government-protected drug trafficking networks recycling cash into the global banking system, this is the dark underbelly of our modern ‘rational’ world. But it is as integral to the global economic system as are the formal institutions that, in theory at least, are subject to public oversight.

Over time, certain key events have provided a window onto this world, and these are precisely the events that are most thoroughly lied about, protected from exposure by the stigmatization of those that examine them as ‘conspiracy theorists’. If scrutiny of this netherworld is off limits to mainstream news, traditional ‘alternative’ media has been no less averse to dealing with it. To illustrate, an inestimable contribution to our early understanding of the events of 9/11/01 was made by Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky in his exposés of CIA-ISI-Taliban collusion. M.I.T. professor Noam Chomsky had previously written a forward to one of Chossudovsky’s books and yet “America’s leading dissident” acted for months as if the findings of Chossudovsky and others simply didn’t exist. When finally asked point-blank about their implications, Chomsky deemed the idea of US complicity “hopelessly implausible” and not even worthy of discussion. Speaking of the US anti-war movement’s ongoing partisan support of the pro-war Democratic Party, activist Charles Shaw sees such positions as “part of a larger pattern of "regulated resistance", a system by which dissent is carefully managed and constrained by self, overt, or covert censorship; denial-based-psychology; fear of personal or professional criticism and reprisal; and pressure from powers above including elected officials and those establishment foundations which flood millions into the not-for-profit activist sector.” (2)

Though Chomsky is famed for his Propaganda Model of the mass media, a demonstration of how corporate ownership dramatically influences content, he is also a resolute anti-conspiracist. In Chomsky’s world, Lee Oswald alone murdered President Kennedy, Saddam Hussein ‘misunderstood’ the US position on Kuwait in 1990 and Osama bin Laden broke ties with his patrons following the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. Even as Hollywood stars speak openly on CNN about self-inflicted US terrorism, Chomsky and his colleagues have not deviated from their stance. For them, it is axiomatic of the current conflict that a) there is an entity known as ‘Al Qaeda’, international in scope and pursuing its own goals independent of US policy, b) said entity was responsible for the attacks of 9/11/01, and c) there exists a consequent ‘War on Terror’ which, whilst it may be exploited for ulterior motives, stems from legitimate security concerns. Exhaustive investigations, sometimes even by mainstream sources (3) have shown the complete emptiness of these propositions.

The Chomskyite Left’s connivance in the corporate media’s whitewash of problematic events, and worse, its unremitting hostility to alternative interpretations, led researcher Bob Feldman to investigate the sources of ‘alternative’ media’s funding. His discoveries revealed a complex financial trail originating with huge establishment foundations. The Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Trilateral Commission, George Soros and many others, were found to be generously sustaining allegedly ‘alternative’ media in the US. (4) When aspects of independent 9/11 research threatened to penetrate mainstream awareness in 2002, these media cliques signed on to a savage attack of key figures in the 9/11 Truth Movement. (5) But this gatekeeper Left was not able to suffocate 9/11 questions except by amputating a part of their erstwhile collaborators and alienating much of its audience. Whereas those outside of its fold (for example Mike Ruppert) could be subjected to interminable ad hominem attacks, Professor Chossudovsky’s work would simply be ignored. Further confirmation of the gatekeepers’ entrenched interests is the fact that increasing public awareness and acceptance of a 9/11 ‘inside job’ has not influenced the gatekeepers’ coverage in the slightest. From recent firings at (Rockefeller-funded) Pacifica Radio, to Counterpunch’s excommunication of ‘conspiracy nut’ Kurt Nimmo, the line has been clearly drawn: ‘responsible’ critique on one side, ‘conspiracy theory’ on the other.

Slipping under the radar at Counterpunch, Anis Shivani (6) ascribed a more benign motive to the Left’s rejection of ‘conspiracy’ findings, seeing it as an effort to preserve its rationalist credentials. But since this meant giving a pass for the enabling event of the current war, it was, Shivani observed, a losing move. The gatekeepers’ response to the Truth Movement’s has been to emphasize a flawed “structural analysis” of society, one that would diminish the importance of individual conspiracies. The value of structural analysis, as applied to the media, is that it allows us to identify news corporations as part of the overall edifice of power, rather than merely another social actor. Ironically, when structural analysis is applied to Establishment Left media, the latter are revealed to be scarcely less compromised than The New York Times or CNN. But ultimately, any analysis that ignores the truly determinative structures in today’s world, i.e. the powerful financial dynasties that unleash wars and destabilization, make or break governments at will, is of little use.

It goes without saying that all of the limits to dialogue with the Left gatekeepers are multiplied many times over when dealing with the corporate media. Here self-interest is a bigger factor, since a career in mass media is at once more lucrative and provides a much higher personal profile in the world. The mass media is additionally insulated from ‘Deep Politics’ by decades of depoliticisation and marginalization of non-mainstream ideas. Ideas that are plausible to independent researchers frequently sound like delirious ravings to mainstream journalists.

Robert Fisk is exemplary in this regard. The UK Independent’s fearless correspondent has justifiably earned a widespread respect and admiration for his on the spot, critical coverage of today’s most terrible conflicts. Fisk, however, has poured scorn on the ‘childish conspiracy theories’ of remote-controlled aircraft, endorsed by many Arabs. Of course, our correspondent doesn’t share his own theories, so we do not learn exactly how amateur pilots could steer planes wildly off-course and, on visual inspection alone, find individual target buildings in cities they had never flown to, cutting through a web of civilian air traffic, whose flight paths they could not possibly have known, only to enter the world’s most exclusive no-fly zones without opposition and without incident. But since this is how an Administration of proven liars describes the events in question, what else remains but to believe it? And yet, it must be remembered that Fisk represents the outer limits of tolerable dissent in the corporate media.

From the true origins of the Gulf War to the pre-planned dismemberment of Yugoslavia and Iraq, from Wall Street money laundering to the murder of David Kelly, from depleted uranium to ‘false flag’ terrorism, there is now an open-ended list of taboo subjects that the mainstream media and the foundation-funded ‘alternatives’ cannot address. The limits of Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model are clear. The most serious distortions of today’s world lie not in the ‘spin’ given to events, but in the very ‘reality’ of those events. The startling proliferation in ‘black ops’ does not permit us the luxury of innocence when assessing a “people’s revolution” (coup d’etat) such as that orchestrated in Tbilisi in 2003. Nor can assassinations, such as that of Rafik Hariri, be automatically assigned to the “obvious” culprit.

As the disconnect between popular perceptions and ‘responsible’ criticism grows, the surge in unregulated media could pose a fundamental challenge to the hierarchical organization of society, since it allows each and every person to bypass the established channels of discourse and trespass on the hallowed grounds of Truth. Meanwhile, the stultifying discourse of foundation-funded ‘alternative’ media will ultimately be sidelined as its ineffectualness is laid bare in the intensifying crisis. Awareness that we have entered a new historical phase has mandated the emergence of a new generation of activists. Finger wagging and moral point-scoring are not the required tools for understanding our current predicament. As with Thomas Hardy’s dictum that a full inventory of the worst must be made in order to clear a path to the better, so the lid must now be lifted on the most sordid aspects of our agonizing world.

Whilst false flag operations are not new (see Operation Gladio) the exigencies of continuous warfare in the Eurasian energy basin have led to a rapid acceleration in their use. From Bali to Madrid to London, nowhere now escapes the dead hand of intelligence operatives. And despite the trends previously discussed, progress in understanding is still slow. Isolated, random outrages may be of infinitely more use to the promoters of the ‘War on Terror’ than they are to putative Muslim radicals, but many residents of Madrid and London who understand the 9/11 montage will nevertheless vehemently deny that their home town has experienced the same. It is never explained why something that worked so well in the US would not be repeated elsewhere. Here, the essentially a-national character of the world’s elites must be understood, because a police state in the US cannot function in isolation. The rapidly accelerating trends toward convergence in ‘national security’ go beyond politics in the usual sense. In the 1970s, urban planner Paul Virilio examined this convergence, and identified its consequence as an impending transition to global military jurisdiction. (7)

At a time when global elites scramble for diminishing hydrocarbon reserves, terrorise their populations into submission, and unleash ever more catastrophic wars, the essential challenge to consensus reality is more important than ever. Whether global oil production is peaking right now or does so in 15 or 20 years is not the point. The global capitalist class and its population-cull-promoters are responding to it now (8). Whether ‘overshoot’ is an objective reality or just another Malthusian fantasy, the owners of the world will act upon the idea regardless.

From Baghdad to Caracas, the Empire is in retreat. And yet this makes the recourse to extreme ‘solutions’ more, not less likely. According to Michael Ruppert, the emerging American-led global police state is not merely about private control over the legal system, but is rather “a crisis-induced transition from a deeply compromised legal system to a society where force and surveillance completely supplant that system.” (9)

The seriousness of current developments cannot be underestimated. But as the disjuncture between events and their representation widens further, it impels the broader population to reorder their mental maps, thus opening new possibilities for radical alternatives. To exploit and reinforce this development, the evidence-based community must avoid turf wars and internal disputes. Now more than ever, it is necessary to share everything we know with everyone we know. Practical alternatives cannot emerge whilst the great mass of people remain somnambulant, which is why systematic deconstruction and demythologization of events is the precondition for liberating and reconstructing our world.

When the mask finally falls, reality can be what we make it.

The author can be reached at


1. Quoted in:

2. “The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left” Charles Shaw, Newtopia Magazine, May 16th, 2005

3. See Adam Curtis’s “The Power of Nightmares” The Rise of the Politics of Fear BBC Television 2004



6. “Progressive Irrelevance” Anis Shivani

7. Paul Virilio, Popular Defense and Ecological Struggles and Speed and Politic, Semiotext(e) 1990,



“...There are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly. Or the current death rates must go up. ``There is no other way. ``There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature's ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene.... ``To put it simply: Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.” --Robert McNamara, Oct. 2, 1979

9. Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon (pg.15) New Society Publishers, 2004

Progressives Will Not Forget

I can say that I have not lost any interest in 9/11 since the democrats won. Unlike Alex Jones, I think we might actually have more opportunity to press for some investigations and that what has occurred is more than just a rearrangement of chairs on the deck. I say this even though, I appreciate his concern about progressives thinking that we are out of the woods and not being critical of the new leadership if they don't do what they were elected to do, represent us. We must demand it from our newly elected leaders. Remind them of their oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Certainly the republicans that were in office were not going to investigate it. I think we are one step closer but we need to insist and not allow the coverup to continue.

D.Trump: Always use your 'Leverage'

Pelosi's lost the plot! Her declaration may fit the bill for the Dem's platform of Corporate cowardice, but it won't wash against a tidal storm of 9/11TRIAL! -reminders.

Freeway bloggers, let's go!

Redoubling our efforts is clearly in order, and that call is resounding throughout the politically savvy web-community. Chavez proclamation, (like Rodigurez, and the under-reported stolen Mexico election,) is easily overlooked by the mainstream media. But, they can't ignore the 'truth' so long as we keep the basics right in front of their noses. The problem is that Rockefeller/ CFR are guilty, or 7/7 would not have happened on their chronograph, so to speak. The real question is, when will they pull-off their next false-flag, and how will they convince the public it's legit?

They'll need a cinematic 'rag-head' event to perpetuate the advance on Iran and my guess is that this would come next as an attack on Israel, or another ally.

The Governance couldn't be any weaker than it is right now.

How about a 9/11 Truth Nap?

This strikes me a bit like an attempt to keep the march weary troops going forward. I think the canoe is tipping over - as the dollar unravels, so will the post WW2 western imperial structure. Either there's radical change or we kill the planet in the next 25 years according to them damn scientists.

Free-way blogging a good idea. Self medicating emoting a bad idea.

Carry on my wayward son, there'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest, don't you cry no more . . .

Show "News you can use, 11/10/2006" by Anonymous (not verified)

Hugo Chavez is NOT a truth movement leader

Where on earth did you get that idea? I know a lot of people would be happy to have people believe that, but all of them work for FOX News and the rest.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


it's the same clown whose

it's the same clown whose been trolling the site all week.. you can tell by his obsessive use of single quotation marks.

'Ernie', probably.

'Ernie', probably.

Show "Yes, Chavez is" by Anonymous (not verified)

Actually, he IS.

Maybe you missed it, likely as it was totally under reported, but Chavez has publically stated that 9/11 needs to be reinvestigated.

so has my grandmother

but she's not a leader of the movement either. Chavez if anything is a late joiner, no different than millions and millions of others...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Not only is he a leader...

He\'s got the full support of 9/11 Truthers in this country.

Good story , please digg!

This is a good story and has provoked a thoughtful and insightful discussion!
Please digg it, so we can expose more people to the kinds of news, discussion and opinion that the truth
movement has!

Reminder: NYC Meetup Group to impeach Bush on Saturday

Just a quick reminder that The New York City Impeach Bush
Meetup Group has a Meetup tomorrow.

What: Building a National Impeachment Movement

When: Saturday, November 11 at 1:00PM

Who: At least 24 Activists to Impeach Bush

Where: National Constitution Center
525 Arch St.
Philadelphia PA 19106

Event Description:
Speakers (1-2 pm)

Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congress Member
Cindy Sheehan, Co-Founder of Gold Star Families for Peace
David Swanson, Co-Founder of, Washington
Director of
Tim Carpenter, Director of Progressive Democrats of America
Jodie Evans, Co-Founder of CODE PINK Women for Peace
Bill Perry, Delaware Valley Veterans For America
Bob Fertik, President of (moderator)

Blogger Panel (2-3 pm) with prominent Philadelphia bloggers.

Sally Hemings (Sally Hemings in Paris)
Rob Kall (
Dave Lindorff (
Martin Longman (
Susie Madrak (Suburban Guerilla)
Liza Sabater (Culture Kitchen)
Bob Fertik ( moderator

All press and bloggers are welcome! Email david@davidswanson.
org with subject \"11/11 press\"

Event fee: $10.00 per person

Are you going, Jon?

Were you asked to join?


I believe Bryan Sacks is going. I might be heading down to Arlington, VA tomorrow.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Be sure to visit the Arlington fire and rescue departements

Thank them personally for the gruesome work of recovering the remains of the passengers of AA 77 and the Pentagon employees who died in the al Queda terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. I know they would appreciate your concern and thanks.

Is that like...

Shaking the hand of every fireman, policeman, and emt on the anniversary of 9/11, and telling them "Thank You." at every opportunity? Or is this something different?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You think?

You think it would be different?

You might learn something in the process.

I think...

They're wrong. If ANYTHING, I'm energized by the fact that we now have the supposed "good" Democrats in power. Reason being, we can now show just how "partisan" the 9/11 Truth Movement really is. And, if the Democrats do NOTHING, then the American people may wake up to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin, and then do something about it. We have to push and push and push, until either the Democrats do something, or they are exposed for the frauds that they are.

I'm actually looking forward to bumping into the Anti-War Movement who think the good guys have arrived.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


it's about exposing the frauds, and using this as an opportunity, not a set-back, to help push for a new investigation into 9/11.

Yep, it's an opportunity...

Like I've told my friends, even though both parties are beholden to corporate interests, the Dems, to keep their relevancy, have to LOOK like they care. That means if we push they HAVE to throw bones. Those bones are openings to push, push, push, for change.

The mistake most liberals/progresives make is thinking voting a Dem in is a victory all by itself.

It's not. It just an opportunity. If it's not taken the Dems learn they don't have to really DO anything once they're in.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

challenge the right wing on 9/11

The real "market" to sell 9/11 truth now is the right wing folks. They needed a blow in Congress and the Senate and they got it, that's good. Maybe it will bring them to their senses, to realize something went wrong, and inspire them to investigate the root cause of all of the troubles: 9/11

False left / right paradigm

MANY leaders within the "right" are very 9-11 savvy...

(while many within the proverbial "left" leadership continue to hide
and bury their collective heads in the sand)
Regulated Resistance:
Is it possible to change the system when you are the system? by Charles Shaw

i think he is referring to

i think he is referring to the average right winger on the street, not ppl in power..

i think this is a really good point.. people on the right have been unwilling to listen - writing us all off as 'bush-bashers'.. maybe now they will realize it is way more than just not liking bush..

yes, that's what i meant.

yes, that's what i meant. I've been posting several times on right-wing blogs and in at least 50% of the responses the issue was actually taken seriously - they didn't call me a "conspiradroid" or anything, but thought the official investigation would have done their job, that it's just "no use" to investigate further.

Hey Dear...

I was looking for Nafeez Ahmed's BookTV C-SPAN appearance... do you by chance know where that is?

Or, all of the appearances from the 2005 Convergence... not the outside ones, but the inside ones at the University?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

STOP the trashing of gay folks.....

Why do folks like Alex Jones continually terrorize gay folks? His ilk does NOT realize that many gay men and women ARE part of the 9/11 Truth Movement and believe in many of the same principles in which he espouses on his broadcasts. He probably has a lot of gay folks that listen to his program.

Not all gay folks are closeted, repressed men like Ken Mehlman or sad, hypocritical, religious, self-hating bigots like Ted Haggard. Many 9/11 Truth Activists ARE gay folks....many in partnerships (yes, marriages).

Alex Jones's continual disparagement of men who do NOT share his taste in women does a lot of harm and further divides the country. His comparing all gay men to child molesters or "perverts" is terrible and destructive.

Lighten up, Alex. Not every man shares your penchant for what you may do in your bedroom. And men who love men, women who love women, and people who love both might be the first ones standing beside you and protecting you when push comes to shove in protecting liberty and freedom.

I applaud Dan Abrahamson of FALSE FLAG NEWS. In his broadcasts, he has continually stated the importance of including all people who value liberty and freedom no matter their sexual oritentation.

what exactly did Alex Jones

what exactly did Alex Jones say now? ive always said, Alex Jones is a true patriot, but that i cringe whenever he starts to talk about social issues. hes a religious man, i can respect that, but i cant respect his narrow views on things like gay marriage,abortion,global warming etc. Alex Jones forte is false flag terror and big brother type stuff, he should really try and stick to that.

He is Christian

It is part of the brainwashing one has to undergo to believe such fairytales.
Any and all Christians in the 9/11 truth movement need to just stick to the facts and STFU about your religious world-view crap.

Don't generalize or try to lump all Christians together as gay


who here called christians

who here called christians gay? it seems to me that christians are the ones worried about whos gay or not.

Don't generalize or try to lump all Christians together as gay


This must be from the Mirror/Mirror universe 911Blogger.

Tell that to DRG, you Christian-baiting shill!

I'll stick with David Ray Griffin, on both his 9/11 beliefs & his 9/11 beliefs!

Sorry, on DRG's 9/11 beliefs & Christian beliefs.


your a complete douche. and

your a complete douche. and so are most ,not all, but most christians(and other religious people for that matter). DRG is great, hes not a hateful,close minded christian like so many of them tend to be. do you hate gay people too you jackass?

You sound kind of hateful

You sound kind of hateful yourself, Chris.

yeah, but i hate people

yeah, but i hate people based on their actions, unlike yourself. please get a name, i dont know who im talking to.

You are talking to a human

You are talking to a human being. It's what I say not what I call myself that matters. I prefer to remain anonymous. Why should you care?

Hating people isn't very healthy. Based on the amount of anger you attempt to spread around this forum, I'd say you should try to hate less, it would be better for you and for all of us.


i care because there are now

i care because there are now at least 4 different "Anonymous" here. at least use a number or something. and dont take the "hate" comment so seriously. its obvious you are trying to bait me. i love you and everyone! now please man, get a number or something.

Try this simple

Try this simple experiement:

Go through and collect all the comments by anonymous posters and read through them. You'll agree with some, be undecided on others and then absolutely disagree with the rest. Some of those you'll find down right insulting.

Now just look at the ones you find insulting and ask yourself this question: Do you want to be mistaken for this person?

It's a matter of courtesy, mate. Don't want to be mistaken for a troll, don't look like one. It's only a matter of time before you're posting with a mixed string of anons and you get flamed for something you didn't even post.( Course that could happen anyway, as I found out recently...but it's not as likely)

It's your responsibility to make your posts reasonably distinct so we can respond to you fairly. Its not our responsibility to read your mind. You don't even have to be verified. It doesn't even have to be your real name. Come on, this is the magic of the Internet--you can be anybody!

So use your imagination. Be creative. Or you might end up like 'Bert' and 'Ernie'.

Or Oscar

Oscar would be another name...He resides in a garbage can

"Oscar" has to be saved

for a very special troll. I'm thinking Elmo or Snuffaluffagus should be next up in the rotation. Or Grover.

As for who's "next up", I've

As for who's "next up", I've got my eye on the poster that calls us 'twoofers'. Fairly consistant about that, they are. But they may no longer be 'anonymous'.

since your a christian, can

since your a christian, can you tell me why your kind cares more about cells you cant see with the naked eye than they do living breathing human beings that are suffering? thanks, ive always wondered why your priorities seem so out of wack. when opposing stem cell research is more important than opposing war, you should know we have a problem.

You're generalizing again. There are many, many different kinds

of Christians, from all walks of life, who hold many, many different beliefs.

thanks for answering my

thanks for answering my question.

Yeah, but what is "my kind"? What does that mean?


most religious people think

most religious people think that protecting cells you cant see with the naked eye is more important than protecting living, breathing human beings. can you explain that to me? where was the religious right in the run-up to the Iraq war? nowhere to be found, only us "secular liberals" were compassionate enough to care about that. answer this for me-if 2 gay people get married, how exactly does that effect your life? dont give me that shit about " protecting the institution of marriage" because its a crock and you know it. why are religious people so homophobic,hateful and narrow minded? it drives me crazy to see your kind outside of planned parenthood calling young women murderers, yet you people have yet to protest this illegal war that has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. get your goddamn priorities straight. if your anti-abortion, i can respect that(while disagreeing). i cant respect you impeding medical science in regards to stem cell research, and i cant respect your anti gay views. and i certaintly cant respect your silence on issues of war and peace because your so worried about protecting marriage, when half of all STRAIGHT divorces end in divorce. sorry for the rant, im done.

Your generalizing again. Who says "most religious people"

believe what you claim in your rant. Perhaps red-state rednecks believe those things, and then people like Carl Rove play on their fears & ignorance to win elections.

oh come on man, its more

oh come on man, its more than red state rednecks. i know not all religious people are far right,science denying, homopobic, rigid, close minded, brainwashed idealouges, but you have to admit there is a great number of them out there, and they have major political/societal influence that has hurt this country and dumbed it down in a pretty damaging way(in my opinion). the minority of religious people who reject that hateful crap need to speak louder and make themselves heard. i know they exist.

there are way more

there are way more christians that go directly against your description than fit it.

it sounds like to me that perhaps you have bought into accepting that the assclowns who abuse religion (Pat Roberts, Jerry Falwell, etc.) somehow represent it. this is 100% incorrect. none of those assclowns follow anything like what christianity teaches. the media are the ones who maintain the perception that christians fit this stereotypical mold.

for the record i am a christian who believes in gun rights, gay rights, the right to choose, legalization of marijuana, and cleaning house of corrupt politicians and wanna be christian leaders.

dont believe the hype!

no, i fully realize that the

no, i fully realize that the Falwells of the world dont represent all of you, but the success of these men show millions of you buy into the fear and hate that they sell.(that Joel Osteen guy seems like a breath of fresh air though,as far as televangelists go) and sadly they wield major power in our society. i agree that the media is a major reason why the devisive side of religion gets all the influence and airtime, they do it to Islam too obviously. but i stand behind my comment and it goes for Chrisianity and Islam. the "good" sides, for lack of a better term, need to speak out more forcefully against the "bad" sides. i know how the media works and that is a very tough thing to do, but it needs to be done. whats more important to you? stopping a war or saving zygotes? let your fellow religious people know.

Anon & Chris are right...

As a Christian believer who used to attend church regularly, I can see the truths in both of your arguements. Yes, there is a large majority of believers who are close minded to these issues and there are also many who have the ability to think for themselves. In my experience I have observed many Christians who go to church and are sucked into religious group think, which is very destructive, as the truth movement knows all too well. In my opinion, I think the church structure is the main problem. We have an organization that has people meeting every Sunday (which is not the Sabbath, by the way) to tell them how to think. I don't know anywhere in the bible where it says this is how it is supposed to be. For a lot of people, it's a big show that only serves to make them feel better about themselves and their lives. Instead of being so critical of these victims, it would be better to express your anger at the church. Even in Jesus' day, the church was corrupt and is still corrupt today. My 2 cents.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Sorry, Chris, not true. I'm

Sorry, Chris, not true. I'm religous, though not in a mainstream way, as are most of my friends and associates.

The people you're thinking of aren't religous, though they claim to be. They're using their religion to demonize and control people. From a religous stand point that's pride and hypocrisy.

It is understandable why it looks that way--the political mega churches who get losts of money and coverage have branded all Christians who don't toe their line as "not really Christians".

Don't help them. Most liberals I know are Christian of some sort. Truely religous people don't have to talk about it to strangers all the time. Much less legislate their beliefs.

But they all believe one thing in common

That against all evidence, they somehow think there is a "supernatural God."

Against all what evidence? I'm glad you've figured out the

mysteries of life and of the universe in your own mind.

I respect your opinion, but...

You state against all evidence. When I look at the world and universe, I see increadible design and structure. If you look at a building, you can see the design and it does not take a genius to know that someone built it. Now, granted we all know that we can verify that the building had a builder, but the design alone can also demonstrate this. Then we can look at ourselves, or man in general and see what we are trying to do. There are scientists who are trying to make artificial life. They are trying to make computers self aware. Once they are self aware and can think for themselves and reproduce themselves we have, in a sense, made a silicon based life form. We create them in our own image, as Christians believe God has done. Saying "against all evidence" is kind of ignorant, IMHO. I don't mean ignorant in a condesending way. I think that man can think too highly of himself if he is not open to the idea that we may not be the grand designer in the universe.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

What you see

You can believe and \"see\" anything you want including that someone must have built the universe, the earth, and us. But it is still not scientific evidence of the existence of a \"supernatural God.\" It is only your belief, one not based on evidence.

The big problem you have to face if you think there is a \"supernatural God\" is that entity has to be extremely complex and powerful to perform all the things that you have granted it the power to do. You then have to face the ultimate question: who invented God?

Valid points..

I am not the typical Christian. What I mean is, I view "God" not necessarily as the invisible man in the sky. For all I know, God could be a lifeform of higher intelligence that exists in out physical universe. God could be a scientist and we are his grand experiment. I leave all options open since I truely do not know for sure. Then again, he could be the invisible man in the sky. I am just not one to say that since I do not have definitive scientific proof, then there is no God period. There is much we do not understand about us and the universe. Heck, we still do not know why we yawn! Seems to me that one should be pretty simple to figure out. Besides, I think it makes life more enjoyable to believe that there is a creator that loves us. I guess that is kind of corny to some people. Oh well. Thanks for the friendly debate!

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.


Your reply is substantially different than your original post. I am an agnostic as opposed to an atheist since I cannot claim there is not something or someone who created the universe. All I can say is that there is no scientific evidence of such a \"God\".

As such, we can all marvel at the universe. We do not need to \"believe\" there is a God that created it and we can ask that any claims made by religions that God DOES exist be supported by actual evidence.

Likewise, we do not need to believe in a \"God\" to be moral and ethical, as major religions claim.

But as my question to you indicates, to claim there is a \"God\", someone or something portrayed in major religions as an \"entity\" always begs the question: who invented God.

The advancement of science increasingly demonstrates that complex life forms have evolved from the simplest life forms. Such scientific evidence leads us to wonder how it is possible that the MOST complex entity - God as portrayed by major religions, particularly Christianity and Islam - can just appear as a \"perfect\" form.

We also have to wonder why this \"God\", as believed, doesn\'t answer everybody\'s prayers no matter how devoted these people can be.

I ask for evidence. I see none for a \"God\". Since I cannot claim there is not one, I can assess the probability for one as being very low.

Given the claims of the religious.

god could also be

a figment of a vivid imagination.

Personally I dont believe that Purple Flying Unicorns live on the dark side of the moon.
I dont have a single shred of evidence to prove that, yet I dont believe they are there.
There are many solid reasons why I dont believe they exist.

Same goes for whatever god of your choosing, be it Allah, Yahweh, or Xochiquetzal.

Not a shred of evidence to prove such outrageous claims.


He is a lesser god. Just kidding,

Not a shred of evidence? There is a little shred. The worlds longest best seller for one. It's not iron clad but it is a little bit of evidence. Keep in mind, ancient man did not have the means to preserve our evidence for us. The fact that we are here having this conversation is another. I just don't see how something can come from nothing without someone/thing creating it. How does something come from nothing?

Even Darwin admit's, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.167)

Man...this is making my brain hurt.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

and the worlds

second best seller the Qur'an says something else.

So are they all wrong?

Personally what the Bible or Koran or Torah say is no more proof of anything than the lliad is proof of Achilles.

How did your chosen god come from nothing?

and please allow me to properly quote Darwin in context as opposed to the "Christianized version" which im sure you did not realize.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." (emphasis mine)

"ancient man did not have the means to preserve our evidence for us."

Well actually they did, problem being that Christians were quite fond of destroying as much ancient text & artifacts that disagreed with their delusions as they could get their hands on.

All right....

You got me! I knew I was gonna get caught with that one. Too many smart people on here. I never believed Darwin anyway! Just kidding. I don't have to win every arguement. I still like to believe in God. He is just hard to prove since he is invisible and all.

P.S. I even gave you a point for that one, just to show what a good sport I am!

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

To be fair...

"problem being that Christians were quite fond of destroying as much ancient text & artifacts that disagreed with their delusions as they could get their hands on."

Don't you mean the Christian church? No need to bash Jesus, my friend. His teachings were noble. If man perverts his teachings, that's mans fault, not his.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.


The Institution of Christianity, the Church.

However there is no need to bash an entity that likely never existed (jesus).

Do you realize the NT is actually an Astrological Drama written in the old Pagan Passion Play style?

Your man Jesus was an allegorical character representing the Sun.
Mary the virgin was Virgo.
Joseph was Bootes.
John the Baptist was Aquarius
2 fishermen were Pisces
and so on.

The so called Ministry was 1 year a complete cycle of the Sun, he was "reborn" in Spring during the Vernal Equinox, died & risen again during the Winter Solstice etc.

Now I see where you are coming from...

I have heard this hypothisis before. One of the problems with this "Astrological Drama" view is the fact that these stories have had such an impact on humanity. If this parallel were true, why isn't astrology as prevailant as Christianity/Judaism/Islam? OK, I'll admit, you can see your horoscope at every grocery checkout, but you know what I mean. These 3 religions all recognize the "historical" Jesus. Although they disagree on who he was, there is no debate that he did exist. I am aware that the New Testiment was written some 30 years after Jesus' death. Although this lapse in time is long enough to get a few facts misrepresented, this is not a long enough period for a false story to take root and have such an impact on man, in my opinion. If there was no historical Jesus, people would know and not accept the story as truth. If a man didn't exist that has stemmed 3 major world religions, then the majority of man is very gullible, indeed. Hmmmm...alright, so there is the Santa Clause story, but only kids believe that.

You state your view as fact from what you have read. I have read some too. The difference is, I believe in possibilities, which makes my life bearable...for me, that is. The cool thing is that there is a truth. You could be right, but I could be right too. The truth doesn't care......It just is. And so are we....for a little while....Thank you for your respectful debate.

Man this post is gettin' skinny!

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

So was Islam

An impact on humanity, in its day so too was Greek Mythology.
Yeah they recognize the so called "historical jesus" because that is the LIE told by early church fathers in the 1st-4th centuries and anyone that did not agree was labeled a heretic.
In order to make their religion different, more believable, than the rest they had to make the allegorical characters real/historical, otherwise why would people adhere to their mythical allegorical sun god as opposed to all the various pagan ones? The story is identical.
and Christianity/Islam/Judaism IS Astrology.

Ever wonder why everything in the Bible is always either 12, 7, or 40?
That is all based on Numerology which was part of the Chaldean Astrology.
The Sun has 12 signs of the zodiac; and as Solomon is king of the 12 tribes of Israel. A common theme in all esoteric school traditions is of 12 tribes, disciples, knights or followers surrounding a deity. The number 12 is a code, among other things, for the 12 months of the year and houses of the zodiac through which symbolically travels the Sun symbolized as 13. This is the sacred 12 and 1, as some people describe it, and it is one major reason why the numbers 12 and 13 reoccur. Thus you have the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 princes of Ishmael, 12 disciples or followers of Jesus, Buddha, Osiris, and Quetzalcoatl etc. There is also King Arthur and his 12 knights of the round table (the zodiac circle); and the woman (Isis/Semiramis) with a crown of 12 stars in the Book of Revelation.

The numbers 7 and 40 are also code numbers in the Bible and other esoteric texts. In the Bible we have 7 spirits of God, 7 churches of Asia, 7 golden candlesticks, 7 stars, 7 lamps of fire, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 angels, 7 thunders; then the red dragon with 7 heads and 7 crowns. The story of Jericho has Joshua marching his army around the city for 7 days, accompanied by 7 priests carrying 7 trumpets. On the 7th day they circled Jericho 7 times and the walls came tumbling down. In the story of Noah, 7 pairs of each animal go into the ark and 7 pairs of each type of bird. There are 7 days between the prediction of the flood and the rain; and 7 days between the sending of doves. The ark comes to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month. After the flood Noah begins his 7th century. Then there’s 40. Adam enters Paradise when he is 40 years old; Eve follows 40 years later; during the flood it rains 40 days and 40 nights; Seth is carried away by angels when he is 40 and is not seen for 40 days; Moses is 40 when he goes to Midian and he stays for 40 years; Joseph is 40 years old when Jacob arrives in Egypt; Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days. These stories are not literally true, they are esoteric school symbolism. The religious hierarchy, which are esoteric school initiates, know that scripture is based on numerology and astrology; but teach the religiously blinded believer to shun numerology and astrology.

They are taught to take this literally; thus you have people, willing to argue, fight, kill, and die over symbolic things. They got Christians mad at Jews about a crucifixion, that did not happen; and Muslims arguing with Christians over what “Jesus” meant about the Comforter (the Sun). More blood has been shed in the name of religion than for anything else. Forget money, the love for lack of knowledge is the root of evil; and religion is designed to place believing (ignorance) above knowing. It encourages ignorance, fear, and hatred. Like the slavemaster, they use FEAR to keep the believer shackled in religious bondage. The symbolic hell fire has the believer terrified of being open minded to anything that contradicts their beliefs. This BTW is exactly what Bush and his merry band of Neofascist have been doing to the gullible American public for 6 years now, see how well it works?.

There is actually HUGE debate on whether he (jesus) existed as far as reality goes, not within the churches of course because that would be admitting the institution of Christianity is a farce.

and the NT the first book "Mark" was at least 40+ years after the "alleged" death, the last book John was 80-90+ years after and there is not a single mention of any of them until at least 188CE.

in my opinion. If there was no historical Jesus, people would know and not accept the story as truth. If a man didn't exist that has stemmed 3 major world religions, then the majority of man is very gullible

Well at first the story was literally forced into being, imagine that Santa Clause story from childhood then imagine that if you didn't believe it you would now be labeled a heretic and face a cruel death.
You going to "believe" in Santa Clause now?

At very least you are going to damn well say you do.
After so many generations of brainwashing the story takes a life of its own and becomes real, the more people sucked up into the hoax the more support there is for this cognition.

For instance, what about the "belief" that is part of the Mormon religion?.
Obviously this "story" is utterly absurd yet how many Millions believe it as absolute truth?
and this ridiculous belief came into being just 160 or so years ago when people should really know better, not 2000 years ago.

Do you see how the Mormon belief has grown from what is a simple story told by a lunatic?

So is the majority of man gullible? sadly yes.

Speaking of gullible do you believe in "Creationism"? I know that you cant because you seem to me to be far to intelligent & non-fundy to believe something so ridiculous.
This idiocy is easily debunked 1000 different ways yet look at how many Americans believe this absurd fairytale.
We are a laughing stock to the majority of the planet in this respect.

I have studied these things, various religions & text, the "origins" of these religions etc for over 30 years and with all the irrefutable evidence I have seen regarding these beliefs I am certain about my conclusions, the evidence is "astronomical".

Anyway, yes thank you for a decent debate.

Speaking of Unicorns

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. ~ Steve Eley

A quick P.S.

Since you rely on definitive proof.....What proof do you have that there is no God? :)

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

and that debate shows.........

why im agnostic. : )


You just couldn't resist, could ya? Now back to 9/11...

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

i envy you T-Bone. im just

i envy you T-Bone. im just too damn cynical. i WANT to believe there is more, thats why i am not atheist but agnostic. i know, small difference to some.

To some....

But not all. It just means you don't believe there is ample proof either way. You're a religious moderate. Never mind....that sounded stupid.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Just who is making a claim?

What proof do you have that the moon exists?

How does your question even originate? Are you born thinking or believing that there IS a GOD? How would you possibly, without input from another human being, conclude there is a God? And especially as an entity taught by religions that contradict each other as being such-and-such?

SOMEBODY made the claim \"God exists.\" Is it anyone\'s obligation to disprove a \"claim\" for which no evidence has been presented???

As I have already stated, I am an agnostic. That means I have seen no evidence of a \"God\". If you claim there IS a God, it\'s your obligation to provide evidence for such a God.

Let\'s remember one thing from history. I\'m willing to wager there are only a handful of human beings in the world today who believe the Greek Gods exist. I think we are ALL atheists in that respect, don\'t you?

Another valid point...

I can see what you are saying. I was actually having fun with you with that question. With the moon, I can look up in the sky and see it. As far as the Greek Gods or other ancient Gods for that matter, I think history has shown there is something weird going on in the heavens. Whether it's depicted in ancient text or artwork, somthing is going on out there.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Curious, isn\'t it?

It\'s interesting that some people look at videos of the WTC towers and claim it\'s \"obvious\" they were brought down by \"explosive demolition\".

The rest of us ask for evidence. And get accusations of being \"unbelievers\" for daring to ask.

No, it's not curious...

Videos and picture can be evidence. The lack of piled up building debris can also be evidence. The eye witness reports can be evidence. The speed of the collapse can be evidence. The pre-collapse explosions can be evidence. The squibs can be evidence. The basement explosions can be evidence. The lobby damage can be evidence. The pre 9/11 power down can be evidence. The odd pre-9/11 WTC construction can be evidence. There is lots of evidence. One has to admit, it is a possibility that this hypothisis is, at least, feasible. I don't call people names. I wont call anyone an unbeliever and ridicule them. But that is just me.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Show "You confirm what I wrote." by Anonymous (not verified)

These are not "claims"

Squibs are a verifible FACT

Speed of collapse, a Verifiable FACT.

and cant be anything but proof of Controlled demolition. Because it fits the hypothesis perfectly.

Denial of this is literally insane.

Show "Wrong" by Anonymous (not verified)

It\'s entirely consistent

The standard for rational conversation has degraded so much here that if one doesn\'t like what one reads, the power is granted to you to \"hide\" the post. with just a few \"votes.\"

Ain\'t technology great?

We may not agree on God...

But here we are in total agreement!

You had a good rebuttal to our other conversation, by the way. I just got done reading it and it made my head spin. You won that round, my friend! :)

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Well Im glad we agree

On 9/11 at least.

Glad you got something out of my other post on previous page.
If you check into various religions and their true origins like I have then you too would quickly come to the same conclusions.

Evaluated and rejected?

"The convergence of ALL evidence is what is important."

I agree. You left out the oral histories from that day. Numerous reports of pre-collapse explosions. And to respond to your rebuttal to Nunyabiz, the truth movement gets their speed of collapse estimate from the Commission Report. The Commission Report does not reject our 10-14 second estimate.

"What we DO know is that none of the towers fell at free-fall speeds. And claims that they were \"close to free-fall speeds\" is meaningless"

I have looked at a number of confirmed controlled demolitions. Some do not fall at exactly free fall speed, but they were close to freefall speed....but I guess that is meaningless.

"Squibs\" is not a term used to describe air being compressed by the collapsing floors and forced out windows."

I don't think anybody implied that the term squibs meant air being caused by collapsing floors. We use the term to describe pin-point horizontal gas/debris plumes shooting out the middle of the towers below the collapse wave. Call them what you will, but this can be evidence of controlled demo. Take a look at the demo of the Southwark Towers sometime. Here's a link...

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

No, ALL evidence was considered

\"You left out the oral histories from that day.\"

I\'ll repeat what I\'ve written many times: ALL of the eyewitness testimony was considered. How come you keep missing that.

\"Some do not fall at exactly free fall speed, but they were close to freefall speed....but I guess that is meaningless.\"

It\'s meaningless given that NO evidence of explosives has ever been found. It\'s also meaningless to claim it was \"close to\" free fall speeds as it tells you nothing. If one says 14 seconds is close, one can also say that 14 seconds means a building that would have to be over 3,100 feet tall if 14 seconds is \"close to or at freefall speeds.\"

\"don\'t think anybody implied that the term squibs meant air being caused by collapsing floors. We use the term to describe pin-point horizontal gas/debris plumes shooting out the middle of the towers below the collapse wave. Call them what you will, but this can be evidence of controlled demo.\"

Nobody implied that squibs meant what I described. That\'s why the term \"squib\" is inaccurate, since \"squibs\" weren\'t observed despite the claims of 9/11 Deniers.

Dust-laden air being forced out by compression of air from collapsing floors was observed and have distinctly different characteristics from squibs.

So, once again, the convergence of ALL evidence does not show any evidence of explosives.


I like your use of the Jedi mind trick, but that does not work over the internet. You need to be able to see the hand wave along with the mind force. The ALL CAPS thing you are doing is almost effective, but it is the \\forward slash\\ thing that is your weakness. You still have much to learn young padiwan.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Jedi mind trick.

Dude! That's exactly what it is! The roughly 50% of troll posts that are not based on the "appeal to authority" fallacy or the ad hominem attack are just failed attempts to use the Jedi mind trick! It makes sense now!

Too bad (for them) -- it no workee.

BTW, that's the funniest thing I've ever seen you post here. Thanks.

That was an even funnier post

I love it how you deniers embarrass yourselves so readily, having been thwarted by the facts so easily.

Looks like you're stuck

Just because you don't like the fact that ALL of the evidence was considered should not compel you to such a childish reaction. It gives you away as not carrying for the truth.

You are right...

These aren't the droids I was looking for. I don't need his identification. I should just, "Move along...Move along."

Seriously though. I am a child at heart. Sometimes we need a little comic relief. It just seemed appropriate since we were talking about considering ALL of the evidence, which I was. At least, I thought I was, but it is obvious that I am not going to be able to convince you and you are not going to be able to convince me, so truce, my brother. Besides, we are in danger of making these responses one letter per line, which is scary, considering how old this thread is. I still love ya!

Kill em' with kindness...Well.....I don't mean literally kill.

P.S. I gave you a few points to get you out of the hidden zone.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

The logical conclusion of The 9/11 Truth Movement's arguments

I am always open to evidence, never to unsupported claims. Unfortunately for the 9/11 Truth Movement, the truth of what happened on 9/11 has never been the point. The point is achieving a political goal.

As time goes by the 9/11 Truth Movement's claims are debunked as fast as they appear. You have to admit that you see little but rehashing of those debunked claims by your compatriots here.

As has been true of all conspiracy movements, the 9/11 Truth Movement HAS to posit even more complicated, unreal, and irrational claims to keep the "movement" alive and kicking, apparently not learning from history that it only hastens the death of those movement's.

The latest in bizarre 9/11 conspiracies is summed up in this video from Sunday's event in Tuscon which - strangely - has not yet shown up as a news item here (last I looked) despite featuring Jim Fetzer:

Imagine, satellite beam weapons posited as destroying the towers.

Note how Fetzer follows the line of repeating debunked nonsense in hope of snaring more of the unaware in his nonsense.

Imagine why rational people see Fetzer as the complete fraud and charlatan he is.

Star War energy beams from satellites shows the new desperation and direction of the 9/11 Truth Movement, T-Bone. The Movement's demise is happening faster than I expected.

Don't say I never tried to throw you all life preservers!

The thing is...

Most of us do not need a life preserver. This movement is about truth, for most. It is for me, at least. I don't have any political agenda. I am a fiscal conservative with liberal leanings. I'm a moderate.

This movement is not about any 1 or 2 people in the spotlight. As far as Fetzer and Wood are concerned, I personally have not used any of their research to come to my conclusions. I know some have, but I haven't. It is funny and ironic about the whole "Star Wars beam weapons" and my Star Wars comments. This was not an endorsement on my part, I can assure you. I just want a new open investigation to put lingering questions and doubts to rest. If thats a political agenda, it's at least not a right or left one. I hope you can, at the very least, understand my concerns. I was a Bush and an Iraq War supporter about 3 years ago. I heard people like David Schippers addressing their concerns about 9/11 and it perked my interest since he seems to have no left affiliation, considering he prosecuted Clinton, who I have no love for.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

And your conclusions are?

"I personally have not used any of their research to come to my conclusions."

And your conclusions are?

I'll tell you what you already know: mine are scientific, evidentiary, not political.

If that were the case

"mine are scientific, evidentiary'

If that were the case then knowing that 1150 human bodies were completely vaporized, over 1700 others blown into tiny fragments of which over 20,000 pieces have been collected so far most in TEST TUBES.
Plus 760 tiny BONE fragments were BLOWN ACROSS THE STREET several hundred feet away and a few multi-ton steel beams were BLOWN all the way across West 57th St. to stick into the 20th floor of WFC3 building then you would not be denying the obvious fact that all 3 buildings were destroyed by Controlled Demolition.

No you are completely denying the Scientific & evidentiary evidence.

You really think that is exclusive evidence?

You do a good job of shooting yourself in the foot, Nunyabiz. No rational person could or would infer from what you just wrote that the buildings would have had to come down by \"controlled demolition.\"

Perhaps you should look into the amount of kinetic energy expended in the collapse. You might learn something you seem not to want to know.


This is your answer?


Yes please tell us "deniers" how much energy it would take to turn 100+ Tons of reinforced concrete into talcum powder fine dust and then just where that "energy" came from with just simple gravity collapse.

Can you say OWNED? LOL

You shove your foot deeper down your throat every post.

There is no need to stereotype all Christians together, and

atheists do bad things too, my friend.

It's completely unfair to equate Christians with

gay haters or homophobes. My parents are both Christian pastors and they do the "supportive straight people at gay pride" thing every year with lots of their parishioners. It just happens to be the gay haters who typically have the biggest mouths, and the supportive ones who quietly "walk their talk" (sorry -- I hate that expression, but it works here.)

And before telling me to STFU, please note that I am not a Christian, but I've been exposed to many different kinds of Christians in my life, and I'm big on fairness.

More on Alex Jones...and gay folks...and 9/11 Truth...


I was listening to his 11/09/06 broadcast. I actually turned it off because of the derisive tone he uses when he mentions "homosexuals"....and effeminate men. There is this undercurrent with Jones to make statements about Republican criminals who are gay and then make it sound like criminality and licentiousness is part and parcel to anyone who is gay.

The reverse approach could also be taken toward heterosexuals but I don't hear Jones intimating that ALL heterosexuals are freaks and criminals or what THEY do sexually or affectionately is disgusting.

A traditional value has been to terrorize gay folks regardless of how they live their lives or what upstanding community contributors they may be. And this needs to stop.

It's astounding that this subject can even be a distraction or come up as a discussion when millions of gay folks are patriots, part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and believe in the message that Alex Jones shares with others.

Thank, God, other patriots exist like Mike Malloy and Dan Abrahamson who do not take this disenfranchising tone with their listeners.

I hope Alex will come to see that many gay folks appeciate his work but are pained when he tends to lump all gay folks into some criminal group. Even Gore Vidal is gay yet it is clear Vidal is a patriot and concerned with the direction of this country.

Bashing gays is a GOP tactic to win elections in Ohio, it is

not a tactic of Alex Jones & the 9/11 truth movement.

Please provide some quotes from Jones' 11/09/06 broadcast

in which he supposedly used a derisive tone re: gay & effeminate men.

Put-up or shut-up about Alex Jones.

"I don't think Jesus cared

"I don't think Jesus cared what people did in bed as long as they had love in their hearts . Saint Paul had all the hangups about sex."

Oh boy, did he.

This is a "Deep Conversation"

I wonder what everyone's opinion is of the Council of Nicea.

Before I get involved in a religious discussion, I would like it to be known ahead of time that I am not religious. That means I don't practice anything other than family get-togethers. I have to say I've gotten rather good at them.

Anyway, there is nothing to convince me that there is a "God." Nothing. Therefore, it's hard for me to believe in one.

Also, I think religion in general has been used too often to kill. Is religion a good thing? That's an entirely different conversation than whether or not "God" exists.

I do respect a person's right to practice religion. So long as that religion doesn't affect me negatively in any way, shape, or form.

It's funny because my name is Jonathan Michael Gold.

Jonathan means a "gift from God", and Michael means, "in God's image."

Kind of hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "Here\'s something you can do" by Anonymous (not verified)

Majority of who?

The, "I have to disagree with everything the 9/11 Truth Movement says, no matter how logical, and fact based it is Association?" IHTDWET911TMSNMHLAFBIIA for short.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "So you don\'t make any claims now?" by Anonymous (not verified)

I don't?

I make no claims about 9/11? Sure I do.

There's a cover-up. SEVERAL as a matter of fact.

You would know that if your job wasn't to disagree with everything the 9/11 Truth Movement says no matter how logical or fact based the information is based on.

The information that is being covered up, is information that points to complicity on the part of elements within the United States Government.

You're a dumb troll. Really, I've been doing this on the internet for years now, and you really are the bottom of the barrel as far as trolls go.

I'm done wasting my time with you. That is, after all, your purpose isn't it? To waste the time of people like me?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Always contradicting yourself, always evading

Unfortunately, you have still have several problems. The most pressing is your refusal to back up your own claims with evidence. Along with that is your problem in logic, a serious one that further undermines your credibility and claims.

You are irritated that I ask questions. You have presumably reserved exclusive rights to asking questions to yourself and are offended by anyone asking questions of you, further aggravated by your staunch refusal to answer them.

We see your arrogance every day. Then we see your evasions like the above post.

What we have learned here over many months is that you can\'t make a case to support your claims that you \"KNOW 9/11 was an inside job.\" You are a master at committing post-hoc fallacies, however, prompting the sincere recommendation to learn critical thinking and understand why nothing you write holds up to scrutiny.

So, run away again, Jon. Just remember if you come back to engage me as you always do, I will hold you to the same standards of producing evidence that everyone is subject too.

The funny thing is...

The most pressing is your refusal to back up your own claims with evidence. Along with that is your problem in logic, a serious one that further undermines your credibility and claims.

You are irritated that I ask questions. You have presumably reserved exclusive rights to asking questions to yourself and are offended by anyone asking questions of you, further aggravated by your staunch refusal to answer them.

What we have learned here over many months is that you can\'t make a case to support your claims.

I could type basically the same statement to you. The difference would be that mine would be the accurate one.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Unfortunately for you, you are making the unsupported assertions

Your one fundamental problem is that you are the ones making claims about 9/11, specifically that you \"KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job.\"

I asked you to support it with evidence. You haven\'t. That\'s a fact.

You see, that\'s the way it works, Jon. YOU have to support your claims. You won\'t or can\'t and it\'s obvious you haven\'t.

So my statements about you above are absolutely correct, as you well know.

Now, will ylu FINALLY support your claims that \"9/11 was an inside job\" with actual evidence or will you just continue evading the question.

The choice is yours, Jon. If you can\'t, be honest and say so. If you won\'t or can\'t, don\'t continue to make an unsupported claim.

Answer this very simple question...

Is there a cover-up regarding the events of 9/11 being perpetrated by the United States Government?

You should be able to answer that simple, direct question.

If you can\'t, be honest and say so. If you won\'t or can\'t, don\'t continue to make an unsupported claim.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You're going around in circles. You haven't showed me

I asked you to show me if there was a cover-up. I can only assume by your refusal to do so is that you don't have any evidence.

If you have evidence of a cover-up - and I do mean evidence, not unsupported assertions - I'm all ears. As I have been for months. Same goes for your claim that "9/11 was an inside job."

The reason I ask specifically...

Is to find out just how honest you're being in your critique of the movement. It is obvious by the fact that you refuse to acknolwedge the FACT that there are several cover-ups being perpetrated by our Government regarding 9/11, that you are not being honest in your appraisal, and instead, have an agenda. I just wanted to point that out.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Too bad you continue to refuse to provide evidence

What you claim as "FACT" you refuse to demonstrate, Jon.

As you quite clearly KNOW, no one rationally accepts unsupported assertions. You are not exempt as much as you think you can be.

Give us the evidence. Don't keep running from YOUR responsibility to support your assertions.

I just wanted to point put that undeniable fact for the umpteenth time.

So you're going to tell me...

Being the amazing "debunker" that you are, and assuming that you must have read every piece of information pertaining to the attacks of 9/11, you never once stumbled across one of the many cover-ups being perpetrated by this Government?

Is that what you're telling me?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I\'m still asking you and you are still avoiding answering

After all these months. it\'s really too bad that you still refuse to provide evidence of anything indicating that your claim that \"9/11 was an inside job\" is valid. You can\'t even provide anything from which a rational person could possibly infer such a thing.

You can\'t divert your responsibility to anyone else no matter how hard you try, Jon. Stop dodging and start providing evidence or retract your claim.



"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You're stuck

You're reduced to mumbling, Jon. Nothing new there.

And you...

And your kind have been "outted" for not being honest with your critique of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Am I right to say that you believe there is not one cover-up being perpetrated by the United States Government in regards to 9/11?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Look at you, Jon!

Look at you, Jon!

You'll attempt any tactic to avoid answering the question: show us your evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Pretty straightforward, eh?

You can't seriously think anyone here doesn't see your evasions answering a straightforward question about YOUR claims for the last many months, do you, Jon?

If someone...

Has a boring enough life that they chose to follow my conversations with trolls, and debunkers, and did so "for the last many months", then they would have CLEARLY seen that I have shown the evidence to suggest that "9/11 was an inside job." If not, then they can go here, or here to see the facts that I, and others have used to infer that "9/11 was an inside job."

Proving once again that you are not honest in your critique of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and instead, have an agenda.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

In regards to "9/11 Was An Inside Job"...

I generally don't say that. However, I often say, "Elements within our Government were complicit in the attacks of 9/11."

com·plic·it (km-plst)
Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

HA! Interesting little tidbit at the end.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Had to post this just to see if it could fit another post in.

As always, you dodge

As always, you provide nothing from which anyone could rationally infer that \"9/11 was an inside job.\"

I have asked you repeatedly to provide specific evidence that \"9/11 was an inside job.\"

Now, please do so here or retract your claim. Provide an example or several right here in this thread from which you infer that \"9/11 was an inside job.\"

And learn the meaning of circumstantial evidence and post-hoc fallacies.


Posts exist within my "9/11 Truther Forum" that infer elements within our Government were complicit in the attacks of 9/11.

If you have chosen not to read them, and instead act as if I haven't provided anything, then it seems to me that you're being dishonest, yet again.

Anyone with a brain that chooses to read this ridiculous back and forth conversation will clearly see that I have provided what you're asking for. They will also clearly see that you refuse to read it.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Anyone who\'s read these posts knows you haven\'t

You\'ve only made claims when I have asked for you to present evidence here on this forum. You may have difficulty understanding that this forum is but the rest of us know where we are posting.

I have asked you to present evidence HERE for months. You can\'t even get the nerve to post a few examples of actual evidence.

You do remember that you presented claims here last week that demonstrated nothing with which one could infer that \"9/11 was an inside job\" and you know I have outed you on making foolish logical fallacies.

So, present your evidence here, clearly and concisely, and stop your puerile dodging, Jon Gold. You are doing a wonderful job discrediting the 9/11 Truth Movement but I\'m sure that\'s not what you want..

Still waiting....

Still waiting for your post here demonstrating \"9/11 was an inside job.\" You evasions are clear for all to see.

You\'re the best evidence the 9/11 Truth Movement is kaput. And it\'s all on record.

I agree with Jon Gold...

I know many people who have come to terms with 9/11 who are not in the truth movement. Heck, my conservitive baptist pastor even admited it to me. I'll concede that proving God's existence is a tall order, but 9/11 is self evident now. I'm not claiming you do this, but it is funny how some people feel the need to come on this site and make statements like, "You have absolutely no proof of an inside job." As if this is going to convince us.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Show "The subject matter" by Anonymous (not verified)

Kind of hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

Not really. Unless YOU chose your name. I'd say 'ironic'.

"Also, I think religion in general has been used too often to kill. Is religion a good thing? That's an entirely different conversation than whether or not "God" exists."

This is an important distinction and you can almost tell where someones coming from by what they assume about religion and God. Most posters are assuming "Christian religion and a Judeo-Christian God--and if you are speciffically refering to agressive political religions in the States that's mostly correct.

The problem comes with general statemnts about religions(which one?), God(or Gods? Or Goddess?) and spirituality. Religion is organized spirituality, for better or worse, but spirtuallity does not need to be religious. The difference is one believes that to be a good person you need to follow these rules the religion has made, whereas a person who is independently spiritual or follows a "dis-organized religion" (another way to descibe a neo-pagan like myself) believes they are personally responsible for making their own rules based on their conscience,basic ethics and how they want others to treat them.

If I see any problem with organized religion it's where people are told to follow lists of rules to be a good person instead of some commonsense principle like "don't hurt people".

As a final note, I find the people who seem to be the most consistantly ethical as a group are athiests or agnostics. I don't think not being spiritual makes you a better person but it does eliminate the temptation to play "the devil made me do it" games.

If one had that temptation. Personally I don't believe most of these hyper religious people believe in ANYTHING except their ability to control people.

Good points Jenny!

I get what you mean: "The Devil Made Them Do It!"

Anyway, I love your recent comments. They really do reflect a solid individual, possessing a true kinship in her soul. It's like I know you, which is interesting, because that's an important quality few of us can claim. You've heard them say it; She/He's, "easy to know." And, I suppose that's why they made you an officer.

So, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that our Military Brass have the capability to 'oust' the bad guys? To actually meet in private, and re-group as would be necessary to really forestall the total domination of our country by hostile forces, be they the Illuminati bankers, et. all?

My fears parallel Alex Jones'. I see this as an 'en-masse' problem. That it is essentially impossible to oust these powerful control freaks, and to finally eliminate the Federal Reserve. Therefore, all we can hope for is 'public outcry' to help restore checks & balances.

Well, at the risk of

Well, at the risk of diminishing my stature in your eyes, while I am a veteran, I didn't actually rise to the rank of "colonel". The name I sign off is the part of me that needs to give these bastards a right kicking with their own petards.

But I'll try to answer your question, just keep in mind it's only my moderately in-expert opinion.

Different personalities rise up through the ranks. All else being equal, assuming no political pressure, mostly hardworking dedicated people who can get along reasonably with others get ahead. It's the same in the civilian world; the training is just more intense. Such people are likely to be stern but fair minded.

But what happens when, in addition to dedication, patriotism and honor you are now told to selectively ignore some of that for political reasons? I'm thinking of Abu Graib among other things. The fact is, for all our exhortions about "honor" "Gentlemanliness" etc, military culture encourages and tolerates individuals who, if given the opportunity to torture, murder and rape--and get away with it--would be in heaven. Under normal circumstances they behave(mostly), any minor problems are chalked up to healthy agression. But give them free reign--well, let's just say be prepared to shoot to kill.

So, to your question: do the States military brass have the capability to 'oust' the bad guys?

I'm assuming you mean bad guys in the military who would happily carry out actions against their fellow citizens. I don't know. The problem is that over the last five years many officers in the States who have objected to insane neocon policy have either resigned or been pushed out. My concern is the people in command left are either too cowardly to say no to evil shite or they have no problem with it.

I would NOT rely on a hiearchical, ridgid organization like the military for the last line of defense re: civil liberties. Instead embrace and support the whistle blowers that come out of all the military and intelligence agencies and make them a civilian resource for change.

Hope that helped. Anything I missed?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Please provide a link to where Alex was "terrorizing gay people"


I've been visiting Alex Jones' sites regularly for a year. I've

yet to see him bashing gays in any way.

I think you're a bullshit-artist-shill who is just trying to bash Alex Jones!!!

Don't post libelous b.s. here against Alex Jones if you can't

even post a link to back it up!!!

To dz & other moderators here:

There are obviously some trolls/shills trying to disrupt this thread by painting Alex Jones as a ranting homophobe & other nonsense. I think someone may also be impersonating "Chris" as his posts are not typical of what I've seen of him before. Looks like NSA at work to me.

Please check into this. Thank you.

i assure you its me. and

i assure you its me. and Alex Jones is a patriot, but he has indeed shown himself to be homophobic before. i wish i could provide you with a link, but i cant. i will tell you though, i have heard him make numerous statements on his show about how the "gay lifestyle" is deviant or whatever. he doesnt make blatant anti-gay statements, but he does make his views clear on gays every now and then and his views are typical christian views. that means he sees gays as sinners. i disagree, but then, im not at all religious, im agnostic. need proof its me? Chomsky sucks, Immortal Technique rules. its me.

Let Alex keep us out of re-education camps, blow open 9/11truth,

and get our basic Constitutional rights back. After that happens, we can argue vehemently about gays, science, & anything else we want to with Alex.

i just wish Alex would see

i just wish Alex would see it that way, hes the one with the microphone and influence. he usually stays on topic though, so i can deal with his views on social issues and science to a degree.

I agree...

I agree....

It's interesting that this thread is about 9/11 truth dying...Well, yes, it will when broadcasters disparage gay folks who are as patriotic and freedom-loving as the next person and continue the divisiveness that the current Administration heralds. It's almost like the Republicans and Democrats being the opposite side of the same coin. The blanket hate-filled and loathing rhetoric about sexual orientation coming from different camps (Bush Administration vs. patriot 9/11 movement) are opposites side of the homophobic, establishment coin.

You're getting way too melodramatic in trying to paint the 9/11

truth movement as anti-gay. This leads me to think that you are a shill and a fraud.

Reminds me of the way shills try to paint the 9/11 truth

movement as anti-Semitic too. Cheap tactics.

On 11/09/06....

On 11/09/06, Jones stated that Bill Maher said that they (gays) keep it secret because they hate themselves...Jones retorts that THE reason they (Republican gays) keep it secret is because what they do is very unpopular with conservative Christians. Obviously, if you never walked a mile in gay person's shoes, you will know that self-hate is something to be overcome when everyone around you is saying how bad you are from day one.

Anyone of any intelligence can read between the lines and tone can hear the stigmatization. Listen to the 11/09/06 broadcast from 0:30 through 0:45 in the first hour of the program.

Those so harshly being critical of this viewpoint that is being pointed out, sadly to say, almost sound cultish.


Hosting this kind of diatribe on one's website is a good example...

Show "You are free to argue with people who post stuff on Alex Jones'" by Anonymous (not verified)

Those "conservative" redneck Christians are to true Christianity

what al-Queda is to true Islam!

and Zionists are to true Judaism

what a perfectly sensible symmetric little triangle, eh?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Alex is NOT "anti-gay"....however....

....he is, from what I hear him say, "anti-pedophilia" and "anti-hypocrisy". Thank God.

I've never heard him criticize an openly, honestly gay, law abiding citizen.

He will, rightfully, criticize anti-gay gays for their hypocrisy....And when he says gay sexuality is unpopular with the Christian Right, he is stating the general truth: it is disapproved of by those folks, by and large...but Republicans need those votes to get while many of them are secretly gay or secret pedophiles, they are professing loudly and falsely how immoral gays are, to get elected....that opportunistic hypocrisy is the really disgusting part (well, pedophilia, gay or straight, is inexcusable on its own, of course), and deserves his outrage.

When he has a guest who happens to be openly gay, like Gore Vidal, he couldn't be more deferential ....

Thank you, Altruist...

I am a gay person who finds the research Alex has done important. I would like to feel like I am welcomed in his company in trying to get to the truth of 9/11.

Chris, if you need a link

just listen to today's show - Alex goes "George Bush - that queer!"

I thought that was a bullshit thing to say.

I'm a diehard AJ fan and no one has inspired me to action more than he has - but yeah he's a phobe. He usually does pretty well keeping it under wraps.


Perhaps Bush is in the closet. He hangs a lot with Rove.


Perhaps he is

That wasn't my point, though.

If AJ called Bush a queer, yup, that does it, AJ must be

a homophope. What type of reasoning is that?

Show "It\'s an endemic problem" by Anonymous (not verified)

Two years max.

I applaud the Jones and Watson article because I was thinking the exact same thing when the Dems won. A lot of people pissed off about things like 9/11 and vote fraud might go to sleep. I think this movement has two years left to make a move. If the left ignores us and LC Final Cut doesn't make a huge impact, it's over.

Impeach the Mainstream Media...

Then we impeach the entire congress!!

For 2008, the mantra is "It's the will of the people stupid!"

Our media and our body politic is controlled by a gang of power drunk thugs and hypocrites.

The demo(n)crats are no better than the republithugs! All are perfectly willing to stand by and ignore the deaths of 3.000+ Americans... on our own soil no less! None of us are safe.

I repeat... NONE OF US ARE SAFE!!!

The word has gotten out. The word is getting out. Blogg it, Digg it, MySpace it, it and YouTube it! (While you still can).

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! God bless America.

Keep writing letters...and quit with the nonsense

Now more than ever, we need to continue to write to the Democrats. You know voicing concerns to Re pugs would do no good, so lets hammer away at the newly elected. That's what I'm gonna do. Lets all do it.

Ya know...

Every time I come to blogger, and see this headline, I get angrier and angrier about this article.

So let me get this straight... because the Democrats are in power, that means we stop doing what we're doing? That means the murder of 2973+ people on 9/11 is acceptable just because the Democrats are in power? What nonsense is this?

Those of us who are apart of this movement are WELL AWARE that the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. Why should they being in power change anything about this movement?

9/11 Truth is dying my @ss.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

As far as I'm concerned...

We're dealing with the same damned party.

Who sat on their asses for 6 years allowing this Administration do whatever the hell they wanted?

They are JUST as criminal in my eyes for letting things like Elections 2000 and 2004 go completely unquestioned. The Patriot Act, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Military Commissions Act, the signing statements, and so many other crimes have been ignored by the Democrats. And NOW they're telling us that no one is going to be held accountable for any of that.

Guess what Dems. That is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I could not

agree more, exactly right.

NOW is the time for MASSIVE protest and the first order of business should be to take back the media and FORCE them to start telling the truth and doing their damn job.

By the way...

I know people like Conyers have done investigations into Election 2004 and the Downing Street Memo, but...

Did he come out on the floor of the House, and say this Administration is criminal, and deserves to be investigated immediately for election fraud, and lying this country into war? Did he hold a press conference, or get on Mainstream television stating these things? No. Therefore, to say they sat on their asses isn't completely accurate, but then again, it is.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Gold says it dead on.
How can anyone think there are two parties any longer?
I hate that I fell for the illusion for most of my life.


When the African American members of the House were looking for just ONE signature from the Senate to question the Elections, and not ONE Democrat stood up?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I remember:

I nearly wept at that segment of Moore's F911.
They are all one body. Poor Gore, though he's no saint. Bitch about Global warming rather than the real issues...

Great scene in HACKING THE VOTE where it's revealed that Kerry was 100% aware of the voting machine fraud occurring on the night of the election and simply chose not to pursue it. Why?


Kerry is far too smart not to have known about the voter fraud,

and the invasion of Iraq being a total fraud!

Kerry was a very disgruntled, outspoken Vietnam vet. He even went on to become a lawyer. Why does he now play-dumb on everything???

So just waht are claiming?

That no one listened to the 9/11 Truth Movement? Or that they are beholden to others to ignore you?

Where were you in 2000 an 2004?

In hibernation?

Stop pouting because the world doesn\'t agree with you.

I've never seen such a non-resistant opposition party.

That the Democrats gave in so easily to the "anti-terrorist" bills the Bush and Republican leadership ran through that were passed by the Congress without much,if any opposition.
It's My opinion that the NSA spying on the people was more than that....The odds of finding a "terrorist" through spying of the general public is a possible, at best,a 3 percent chance.
But if you spy on Congress..mainly Democrats, then your odds are much better at blackmailing them into accepting the legislation put out there than opposing it.
With a compliant corporate sponsored press, that enhances the odds even more.
If this be true...which I think is a good possibility, then how will this be dealt with by the Dems now that they have the majority?

Democrats just as corrupt

To Alex Jones and the bloggers here that claim that democrats are just as corrupt as republicans: you guys have a very simplistic view of the world, maybe you should become more informed about economics and politics.

In reality, there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Iraq war would have gone completely differently had Democrats been in power, in fact, there would not have been an Iraq war. That means about 150.000 civilians (according to today's estimates) that were alive four years ago, would still be alive today, and our country would be 300 billions dollars richer. Knowing this, it pisses me off when uninformed people make such inane comments.

And that's just one issue, the parties have completely different views on a range of issues, to those that think Democrats and Republicans are the same, please do yourself a favor and read a college textbook on politics, and then come back and post something intelligent.


Most of the Democrats endorsed the 9/11 Report?

The amount of dead is 655,000, not 150,000.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Why dont' you take on Mark Roberts?




"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "The very one" by Anonymous (not verified)


Don't you mean the exact opposite? I really don't feel like playing with trolls tonight. Ask Mark Roberts this question, and tell me what his response is...

Is there a cover-up regarding the attacks of 9/11 within the United States Government?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "Tell us... is there a cover-up?" by Anonymous (not verified)

That's easy...

But I want to hear what Mark has to say to that question.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "Easy is hard" by Anonymous (not verified)

Now don't go obtuse on us,

Now don't go obtuse on us, 'Ernie'. It's been a long day and the man isn't a mind reader.


You must have evidence for your claim, Jon, right? Or, am I just too hopeful for that?

Chances are...

If I type it, I can source it.

Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000 Based On New Study From Johns Hopkins University

And please tell me why Johns Hopkins University is not considered to be a distinguished and credible University.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


You're done explaining that to me, explain to me why if even 30,000-50,000 have died as a result of our illegal pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, that's an acceptable number considering the war is based on lies and deceptions.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Please support you claims

Please list what lies and deceptions you are claiming.

The lies and deceptions...

That made 87% of the people that participated in this poll call for Bush's impeachment.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I know you don\'t want to but I asked for specifics

Please list what lies and deceptions you are claiming, Jon. Be specific.

87% of nearly 400,000 people

87% of nearly 400,000 people want Bush impeached, and you need Jon to hold your hand and "be specific" for you? do you know what that looks like? no wonder you dont have a name.............

You\'re fearful

You fear that I ask for specifics. That\'s rather amusing.

you/'re fearful of reality.

you/'re fearful of reality. that/'s rather amusing.

You don\\\'t like reality

As I\\\'ve demonstrated many times.

no, you ////////dont like

no, you ////////dont like reality. are you having a seizure or something man?


No WMD In Iraq,2933,134625,00.html,2763,1307529,00.html

No Ties To Al-Qaeda,2933,122821,00.html,12469,1006792,00.html

Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11,2933,97527,00.html

There's more...

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.
- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?….I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.
- Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
- George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need….so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it…..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
- Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, interview with reporters, May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
- Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, NBC Today Show interview, May 26, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."
- Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency, press conference, May 30, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

The backpedaling begins:
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
- Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war [or] whether they're still hidden.
- Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
- Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
- Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
- Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat. [SEE NEXT QUOTE]
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an “imminent” threat: Well, of course he is
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein’s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

And finally, some truth:
We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998,

The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,” push for “regime change” in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
- “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000

Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]….Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.
- Donald Rumsfeld notes, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 11, 2001

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, CBS’ 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

I don't think they [WMD] existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s.
- David Kay, former chief weapons inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2004

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

NOTE: Republicans impeached Clinton over a lie involving a private extramarital affair that he told in public, in which no one died. The Bush administration’s lies about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction have contributed to the deaths of more than 500 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

And finally, the President made a mockery of his lies that have caused the deaths of so many American soldiers...

I'm done playing with you now.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You realize, of course....

That those so-called \"lies\" were not lies at all but justified assessments at the time they were made.

I thought you\'d make that mistake.


Are obviously a Bush Apologist, and a liar, and a moron to boot. Tell me about the Downing Street Memo. You know the one... that said they were going to fix the facts around the policy.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You got something to tell us, Jon?

By all means, go RIGHT ahead, tell us about the Downing Street Memo.

While you\'re add it, tell us why John Conyers in his extensive \"investigation\" never ONCE states, implies, alludes to, or suggests that \"9/11 was an inside job.\"

After all, that is the point of your claims.

Didn't I...

Ask YOU to tell me about the Downing Street Memo? Do you not know how to read?

Conyers never once states, implies, alludes to, or suggests that "9/11 was an inside job", however, he did state that "it was the September 11 tragedy that gave the President and members of his Administration the political opportunity to invade Iraq without provocation."

I can't help it if Conyers doesn't want to look at the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Like most in Washington D.C., he has followed suit in that regard.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Tell me...

What's it like to be treasonous towards one's country? I can't imagine what that must be like for you. How do you even look in the mirror?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You poor fella

I take pride in exposing frauds and charlatans like the many years I did exposing Holocaust Deniers. I know how your game works, Jon, and everyone else should also.

It\'s instructive to all of us how nervous that makes you, Jon. Imagine, having been shown to have no courage and integrity to face the fact that you CANNOT and WILL NOT support the claims against this country that you make, that you desperately try to turn the argument against those who care for NOTHING but the truth and persistently ASK you for evidence for your claims.

You expose yourself for all to see and it\'s not a pretty picture at all. Just look in the mirror.

Still can\'t come up with anything, Jon? Why is that?

Last we heard from you the Downing Street Memo meant something to you in relation to \"9/11 being an inside job.\"

I think we all would REALLY like to know what you\'ve got to . Please don\'t chicken out on us AGAIN, Jon.

Pretty please.


Remember, Jon, we KNOW you don\'t provide \"facts\". You make claims and assertions you steadfastly refuse to support.

It\'s the nature of the beast. The ugly beast.

You got something to tell us, Jon?

By all means, go RIGHT ahead, tell us about the Downing Street Memo.

While you\\\\\\\'re add it, tell us why John Conyers in his extensive \\\\\\\"investigation\\\\\\\" never ONCE states, implies, alludes to, or suggests that \\\\\\\"9/11 was an inside job.\\\\\\\"

After all, that is the point of your claims.

why do you/////// type like

why do you/////// type like that/////////? are you retarded or just/////// a spaz?

It\'s obvious

You need something to complain about.

For more specifics...

See this blog.

And when you're done looking through there, feel free to check out John Conyer's report on the lies and deceptions of the Iraq War.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Maybe you want to modify your claim.

Iraq issues controversial death toll

By Steve Negus, Iraq correspondent

Published: November 10 2006 20:26 | Last updated: November 10 2006 20:26

Iraq’s health ministry said on Friday that between 100,000 and 150,000 people had died since early 2004, in the latest of a series of controversial estimates of the country’s death toll.

Health minister Ali al-Shamari said that the figures were based on an estimate of around 100 deaths per day brought to morgues and hospitals.

The number of dead caused by over three and a half years of anarchy and political violence is a hotly contested topic.

Most accounts based on a compilation of media reports estimate around 50,000 civilians killed, although that would exclude military and insurgent casualties, and unreported deaths.

On the other end of the scale, a statistical study published in The Lancet medical journal estimated based on survey data that between 393,000 and 943,000 Iraqis were likely to have died as a direct or indirect result of the invasion, although some have questioned how a figure so far in excess of other estimates could have been obtained.

On the other end of the scale, a statistical study published in The Lancet medical journal estimated based on survey data that between 393,000 and 943,000 Iraqis were likely to have died as a direct or indirect result of the invasion, although some have questioned how a figure so far in excess of other estimates could have been obtained.

The United Nations meanwhile estimated this summer that around 100 people died a day.

The health ministry has given out figures several times since the summer, but it is controlled by the radical Shia Sadrist movement and some US officers have questioned its reliability.

Meanwhile, an audio message on the internet in the name of al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq claimed that the organisation had 12,000 fighters which it was putting at the disposal of an Islamic state proclaimed last month.

The statement in the name of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir also gloated over the departure of US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who announced his resignation on Wednesday.

“I tell the lame duck [US President George W Bush] do not rush to escape as did your defence minister ... stay on the battleground,” he said.

The declaration was addressed to the newly-declared “emir “of the Islamic state, Sheikh Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, in a possible indication that the more radical wings of the insurgency were coalescing politically.

It said that there were another 10,000 fighters waiting to be armed in addition to the 12,000 committed to the “Islamic state of Iraq”. US government reports from earlier this year have placed the total number of Sunni Arab insurgents at 20,000 and up.


"although some have questioned how a figure so far in excess of other estimates could have been obtained."

By "some", they must mean Bush. The same individual who 87% of the people that participated in the above poll want impeached for lying and deceiving us into war.

Now answer my questions in regards to the death toll...

1) Tell me why Johns Hopkins University is not considered to be a distinguished and credible University.

2) Why if even 30,000-50,000 have died as a result of our illegal pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, that's an acceptable number considering the war is based on lies and deceptions.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You may want to modify your claim

You claimed:

\"The amount of dead is 655,000, not 150,000.\"

I corrected you.

Since you won\'t tell me what \"lies and deceptions\" you claim exist, there is no way to answer your question.

The trolls, they no like the science.

Hmmm. What's more credible to me, a scientific, impartial attempt to arrive at an accurate estimation using sophisticated statistics methodology, or the yapping of two obviously invested political bodies who couldn't accurately estimate their way out of wet paper bags?

You\'ll have to ask Jon

You understand that he can\'t stand science, logic, rational thinking, and overwhelming evidence since it\'s against his political goals.

You\'re making progress, casseia.

Well, 'Ernie's taking a

Well, 'Ernie's taking a liking to you, Cass. Didn't see that one coming.

Holocaust Denier

How ironic is it that you turn out to be a holocaust denier. You seem to be denying the muslim holocaust that is now going on. Just because it's your country that is doing it, does not make it go away.


Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. ~ Thomas Huxley

The superior man thinks of virtue; the small man thinks of comfort. ~ Confucius

If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe. ~ A church sign in Northern Ireland

The corporation is a true Frankenstein's monster, an artificial person run amok, responsible only to its own soulless self. ~ William Dugger

Tell it like it is Jon!

Agreed that this article is as annoying as a hemorrhoid. Here's my take on the whole dem takeover. Obviously something has changed, but not that much. Joe Lieberman is really a Republican, and Chneey casts the tie braking vote, so no real majority there. Pelosi has been anointed but as someone has pointed out that is assuming she is elected to the post--this is still a democracy even when it comes to Nancy "America and Israel now and forever" Pelosi.

While things will certainly get a little easier for us without the main perps' party in power, we are still dealing with a thoroughly corrupt body of amoral windbags. I think the subject of how to change tactics (even if only slightly) now that dems are in power should be explored thoroughly.

To poeple who have implied that Loose Change Final Cut is our last best hope, I say wake up. 9/11 mysteries seems to be (seems because only one part has been made and/or released) a film with just as much if not more potential for waking people up. When I think Loose Change now I can't help but think group of people all wearing black tshirts standing next to Alex Jones in NY and the pretty lame debate on Democracy Now where the Pop Mech shills were allowed to look way better than they deserved.

We have broken through beyond the idea that we are little Davids versus a huge Goliath. Goliath is on his knees and is reeling from attacks on all sides. He may have changed into a blue shirt but that won't help him much. David has been joined by a mass of folks who are no longer afraid to ask the tough questions and demand real answers. We are on the verge of victory not because of what's happening in the government or on AJ's radio show, but because of what's happening in the streets, at our workplaces, at Starbucks, and everywhere else where people are finally talking to each other about things that matter.

I've also noticed a lot of the shock wearing off--people are coming to grips with how bad things are, but not panicking--it is great to see. The perps really believed and counted on Americans not being able to handle the truth. Yet again, the American people are defying their overlords' expectations and are not going to back down.

Get ready folks, this is going to be huge, and it is going to be FUN. America and FREEDOM, now and forver, Pelosi. Now, and FOREVER.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


He\'s better at other things

Jon is good at telling things like he wishes them to be.

Think positive!

The REAL people of this country, and our friends throughout the world, need to stop looking to the "elected" represenatives (notice elected is in quotation marks...) to make changes. WE have the power and the moral responsibility to do so ourselves. This movement, this community of like-minded individuals has, in my opinion, unnecessarily looked to the Democat party to lend an air of legitimacy to itself (the movement). This has been going on too long, and it seems that it has been the case only because the Dems aren't the Republican party and therefore aren't associated with Bush and Co. WRONG MINDSET! Anyone that has seriously looked at everything there is out there to read, watch, and listen to regarding 9-11 knows that this is the work of a globalist cabal, and that this cartel is compromised of the very individuals the 9-11 truth community is looking to for help! (Or, at the very least, this cartel controls who will sit in the influential chairs in this and other countries.)
I cut my teeth on Alex Jones' material, and I do respect him and Paul Joseph Watson. I think that Paul is very intelligent and has a unique insight on many topics. But, this article is WAY to negative and it appears that this is the M.O. that Mr. Jones seems to be taking lately. I only hope this is a phase...
Negative energy injected into this community and then therefore dwelled upon is detrimental, and THAT will be the collapse of the movement, nothing else. Listen to Richard Grove's podcasts. He is a fresh voice putting a lot of time and effort into each and every one of these, I can assure you, and he always tries to incorporate a positive message into each one. Take in ALL information, from both sides, and listen to what everyone has to say. Let the negative stuff go. Don't dwell on it. And, for pete's sake, don't buy into the Left-Right paradigm! PEACE!


The problem I have with this article is that if things had swung the other way and the GOP had won, they would be bitching and moaning about stolen elections. There simply was no outcome that would not have generated a hit piece, so why bother?

I think this is all a big shit-stir ... the Truth movement isn't dying... it's evolving. There are wounds that are bleeding that have to be staunched right away so we can continue to fight. Like Habeas Corpus... we need our rights to continue protesting without the fear of arbitrary imprisonment for our political ideas... these things can be won back... and IMO the first order of business should be securing our RIGHTS ... including the right to continue this fight right down to the root cause which is 9/11

I'm from the UK and have

I'm from the UK and have been observing the truth movement for several months. I have to wonder that if everyone made no contact with these internet sites, what would our judgement be on the truth movement be? The fact that the internet exists and the truth movement still discusses the issues does not mean that ther message is spreading to the general public. Without the internet, would the truth movement exist ?

If we are going to attack

If we are going to attack this head on.... it is up to us to create the manifesto.... the plea to the world that we have a case.

We need to create and present our questions along with the reasons and the evidence.

When we organize then we can present this.... not to the government but to the world.

We can discuss this to no end.... but what we need is an organized presentation with a clear direction.

These are the questions and these are the reason why we are asking them!

The eyewitness testimony.... the scientific evidence... the referenced reports.... the omissions by the commission.....

We have all the pieces we simply need to organize them.

What's going to happen if they grant us our wish and re-investigate.... It will take them years simply to organize the questions... and I'm guessing they'll be their questions and not ours.

If we get our stuff together on this then the world will see where the previous and future commissions went astray.

If it is clear then the world will be watching

What's going to happen if they grant us our wish and re-investig

What's going to happen if they grant us our wish and re-investigate.... It will take them years simply to organize the questions... and I'm guessing they'll be their questions and not ours.

Exactly! They had their phony, corrupt investigation already. We need to present OUR TRUTH EVIDENCE now!

Jones seems to have hit the mark -- even if he's wrong

This is Mr. Jone's modus operandi: he wants to instigate by making people angry, and I think he's done a fine job. Yes, we're going to keep on fighting! Tremendous progress is being made.

The crimes of 9/11 were planned well before Bush took office, so we have to ask ourselves, in what way could a Democratic (Clinton) administration have been involved? Tenet's and Clarke's continuity from one admin to the next is something that should raise questions. Jones is right in that the 9/11 Commission was not _non_ partisan, it was bi-partisan. And while Republicans are divided between earnest conservatives and neocon/neofascist elements, so are the Democrats divided between earnest liberals like Kucinch, and climber-connivers like Hillary Clinton. Thank you InfoWars head-bangers!

haha, that is a great point.

haha, that is a great point. this article sure pisses me off so i guess you could be on to something. and there are no noble poltical parties, only a few noble politicians(very few). and usually, the more noble the more likely you are going to be pushed out or ignored(by both parties and the media. see Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul for an example from each corporate party).

I was already angry about 3,000 innocents murdered on 9/11,

the atrocities in Afghanistan & Iraq, & the Bush monkey taking away our constitutional rights, before I ever heard of Alex Jones. How could one not be angry about this horror show?

that wasnt his point.

that wasnt his point.


This is silly. First of all, it is way too early after the election to start saying that 9/11 Truth is dying. What survey or data supports a decline in interest in pursuing investigations?!

Secondly, Pelosi and gang are not going to say a thing about investigations until *after* they are in power. Doing so now would simply start a rucus before anything could actually be done.

If fact, I am quite surprise that such a champion of the movement would want to ditch it so suddenly... what is that about?


9/11 Truth Remains The Critical Issue
Democrat leadership treacherously joins forces with Neo-Cons to take wind out of sails, massive effort to keep 9/11 truth at the forefront of public thinking needs to be re-doubled

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, November 10, 2006

9/11 truth is the make or break issue that will define freedom in America for future generations. The steam-valve effect that the election of the co-opted Democratic leadership which has already capitulated to Bush has had on some areas of the 9/11truth movement is extremely dangerous. We need to re-double our efforts to expose the 9/11 inside job!

I\'m curious

Did you have reason to believe before the election that Democrats would support you? If so, why? Are you surprised now?

nope, not at all, unlike

nope, not at all, unlike yourself, most people here dont put their faith in corporate political parties. we do have minds of our own and dont depend on others to sift through the facts for us and create a narrative. you should try it.

I put my faith in evidence and truth

As you know, political parties have nothing to do with the subject matter. But it is the basis of the political nature of your 9/11 Truth Movement to have to make that claim.

who did you vote for in the

who did you vote for in the past 3 elections?

What relevance is that to the subject matter?

The evidence of what did and did not happen on 9/11 is factual - scientific and forensic.

It has NOTHING to do with politics, as much as the 9/11 Truth Movement wishes it to be.

just answer the question. be

just answer the question. be a man and answer the simple question. or be a coward and deflect,deflect, deflect like i know you most likely will. i should have known that "Anonymous" wouldnt have the balls to answer such a simple question.


It\'s instructive that you hate being asked questions

I find it fascinating that all of you who constantly state in a highly moral tone that you \"are ONLY asking questions\" get absolutely apoplectic when we are only asking YOU questions.

Simple and straightforward ones at that - ones that have to be hidden by the management to protect your sensitive natures.

What are you SO scared of, Chris? Can\'t stand the facts biting at your heels?

you know whats really

you know whats really interesting? you have no shame, you have no problem being hypocritical. i ask you a very simple question, and you turn it around and say im afraid to answer a question while failing to answer mine. i almost wanna give you a point for that. pretty amusing.

What's REALLY funny

Is that you stuck your foot in your mouth mixing me up with Jon Gold.

Here, let me help you yank it out.

Then you might be able to answer my straightforward question: what relevance to anything is who I or you or anyone else voted for?

i didnt mix you up at all. i

i didnt mix you up at all. i asked you a VERY simple question about who you voted for in the last 3 elections, and you made an issue out of it and deflected like you continue to. poor guy, i really can understand why you choose to stay Anonymous. such a goddamn coward couldnt risk using a name.

I asked you to qualify your question

Too bad you are too scared to answer. That's the nature of those who know they got caught asking questions out of context.

It's the nature of the beast.

im kind of impressed you

im kind of impressed you didnt use any backslashes this time though. must be getting that nervous tick under control i guess.

That's very significant

It's always funny to see what 9/11 Deniers like you find significant to focus your critical attention on.

It explains a lot.

still, i got your stupid ass

still, i got your stupid ass to stop with the nervous tick.

Show "I got you to admit" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "I got you to admit" by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm going to give points to

I'm going to give points to 'Ernie' on this one--rhetorical points, not rating points--he's directly challenging the validity of the question.

That's better than his hundred word plus evasion of my question a thread or two back, followed up by a series of vagueries and non-sequiters.

'Ernie's making progress.

Yeah Bert ,put your faith in the Neocons policy

Look where it has gotten this country, since you agree with anything that the government puts out there as "fact" without finding out how each organization that do the studies of fact are influenced by what corporation or government, then that is foolishness. I research through independent reporting, but not just one, but several sources..The more research I do, the more evidence reveals government compliance, as an accessory, or ,at best, negligence.

Another mixed-up, politicized nutter

I agree with the overwhelming evidence which, as you fellas never understand, has NOTHING to do with whatever any government says or doesn't say about it. And you are particularly ignorant to think anyone takes seriously those like you who follow your 9/11 Denial Movement leaders blindly.

Curiousity has got the best of me...

You know where a lot of us stand on what you call 9/11 denial. Fine. Name calling is always useful in a debate. I don't expect a direct response, but I will do my best to decode your answer. What do you think happened on 9/11? 19 highjackers outmaneuvered the most sophisticated air defense in the world? They let it happen? Neither?

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Show "Your \"movement\" has never" by Anonymous (not verified)

My name's Tony. Nice to meet ya.

What's your name? It's hard to keep track of who is who on here with all of the anonimity. I know what this movement claims, as do you. I stated that. I was asking what you think. My decoder isn't working too well today.

You keep talking about us never having produced any evidence. I guess we have a disagreement on what evidence means. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are defining it as follows: "all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved ". This is a fair definition, since it is the legal definition of evidence. In a court of law, I have no problem with that standard of evidence. The only problem is, this is not a fair standard to hold us by since we are not prosecutors. In addition, there has yet to be a trial on this matter.

I am defining evidence as this: " Information that tends to prove a fact. Not limited to the legal sense of the term." or "Demonstrates or suggests how things might have been in the past. In manuscript research, evidence does not mean proof or testimony (although there is public testimony in this matter). Rather, evidence means drawing inferences from the messages implied in the documents." or "Information offered to support a conclusion or judgment."

This is, what I would consider, fair evidence in the court of public opinion. That is what this movement is about. Until there is a trial, where we can get the legal definition of evidence, that I am assuming you mean, then there is no means for average Joe's like us to acquire this. I think this is fair.

What is not fair is to assume the "official story" has been proved with your definition of evidence. I don't think you are holding both sides to the same standard. Feel free to correct me. You and I are on the outside looking in. We have to look at all of the facts and sift through the disinfo on both sides and come to a conclusion. We are on the jury of public opinion, you and I. So far this jury is hung.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

I feel perfectly free to correct you

"What is not fair is to assume the "official story" has been proved with your definition of evidence. I don't think you are holding both sides to the same standard. Feel free to correct me."

You know what's funny and gives you away as hopelessly confused?

Your reliance on the canard of the "official story." This is the one single pool of quicksand upon which the 9/11 Denial Movement's house of cards rest.

Let's get something straight to unconfuse you. There is no "official story." There is, instead, thousands of bits of independent evidence from thousands of different sources that converge on solid, rational conclusions which YOU cannot refute.

You know that. That is why you want everyone to believe the falsehood that there is some "official story" from the government rather than the factual reality that the evidence never came from the government, never was controlled by the government to begin with even if they wanted to. The reports that have come out from groups like NIST (that was made up of a majority of independent, non-government scientists) are fully transparent. The evidence, methodology, investigation, assumptions, and conclusions are fully available to everyone and remain solid and unrefuted.

So, I'm afraid that you were not aware that the little game of foisting a long-since debunked canard about some mystical "official story" doesn't work any better than it did several years ago.

Thank you for responding so quickly...

I want to continue this for a bit, but it is my lunchtime. I will respond in a little over an hour. I have a little bit to say about the terms "official story" and the NIST investigation. I hope you aren't reading my posts as venomous, because I am a very calm and level headed guy, even if you think I am confused. In addition, why do you insist on the name calling (Denial Movement)? Did I personally disrespect you somewhere? I don't recall insisting that you are in denial. I like to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt without making absolute statements like that. If it was the Star Wars remarks, I appologize. That was a little sophmoric.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

It shoulkd be self-evident

I find it funny that you don't understand the term describing the movement you belong to that was given 4 years ago.

The term, "9/11 Denial Movement", correctly describes your political movement. It was given when it became apparent that the purpose was to deny the evidence of events of 9/11 as the term "Holocaust Denial" applies to those who deny (even after 60+ years) the Holocaust.

This is nothing new and the term is used widely and correctly. Nothing has changed with your 9/11 Denial Movement in these past 4 years.

Any questions?


Is there a cover-up(s) being perpetrated by our Government regarding the events of 9/11?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I understand the term...

It was the need to lable and name call is what I had a problem with. I just found it disrepectful, considering I did not treat you with the same disrespect. Peace, brother.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Official Story & NIST...

O.K. I'll concede that there is no government report labled "OFFICIAL STORY". I feel funny that I have to be so specific, but what I mean is, "19 arab terrorists highjacked 4 commercial airliners, outmaneuvered our air defences and hit 75% of their targets because they hate us for our freedoms. They did this with only box cutters and the will of Allah. They had no help from within." Please be aware that this is in a tiny nutshell.

In regards to NIST, this report only investigates the building collapse's and not the other oddities with that day. In addition, the NIST report fails to explain the total collapse of the buildings, it only tries to explain the initiation of the failure and, of coarse you know, #7 is still being investigated. I can't come to a complete conclusion until this is addressed.

Again, you called me "hopelessly confused" and a "9/11 Denier". I tried to be respectful to you. I admitted that the Star Wars comments were sophmoric and I apologized. I feel like I manned-up because it takes a man to humble himself.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

There is no "official story."

Really? Can we get back all the money that was spent by the Kean Commission then? 'Cause the 9/11 Report doesn't cut the mustard as an "official story" evidently? Even though they were tasked with "providing a full and complete accounting of the events of September 11"?

T-Bone, you don't have to be specific and you don't have to try and cram all the salient points into a nutshell. The government of the United States claims that it did that for us, and the fact that this troll doesn't even find their report satisfactory as an overarching narrative just confirms that it is as entirely inadequate as we have been saying it is.

You are right...

but, what I said is still true. I have the Commission Report and it does not say on the cover, "Official Story." It says "Authorized Edition". I gotta be specific, ya know.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.


and bear in mind that I'm not trying to harsh on you in any way, but doesn't it mention the "full and complete accounting" directive in the very beginning? Account= story= narrative. "Full and complete" and "commissioned" work for me as "official."

Trolls trying to squirm out of considering the 9/11 Commission Report as the "official story" are pathetically dishonest intellectually.

I know...

I know you were not being critical. I recognize your ID name. I'm Tony, by the way. You can continue to call me T-Bone since that is what my good friends call me. I agree with everything you said. I had a good time with that debate. I think it is healthy for our country to have this dialog. At the very least, we aren't being ignored.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

More laughs

And you STILL think the evidence all came from the government, casseia???

That's a hoot.

No wonder one can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

Dream on.

Every now and again

your utter stupidity actually shocks me.

"The evidence came from the government."

What an absolutely pathetic attempt that is to squirm away from your admission that the official investigation of the murder of almost three thousand human beings is not adequate.

You are really ignorant.

Imagine your stupidity in thinking that the evidence of what happened originated with the government.

It\'s mind boggling and an indication that your movement is going nowhere

It's funny you don't get it

I find it that you go off completely oblivious to what I wrote and claim that there is a "story", like fantasy movies, about mythical hijackers who pull off movie stunts.

Rather than focus on evidence.

And then you claim their are "oddities." Gosh. Too bad you can't articulate any oddities.

And you don't think you are hopelessly confused?

Repeat this in the mirror, T-Bone: "WHAT does ALL of the evidence tell us?"

Let me make it clear for you. THIS is not the movies. This is real life. Get with reality. You have the intelligence to do so. USE it.

Okay...I'm done.

"Repeat this in the mirror, T-Bone: 'WHAT does ALL of the evidence tell us?'"

It tells us, "Somethings rotten in Denmark!" I don't have all of the answers and neither do you. If either one of us claims to, then we are ignorant.

I'm sure anyone who reads our conversation can see who is being reasonable here. We have a guy who is trying his best to have a respectful debate and we have another who says things like, "THIS is not the movies. This is real life. Get with reality. You have the intelligence to do so. USE it." & "Reality bites". He also resorts to lables and name calling. I don't know, but regardless of what side of the fence an impartial observer sits, it seems to me the level headed one wins the debate. I proclaim myself as "WINNER"!

All in all, there is a truth out there. Not a fantasy movie, mythical hijackers, or movie stunts, we can agree there. It doesn't matter if you say it's so, or if I say it's so, because it just IS. I hope we can find a way to get along one day, because ultimately, we are all Americans, darn it! Let's not forget this.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

If you want to be serious

Then you are going to have to admit what does and does not constitute evidence.

We can discuss it rationally and I can demonstrate why the \"9/11 Truth Movement\" is not interested in the truth but only in pushing its political agenda.

I said I was done, but...

You keep mentioning political agenda. If this is true, I am not aware of what it is. What is the agenda? The only agenda I am aware of is a new investigation. Yes, we have some people on here talking about no-planes, star wars weapons, and Zionists controlling the universe, but they are the minority, as far as I can tell. Most of us don't agree with them. I don't agree with them. Please demonstrate, as you said you are willing to do. Regarding evidence, which standard/definition are you refering to?

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.


If I am not mistaken, it doesn't appear that you corrected the definition of evidence. I think this is where we differ the most in our standards.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Now Is the Time for Hope, Not Pessimism!

Hello all,

This is my first post on 911blogger, but I've been reading the site for a long time. I felt compelled to register to post in response to this Alex Jones article that is pessimistic about the future of the 9/11 Truth movement. I often agree with Alex Jones and like the work he does, such as the Terrorstorm documentary, but I strongly disagree with this article. Not only do I disagree, but I consider these kind of pessimistic, fatalistic attitudes to be downright dangerous to the future of our country.

Folks, never in my wildest dreams did I think the Democrats would take both the House and the Senate. Before that happened, there was NO CHANCE of ANYTHING being done by the government to expose the truth about 9/11, lies about WMDs, war profiteering, protecting civil liberties from the ferocious assaults of the Bush administration, etc. Now, there is at least a CHANCE.

For the first time in 6 years, we actually have a chance that our governmental representatives might listen to us on some of the issues we care about. Counselling pessimism and defeatism at this time is stupid and crazy. Sure, the Democrats aren't great, but they are certainly better than continued Republican control of the Congress. Some of the new committee chairmen may actually listen to some of our concerns and initiate investigations. That should give us hope and a burning spirit of activism to get the truth out there more than ever before, and to constantly lobby our Representatives and Senators on these issues.

Extremism is not the answer. What we need are dedicated citizens who understand that it will take TIME for something substantial to happen, but that if enough people press our Congress hard, they will eventually have to do something. Once there are investigations beginning, it will go like a snowball rolling downhill, gaining speed and momentum. Facts will be presented to congressional committees that have been silenced and covered up before. The hearings will have mainstream media coverage. Gradually, the people of this country will wake up to the truth about the terrible abuses of power of the Bush administration.

It will take time. But over the next few years, these investigations WILL be started by the Democrats and they WILL gain momentum naturally, because facts are facts, and once there is a commitment to have open and honest investigations with subpoena power, the truth will inevitably come out and there will finally be some accountability in government.

I have no illusions that it will be easy. We have to write reasonable sounding letters to potentially friendly leaders in the House and Senate, call their offices, organize and participate in protest marches, and do whatever we can do to force the Legislative Branch to take up their Constitutional responsibility of oversight of the Executive. They will do it, if continuous strong pressure is applied.

One thing will lead to another. 9/11 will be the last domino to fall. First it will be the easier, less controversial issues such as lies about WMDs that led us into Iraq, war profiteering by companies such as Halliburton, etc. But once the appetite for truth and accountability has taken hold, it will inevitably lead to the 9/11 coverup being blown wide open.

If we do not come across as crazy extremists, and we focus on the more normal-sounding "gateway" issues into 9/11 Truth, we will have much more success at influencing the Congress to hold some hearings and issue subpoenas. We need to be talking about how the Bush administration ignored intelligence before 9/11, how he failed to respond when he was told the nation is under attack, the NORAD stand down, the money trail to the Pakistani ISI, and these kind of issues that are the most basic, reasonable-sounding issues that most ordinary people are willing to consider. That is how we can influence the Congress to begin the process of investigations.

We CAN make it happen, if we have patience, use a fact-based approach, and focus on the issues that do not sound crazy to the average person's ears.

Just my 2 cents.

What is needed now

Is a clear and concise plan. A roadmap with attainable goals to be worked towards in an aggressive and UNIFIED manner. We've been going for the knockout punch for over fives years, it's time to reevaluate and start moving one step at a time towards the eventual goal of a real and independent investigation

As far as I am concerned the information war has been won, it's time to stop discussing stuff on the internet, or at least put that on a back burner, and get lawyers, start filing court cases and puting in motion other legal remedies. That approach can have a two-fold effect; one it will force them to confront the questions and two, it will make headlines.

There\'s something new?

I thought the objective was always the truth? Why do you need a plan, much less another one?

Show "I recently found a very" by Anonymous (not verified)

new poster

Dying or not, here you go!

Also check out:

where you can input your preferred website as the "more info at:"....

these are pdf's and so blow up beautifully to large poster sizes for those who want!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "Ok, Let's Bash Gays!" by Tom-Scott Gordon

I vote...

To change the title of this blog. Since it's been established that the 9/11 Truth Movement is FAR from "dead", the question has been answered.

Maybe make it... "Is 9/11 Truth Dying? Don't Count On It"

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Seriously Guys...

Change the name of this blog. It's pissing me off.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You\'re the best example

There is no one here who has made a better case for the \"9/11 Truth Movement\" dying than you, Jon Gold.

The anser is a definitive "YES!"

9/11 Truth IS dying.

And Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood are leading the way for you to follow.


We followed Jim Fetzer, and Judy Wood, you might be right, but as far as I'm concerned...

Jim who? Judy who?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What goes around comes around

You have to remember that their claims formed the basis of your claims.

Your claims are their claims: "9/11 was an inside job."

You chose to make that unsupported claim. You chose not to support it despite being asked. So did Woods, Reynolds, Fetzer, Griffin, Hoffman...., you know who they are.

We know why. So do you.

I tried to hep you and warn you. You wouldn't listen to reason. Now, you are paying the piper, Jon Gold.

Here's what I remember...

Their claims DID NOT form the basis of our claims.

You are not being honest in your critique of the 9/11 Truth Movement because you refuse to acknolwedge the OBVIOUS and MULTIPLE cover-ups being perpetrated by elements within the U.S. Government in regards to 9/11.

Because you are not being honest, that means that you have an agenda.

That's what I remember.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What we know is you are not telling the truth

Your refuse to tell us what you claim to be the "obvious" and "multiple" cover-ups and how "9/11 was an inside job."

That is the truth that is on the record on, the truth that you cannot deny.

Rational people don't just accept your claims because you make them. We need evidence to back them up. It is your responsibility and your alone.

Your multiple efforts to shift the burden of proof to me over the last six months are transparent to all.

Start telling the truth, Jon Gold. Back up your claims with evidence or retract them. Stop being dishonest with everyone here.

I refer you to...


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The Link...

Jon, that link took me to the beginning of this thread.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

I find it hilarious

That you keep coming here and spewing the same manure over & over while denying literally mountains of evidence that exist in every pixel of this website.
It would be like falling off a cruise ship in the middle of the Pacific and denying that water exist.

You are totally delusional.



"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Making my case for me again.

It\'s amazing how mixed up you 9/11 Deniers are. What is well known is that the \"9/11 Truth Movement\" is ignoring or dismissing all of the evidence you guys keep whining constitutes the \"official story: about 9/11.

How can you possibly deny exactly what you are proud of doing???

In the meantime, you resort to debunked claims over and over as your only source of so-called \"evidence\" and people like Jon Gold can\'t even provide any evidence when asked for months to do so.

This is why you are accurately called \"9/11 Deniers\" and your movement is the \"9/11 Denial Movement.\"

Seek medical attention for your foot - and brain.

Just for shits & grins

why dont you explain to us "deniers" just how 1150 human bodies completely vaporize, 1700+ others are gathered up in over 20,000 tiny fragments mostly in Test Tubes, and 760 tiny BONE fragments are found ACROSS THE STREET several hundred feet away.?

and how do a few multi-ton steel beams get blown all the way across West 57th St about 400-500' away lodged into about the 20th floor of WFC3?

Ga-head, Ga-head splain away ya dumbphuck.

You poor soul

I already answered that today. Can\'t your read?


Here it is again:

You really think that is exclusive evidence?

You do a good job of shooting yourself in the foot, Nunyabiz. No rational person could or would infer from what you just wrote that the buildings would have had to come down by \\\"controlled demolition.\\\"

Perhaps you should look into the amount of kinetic energy expended in the collapse. You might learn something you seem not to want to know.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 11:00am

Try real hard this time.

I feel your frustration with this guy...

Anon makes the rules of what is and what is not rational. Floors pancaking together can apparently pulverize bone into fragments small enough to get caught inside someones lungs. I was reading some posts from where I think Anon comes from at ConspiracySmasher last night and found some rather comical comparisons to explain the mechinism of collapse. This wasn't Anon talking as far as I know, but someone there used the annalogy of dropping a bowling ball from 6 feet onto a tower of popsicle sticks held together with Elmers glue. I think this Anon is Ron Weick over there, only due to the language and terms he uses, but I really have no way of knowing for sure. They site 911myths & 911debunked a lot, which seem to have some sensible arguements at first glance, but when you spend time to really analyze the data, some of it falls apart due to guesswork. The fact that they will not consider demolision as a POSSIBLE explanation shows their bias. They can't say people like me did not consider pancake/progressive collapse, because I did for 2 1/2 years. An example I can give for their guesswork (which we are not immune from, to be fair) is the explanation of the squibs. They explain it as forced air and dust debris being caused by the falling floors/debris being forced through elevator shafts and out windows. They use an analogy of a sirynge. They also point out that the squibs do not share the exact same characteristics of real demolision squibs since they seem to increase in pressure over time. This sounds plausible, but when you examine ALL of the observed squibs in the multiple videos that capture them, it is not irrational to come to the conclusion that their explanation is probably not correct. First of all, on the 911debunked site it shows only one video clip of 1 squib. In this clip it shows a large piece of debris being shot out followed by the squib. It was grainy, but it appeared the large piece of debris was being shot out in an explosive manner. Second, there are other clearer clips that show squibs going off symotaniously on adjoining sides of the building. These definitely "look" explosive since they kind of mushroom out and appear more like the typical squib. I try to limit my assumptions, thats why I only analyze what we can see on the outside. They want to take you inside the building, which is not visible and imagine how floors collapsing can force debris and air down shafts and then out windows. Again, to be fair, they point out what appears to be a sagging floor as proof of the expanding truss theory. It is another grainy picture that looks like it could be a sagging floor (I'm not ruling this out yet) but this does not explain total and complete building failure.

To them, or Anon at least, video data is not evidence. I can't get Anon to define evidence. I defined it for him and explained my standard. For demolision, I would love to hear what they would except as evidence. If they could suspend their beliefs for a moment and "imagine" it was a demolision, what will they accept as proof? I don't know.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Yeah I know

This idiot can not give an answer to my question and he knows it because anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows damn well there is no possible way that human bodies vaporize and or get blown into tiny Bone fragments that end up 300-500 feet away from the building, UNLESS high explosives were used.

He is just a useless delusional psychotic that for some reason loves to come here and be OWNED over & over & over with mountains of evidence of which he never has a single intelligent answer for.
Quite pitiful really.

I considered the "Pancake theory" for about an hour, didn't take long to figure out that was totally Impossible for many reasons.
The sagging truss theory was completely debunked 100%. Number one the tops of the trusses were encased in 4'"of concrete which insulated them from heat and made it so they could not bow.

Also in 1975 a fire at WTC burned on the 11th floor traveled down to the 9th and up to the 19th for LONGER and HOTTER than on 9/11 and little to no structural damage was done and the building was repaired and back up and running in no time. No Truss damage.

Evidence to Anon is whatever lies he can find that remotely could support the ridiculous Official hypothesis.
There is NOTHING he would except EVER that proves Controlled Demolition.

It is basically same as Religion, there is no evidence of anykind that will sway anyone's "beliefs" in whatever religion they have been sucked in by.

The Church of 9/11 seems to be about the same phenomena, once someone like Anon "believes" the Official dogma there is nothing that will shake that belief regardless how irrefutable it is.