Dear 9/11 Activists,

You have taken to the streets, you have made the DVDs, you have been to the conferences, you have heard the testimony, you have made the calls, you have borne the brunt of criticism, (some of it deserved, some of it contrived to demoralize you), you have read the books, (the official and alternative theories), and you have decided where to cast your lot.

And, you have decided to act!

Ok, now what?

Now is the time to focus your energy like a laser beam. Now is the time to inject yourself into the political debate in this country, and by proxy, to inject discourse about 9/11 into the living rooms of America.

How to do it?

Here is a clue. Last month activists confronted John Kerry with tough questions on WTC7 in Austin, TX. The video was posted to the internet. Alex Jones' ran a story on Kerry's obfuscation, and this story was mirrored across the web.

Within days, Webster Griffin Tarpley received a call from one of the producers from Hannity & Colmes, and got to spar with H&C in front of millions of FOX News regulars, about the merits of the official story of 9/11. The producer thought that FOX could make a pinata piece out the video segment, and invited the pre-eminent MIHOP author on to plug his book to millions of people who probably had never seen WTC7 "collapse", and had never heard of "9/11: Synthetic Terror".


I repeat:


For the next 6 to 7 months, the mainstream media is going to follow the Presidential hopefuls for the Democratic and Republican Parties wherever they go.

So, it is your job to be there, with the toughest questions on 9/11 that you can muster, delivered with clarity and purpose. It's likely that questions about 9/11 aren't going to be spontaneously proposed by the General Electric talking heads during the debates. However, as the candidates tour the country gathering support, you will have opportunites to confront them. Watch your local County Party calendars.

As the Austin activists proved, it only takes one or two people lobbing questions and one person with a handycam to capture some amazing footage.

It's clear that a couple of these candidates have some serious questions to answer.

Especially Mr. Giuliani. Just for starters, how is it that Giuliani got forewarning of WTC "collapses" on 9/11? Did he pass this warning along promptly to all the first responders, or did he just high-tail his ass out of the area, entourage in tow, knowing that their radios weren't going to work anyway? Why did he let the first responders breathe the deadly toxins at Ground Zero without the proper respirators?

(Ron Paul, you could ask these questions too, you know.)

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand could be quizzed on foreign policy. Specifically, will she, like her husband, facilitate and manipulate Islamic radicals to further geostrategic interests? This is precisely what happened in the 1990s in and around Kosovo, and is documented by the US congress in a minority report by the Republicans, and voluminously in books by Michel Chossudovsky of Canada, and Nafeez Ahmed of Britain.

There are a host of questions to ask, and now I ask you to help compile some of them in the comments area below.

Also, take advantage of the incredible networking opportunites available to you at

This is where the most active of the activists should coordinate, network and plan! The time is short, and this opportunity will not last forever. Conceivably, even before the Primaries begin early next year, the security will be too tight get the questions in.

Until then, you have a golden opportunity to introduce yourselves to the broader populace of the United States, and hold some politicians accountable, even if it isn't a Treason trial.

If you think this isn't the right path, google "911 truth squad" to see the rapid evolution of this political tactic.

All you need is a couple people with some good questions, and one (preferably two) handycams to catch the action. The internet will do the rest of the work.

It's time for some media Judo. Let the momentum of the corporate press do the work for you, as they try to steamroll over you, or as they engage with you. Either way, you win.

And if one of the brand name politicians are coming to town on the Eleventh, make that the focus of the day.

Make this your motto;

"I'm going to make a change today. I'm going to make an impact."



Can you feel it coming in the air tonight

"I was there and I saw what

"I was there and I saw what you did, I saw it with my own two eyes..."

"Mr. Edwards, at a previous speaking engagement you promised to look into the issue of how World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed. (I have the clip right here with me on my video iPod, if you want to try to deny making that statement.) The publicly available video footage from 9/11 clearly shows that police and firefighters knew the building was going to come down, and that they had warned everyone to clear the area. Did your research on BLDG7 lead you to any conclusions as to why the rubble of BLDG7 was cleared so quickly, given the fact that nobody would have been burried by this collapse, and that a forensic analysis of the wreckage should have been done? In other words, what justification have you found for destroying the forensic evidence in this mystery collapse, in which nobody died?"

- Edwards: "I haven't had a chance to look into it yet..."

"This was weeks ago. Don't you think that as a Presidential candidate, you owe it to the American people to be informed about an issue as important as 9/11?"

Blah, Blah. Something like that. The wording could probably be tightened up a little to make sure he can't snake out of it, and to make the question a little less confusing. If any of you are going to be in Truth Squads, feel free to modify it (as long as it's an IMPROVEMENT!) Be careful of sentence structure, and argument structure. If he get's shifty, reword the question and demand a straight answer. You can see here, that I'm trapping him into either answering me, or admitting to not doing the homework he promised he'd do. Also, the wording of my question presupposes and asserts the fact that crime scene evidence WAS destroyed. I'm asking him if he could find any jusification for this destruction. He can (A) make up a bullshit excuse/story/lie that we can later use against him at the next Truth Jam or on the spot (B) Say he didn't have a chance to look into it, in which case he makes himself look negligent, or like a liar (C) Try to spin it with double-speak, which the grammar and syntax of my question should make difficult or impossible (If I've worded it well enough). Also, we should be getting familiar with and alert to double-speak by now, and we shouldn't just sit down and excuse the puppet from clarifying his statements.

Sorry to ramble. Just trying to get us thinking strategically.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Hi Consciousness, That video

Hi Consciousness,

That video ipod is a good idea. Maybe a tablet pc would also liven things up if the interviewee starts to deny stuff.

A video of WTC 7 coming down and that Danish CD expert would be handy should any press guys ask you follow up questions.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11


Any portable digital media platform

should do the trick. Palm Pilot, iPhone (is that out yet?), tablet PC, one of those mini VAIO laptops, iPod... I highly recommend this strategy. If the puppet tries to deny his previous statements, you've got it right there with you to shut him/her up.
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

I believe there is also

a line in that song that says

"So wipe off that grin, I know where you been and its all been a pack of lies"

Excellent point

Great blog

Excellent strategy! Especially if you can corner Edwards and Kerry. They can't keep feigning ignorance!
"Cogito ergo sum"

Great post ...


Another Network

Another Network Tool:

Question for puppets:

[1] Did you know that the military gave 3 timelines and lied to us about 9/11?

[2] Why were so many peoples testimonies left out of the Commission Report along with WTC7 and molten material?

[3] Able Danger and Huffman Aviation School were covered up, why?

[4] Are you aware of all the drills that took place on 9/11 and the US military anthrax?

[5] What about the 8/6/01 PDB and all the debris that was hauled off from a crime scene in a hurry?

[6] 9/11 Commission conflicts of interests are obvious and families questions are ignored, why?

Material for developing questions:

Gaileo's Law of Falling Bodies:

Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared
1362 ft tall = 16.08 x 84.7
9.2 seconds

Watch any video of the towers falling.

Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!

*Government “owned” experts of “deception”
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest

They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F

They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!

Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my a**!

To clear up any confusion NIST does "NOT" say the structural damage from the collision of the jets was enough to cause instability.

NIST says that the heat from the fires had significantly weakened the steel which led to the collapse of the WTC buildings.

But the problem is that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143


This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!!

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
--City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)

“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
--City in the Sky

The first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses! The floor trusses were supported by angle clips which had a sole purpose of supporting those could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculations because there were other supports for that purpose.

note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses.

Before you say that the WTC buildings came down because both were hit at optimal locations.

Thats bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse.

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
--City in the Sky, p 133

The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

Before you say the jets on 9/11 were nearly fully fueled.

NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.

fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE!

But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!

Before you say the jets on 9/11 hit at top speed.

Not one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft!

Ha! The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone I wont even go into weight I will just use the same math for speed and not add the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707.

The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT!

Before you say that the WTC were left with the result being significant structural damage.

The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!

Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii

Before you say it was because of the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing

New insulation is “patchy”? So the extra fireproofing that was put on was piss poor and the 2.5” in of fireproofing was “patchy”!

..."thermal protection was WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102...and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)

“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)

“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)

Before you say the WTC buildings came down because of instantaneous large multi-floor fires

In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!

The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!

After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)

On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!

“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)

The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143


Good questions, but (a) you have the floor to ask a question so you can take a few seconds or a minute or so to lead in with some relevant facts- that will get others thinking about the inconsistencies of whatever aspect of the OCT you are asking about; (b) don't phrase your question so that they can answer, without sounding silly, "no I wasn't aware of that" or "gee that sounds funny but there are a lot of theories about this and I prefer to listen to what the experts say," etc. - maybe questions that end with: "so now that everyone knows about the whitewash/coverup/ommissions/lies, I want to know, and millions of Americans from many different backgrounds (namedrop Scholars/Patriots/Pilots/etc. for 911Truth), also wantto know what you PERSONALY are going to do to get to the truth about THAT?"

Remember, you don't want to give them any wiggle room. Consciousness had some good questions and strategic ideas on a post last week.

I'd like to see A QUESTION LIKE THIS:

"My question relates to past and present foreign policy. We now know that in the 1980's the CIA were supporting the Afghans in their resistance to the Soviet invasion of their country, and we know that the Pakinstani intelligence agency - the ISI - were the primary means by which the CIA could channel clandestine funds to the fighters in the Afghan resistance movement.

``It is now amtter of public record that General Ahmad of the Pakistani ISI wired over $100,000 to Mohammed Atta the lead hijacker of September 11, 2001 in the days and weeks preceeding 911. Yet Pakistan has provided no public explanation for this payment and the White House has given no explanation to the American people about why Government officials continued to give General Ahmad the red carpet treatment instead of taking him to task for his involvement with these terrorists immediately preceeding 911.

``Now, most everyone knows about these disturbing facts, and every patriotic American who is aware of these facts wants to know the answer to the following question: do you think these money transfers by the Pakistani ISI to Mohammed Atta constituted support for terrorism and if so how what steps have you or will take to help expose the truth about that?``

I would add to this

I would add to this excellent question the fact that the administration has justified torture and indefinite incarceration for anyone with the flimsiest of connections to al Qaeda and the "terrorists," and that Bush himself said that those who provided any support would "share in their fate."

Excellent strategy...

...and we'll need to keep the pressure on. As the Kerry video shows, we should expect such answers as, "That is new to me, but I'll definitely look into that," and the like when folks are presented with 911 Truth questions. For Truth Squaders to be most effective, they should be prepared to follow up on Q & A from prior events. In the video, Kerry is almost certainly referring to the still standing wall portions of the WTC 1&2 wreckage and not to WTC7. Is he even aware of the issues surrounding the WTC 7 collapse? It is not at all clear from the video. But knowing this, we will be better able to seek further clarification and to word our questions more clearly at subsequent events.

John A MITCHELL Herblay

Herblay FRANCE

I have kept my colleagues at work up todate on all the information on the 911 attacks since beginning 2002 but they stil do no want to beliieve it was an inside job. Just as some believe in Jesus they believe that the American gouvernement would not kill their own people inorder to go to war.
I use a lot the photos like with Barack Obama which can be found at

These photos are helping my colleagues to put in doubt their beliefs so please keep them coming. The mass media cannot deny the existence of a "investigate 911" , "911 truth now" , "911 inside job" , ... signs right infront of their cameras. As the chinese proverb goes "a picture is worth a thousand words" and the advantage is that a simple sign text can easily be understood by the French, Germans etc by the entire world.

Just own thing we must always stay polite and correct at every moment and reject the interventions which are néfaste to the meetings. I will signal to you all when I see your signs on the French main news: ( and of course attempt to make copies to put on Youtube).



Thanks John!

Spread 9/11 Truth around Europe too. The whole world must "wake up". John, have you researched the North American Union yet? It's not just a 9/11 cover-up we're facing. This is all a plot to usher in one-world government/police state. Aren't a lot of things going forward behind closed doors in the EU right now? Isn't it going from an "economic" arrangement to a full fledged "superstate" without public approval?

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

PNAC, Bilderberg ...

I have studied the PNAC , Bilderberg , etc and have about twenty boxes of papers on all that in my garage. My own work on the web can be found at
I had found the photos very early directly from the Fema files without breaking the law.

I am going to include a lot of the more important documents in a film that I have started. Only problem is to find enough time to avance.



Nice page

I have briefly looked at your page, and I would like to commend you for organizing so much info, thanks. Very good resource for anyone interested in learning about the facts. More pages need to be like this, thank you for your passion and hard work!


Belief in Jesus

Does not preclude one from believing that the government could do something so evil. Not fair to equate the two IMO.
On the 11th day, of every month.

I think what John meant to say

is that people accept the government story on "blind faith," as someone has to accept Jesus based on their faith and beliefs. While I think the comparison isn't exact - Jesus certainly existed, whether or not he was the Son of God is another question - the idea is the same: in spite of contradictory evidence (Gospel of Judas, Mary Magdeleine, etc) people continue to believe the "official version" of history spoon fed to them without properly thinking. I don't think John meant to belittle anyone who upholds true Christian faith and values!


Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times:

Jesus existed? Can't let that one slip by!

Logically, the two (belief in Jesus, belief that the US gov't would not hurt its own citizens) are independent. But belief that persists in contradiction to the evidence (or lack thereof) is what we are talking about here...and applies in both cases.

I don't think it's the place here to debate about Jesus, so I created a blog about the topic. (The blog is currently being moderated but may not get published. If you want it, email me at I'm less interested in debating Jesus per se (although am happy to do so) than in figuring out why people adopt _anything_ on faith -- including but not only 9/11 -- and how to challenge them on it.


Comparison: belief in Jesus versus blind faith in George Bush

Herblay FRANCE

Thank you for putting the record straight. I wanted in my comparison to bring out the "blind faith". My colleagues have a blind faith in George Bush and company that with logical arguments I can not get over to them. ( George Bush lied about the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction , he lied about Nigerian's attempted uranium sale to Iraq , he lied about his participation on Plame Wilson's outing , ... etc but he is stilled believed by my colleagues)

Please be reassured that I have a great respect for religious thinkers especiallyy having many in the family and I personally think that Jesus existed as an exceptional normal man.

Apriori arguments

hello John

It sounds like your friends are using arguments about their mothers and not about ruthless governments. The government is not our mother. The government is not a person and it is based on force. YOu don't pay your government appointed tax amount you are thrown in jail. etc.. etc..

If your friends think the ruling faction in our US government cares about the citizenry then look at how the US Environment protection agency (EPA) cared about the the NYC populace as they, the EPA, DELIBERATELY lied about the air quality in the days immediately after 911. Saying it was OK to breathe the post 911 air. The EPA knew that the air was toxic and poisonous to breathe but said the opposite.

40,000 - 60,000 people in New York city took the EPAs statement as true and went out and breathed that poisoned toxic air immediately in the days after 911; and many of those people are having serious health problems today and are even now dying. Who would think that the government would lie about such a thing ???!!! But they did. The government is not our mother.

Does this sound like a government that cares about the lives of its people ?

What's 'inside job' in French?

'Travail interieur'?

inside job = complot intérieur

Herblay FRANCE

Bonsoir ,

I have asked my fellow colleagues who have studied at French universities the French for “Inside Job” and they have only given me “travail de l'intérieur”

But it does not satisfy me. On doing some historical research I think job is better replaced by Opération and inside by cinquième colonne that is “Opération cinquième colonne”

Another good translation could be “un complot intérieur”



PS is there any other French out there who want to join forcess with me here in France ?

Practice, practice

A few suggestions here.
It probably wouldn't hurt to practice your presentation, even try some role playing so you sound confident in your presentation. That old saying, "it's not what you say but how you say it," has merit. I recommend watching "Thank You for Smoking," to get an idea of how the media big leagues look. An ambiguous or unsure presentation won't elicit the same response as one that is clear and boldly spoken. Even a blatant lie boldly spoken can obscure the truth in some cases (think Condaleeza Rice.) Imagine how much more powerful the Truth boldly spoken would resound.
You can't expect to hit one out of the park on your first at-bat against Roger Clemens but with practice you might get a base hit.

my plan is to put one of

my plan is to put one of these stickers over the names of the candidate anytime i see a guiliani or clinton road sign:

you can find them via the 9/11 truth resources ad on the left or here:


Johnny Wave made a great point regarding credibility. He said that some passers by seemed dismissive of the "hippy" 9-11 protesters, until their eyes focused on him and his Marine Corps. dress uniform. Then, in his words, "they were all done". This is key. This is how the government sold the official story. Through credibility. Through the media channels. That's what makes Rosie so significant. Americans are being expose to a different point of view through a mainstream media channel. Rosie is sowing millions of seeds of doubt, and certainly not all of them will come to fruition, but hell, I know people who still think nixon was framed.

Someone who knows the truth, can always have an impact. Even if you can't go to a political rally and ask uncomfortable questions of the candidates, you can still do something. An example would be going to a real estate bubble blog, building credibility through informed posts, and the laying subtle truth landmines. I've compared the well known Real Estate shill David Lereah to Gene Corley. Most people will think to themselves, who the hell is Gene Corely? Don't tell them. Humans are naturally curious and the truth is self evident. Plant seeds.

Letter to The Eagle

This guy is going out of his way to hamper 9/11 activism:

"'Just say no to conspiracy theories"

" Please plan on attending the Stockbridge Annual Town Meeting to defeat the article being presented by some conspiracy theorists in our town. It is time to vote them down."


If you have a high level player listening to your question, you have to keep in mind what the purpose of the question should be.

It is not to ask them if they are aware of something.

It is not to ask them to look into something.

They will simply give you the brush off, and claim that they will look into it, to no effect.

You want to get them to DO something or to SAY something. The question needs to be phrased that way.

Mr. Obama, as the heads of the 9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton, have written a book about the inadequacy of their investigation -- and even considered prosecuting Norad officials for perjury -- what will you do to properly investigate the attacks of September 11th?

Mr. Edwards, the 9/11 Commission report contained numerous ommissions, of very relevant testimony by insiders, whistleblowers and witnesses; so will you right now call for a new and legitimate investigation into America's greatest terrorist attack, September the Eleventh? If not why not?

Mrs. Cliinton, millions upon millions of Americans believe that the September 11th attacks were covered up by the Bush administration and we have been lied to about 9/11. Will you call for a proper and independent investigation of those attacks that looks at all the data?


70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Excellent, John!

This is what I've been trying to get across about these Truth Squads. Pointed questions, that have a point. We have to use our language productively, and force the response WE desire.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


Marc Ecko Tags Air Force One

I couldn't believe this when I saw it.

Is this the security we are giving up our rights and freedoms for?

Homeland Security LOL! War on Terror LOL!

Keep Us Safe LOL!