Advocate of 9/11 Censorship on Obama's Short List for Supreme Court

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law Professor and Confidant of Obama was appointed to be Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

He became infamous within this movement for writing a paper on how to best to combat "Government Conspiracy Theory Groups," including by covert infiltration, as described by Glen Greenwald.

And now rumor has it that he's on a short list to replace John Paul Stevens on the US Supreme Court.

That's great - Eh? A real Constitutionalist there who will stand up for the Bill of Rights, including dissent and free speech.

He would be a shoe in for confirmation - what with his Neocon, Big Brother Street Cred with Republicans and Obama's support. If Obama nominates this guy it will be one more in a long list of Obama sell-outs to the Security State.


I think it's important to remember that we do NOT THEORIZE. When anyone calls us that, it is an opportunity to tell them, it is ONLY concrete evidence that we hang our hat on. I believe it was Richard Gage that made that point originally. We all need to remember it.

Also, when anyone uses the NIST site to attempt discrediting you, remind them that, THAT is the same source that facilitated, and executed the cover up. WHY would anyone give them an iota of credence?

Of course many will dismiss it anyway. Their little brains cannot go there. It will break into thousands of little pieces.


You mean in terms of labeling us conspiracy "theorists"?

If that's it, I see the point. But I don't think correcting terms in such a manner is going to break through all the filters.

If you are sticking with facts and not "theories," the claim that 9/11 is an "inside job" is a "theory" - not a fact. So it's difficult to separate out the theories and to purify the movement in this fashion. Even "controlled demolition," which Richard Gage advocates is a theory at this stage - not a fact.

Here is a fact -- the "Official Story" of how those buildings fell is physically impossible - that's a fact. I do like to stick to facts more than defend theories - which places one on the defensive on an engineering/scientific subject that the average layperson is not going to comprehend/accept in a short introduction.

And I have a slightly different take on NIST. When I assert my claims of "fact," and someone tries to say that "well NIST or the government scientists reached a different conclusion" - my reply is "No they didn't." I assert a simple scientific fact - it defies the laws of physics that the top of the two Towers could, with the aid of gravity alone, crush the bottom structures of those massive buildings the way that occurred. I then make it clear that NIST did not provide an analysis that the planes, fires and gravity brought about the destruction of those bottom structures - there's no way it could - that's completely impossible. That's another very useful fact - NIST punting that part of its job, which in a way make the The Two Towers a stronger case than WTC7.

But we are in agreement on your main point. It's just a function of who is making the point and who the audience is. Richard Gage has done great work in support of a controlled demolition theory and he needs to stand by his work. I may speak in favor of that theory, depending upon my audience. But if I want to stick to cold hard facts with no meaningful contradiction of any kind - then I focus on the bottoms of those Towers.

Sunstein used to support dissent!

From 9/11/03

"In his latest work, Why Societies Need Dissent, Professor Sunstein casts new light on the fundamental importance of freedom of speech and shows us that nations are far more likely to prosper if they allow their citizens the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and dare to challenge the unchallengeable."

I suspect there are some nuggets in this book that will expose his hypocrisy. I will try to find it at the library here in Dallas.