We Need to Continue to Seek the Truth About 9/11


We need to continue to seek the truth about 9/11
Bloomington Herald-Times, Agust 8, 2010
This guest column is by Kevin Ryan, a member of the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington.

Over the past three years, a group of concerned Bloomington citizens has worked to raise the public consciousness about the need for 9/11 truth. These folks are sometimes called “conspiracy theorists” because they do not believe the official version of events. Once people get by their initial reactions to 9/11 questioning, however, much can be learned in the process.

To begin with, we all understand the definition of a conspiracy to be a secret plan, among two or more people, to commit a crime. Yet when faced with emotionally charged events like 9/11, many of us pretend that the definition of the word has changed.

It is certain that unless you believe these crimes were committed by one person acting alone, you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. But people today have been trained to use the word to mean only a small subset of conspiracies enacted by powerful people, like government officials.

For those who redefine the word in this way, al-Qaida is not capable of a conspiracy, and belief in conspiracies committed by powerful people is not rational. We are therefore left with the notion that conspiracies are irrational altogether, despite the fact that our news and our laws are chock-full of conspiracy charges.

Additionally, to accept this redefinition, we must ignore the many instances of secret criminal plans involving powerful U.S. government agencies, such as Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which are now a matter of indisputable fact.

Others who are satisfied with the official explanations promote a theory called “blowback.” This theory suggests that certain people in the Middle East, who have been bombed and blockaded for many years, have assembled the means to strike back with vengeful acts of otherwise-irrational violence, by attacking symbols of Western wealth and power.

Oddly enough, proponents of the blowback theory cling forcefully to it but yet would never consider the “managed blowback” theory. That is, they would never allow the thought that powerful people might notice, and then manipulate or exploit, such vengeance.

Accepting the blowback theory also requires people to ignore the fact that the ever-changing official explanations for 9/11 were created by representatives of the Bush administration, which had a long record of secrecy and dishonesty.

Buying into blowback as the sole explanation also means ignoring that the U.S. national air defenses shut down for nearly two hours only on that one morning, that insider trading occurred without any insiders and that three tall buildings fell through the path of most resistance, when such events have never occurred before or since. And that’s before any discussion of the peer-reviewed scientific papers that have described explosive residues found in the WTC dust.

Undoubtedly, there are significant psychological challenges related to our understanding of 9/11, and the public response to both official and alternative explanations bears this out. Understanding those barriers might help us to discover the complete truth and thereby end terrorism and the related wars.

With this in mind, many professional people are calling for a new investigation into 9/11. They include more than 1,200 licensed architects and engineers, and other groups representing hundreds of religious leaders, firefighters, lawyers, medical professionals, scientists and intelligence officers, among others.

Two such people will join us this year at the Buskirk Chumley, for another free presentation at 7 p.m. on Sept. 4. Buddhist scholar Graeme MacQueen and behavioral neuroscientist Laurie Manwell will speak on the topic of “Peace through Truth: 9/11 and State Crimes Against Democracy.”

Everyone who is concerned about terrorism, and who hopes for peace, is welcome and encouraged to attend.

Copyright: HeraldTimesOnline.com 2010

Ian Punnet of Coast to Coast

Ian Punnet of Coast to Coast Am just announced that Richard Gage will be on August 21 I believe? He'll be on with another guy who is a mathematician of some sort. I wish that I could remember his name. I'm not sure if they'll be debating or agreeing. Just a heads up.


Richard Gage will be debating Dave Thomas, a mathematician. You can see Thomas' background at his website, nmsr.org. They have a posting of the scheduled event there. It isn't posted over at www.ae911truth.org as of yet (at least not the one coming up.) These two squared off once before, you can catch up on the past debates here

It was shortened debate, only 1 half hour and only on building 7 I believe. If Mr. Thomas is such a great mathematician then I'd like to see his formula that makes 8 stories of steel and concrete disappear to allow for freefall. Honestly, now that NIST has admitted it, I just cannot understand how they can keep trying to defend it. We'll see if he has anything new, but I doubt it.

peace all


Thanks for posting the

Thanks for posting the details of the upcoming debate dtg86. It's actually mentioned at the bottom of the ae9/11truth article that you posted.

Here is an article by that

Here is an article by that Dave Thomas character.

'How I Debated a 9/11 Truther and Survived'

"Gage then cites the supposed “freefall” speed as evidence that the towers were demolished with explosives. I mentioned this demonstration, citing it as an excellent example of pseudoscience."

Notice that he placed the word "free fall" in quotes as if it were a lie?

Didn't NIST already concede to the free fall speed of building 7?


'NIST Admitted WTC-7 Accelerated at Freefall Speed'

Is Mr. Thomas challenging the main line official version that even NIST is agreeing to? Maybe he'll be arguing in favor of the existence of chupacabras next?

NIST did concede freefall..

and I am certain Mr. Thomas will do everything he can to minimize its importance, but he cannot deny it. It is irrefutable at this point. Notice in his article you posted that he could only paint RG's claims with a "psuedoscience" term and not really address each issue. This is very common defenders. The totality of the evidence easily overwhelms defenders and they fall back to this method. I suspect we will hear much of the same. If I were RG, I would use his math background against him by forcing him to adhere or disagree with fundamental equations and laws of physics. This happened with Dr Greening in an online forum debate and he was faced the futility of his position and finally said "the laws of physics do not apply in a falling building" The probability calculations alone off the charts and could be used to pile on.

I don't know anything about Ian Punnet and not sure why George Noory himself is not involved in such an important topic. I presume RG will be ganged up upon and don't care for these types of debates. I prefer the panel type debate that will be coming up at the National Press Club.

As for chupacabras, they DO exist! In fact, one of them has my left hand and now there is only a hook in the space where my left hand used to be. I will be avenged.

peace to all,

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent." Gore Vidal

I've heard Ian Punnet

talk very negatively about 911 Truth. Don't want to prejudge, but we'll have to see how fairly he conducts the debate. Just having Gage on a show with that big an audience is a help.

I've never liked Ian Punnett.

I've never liked Ian Punnett. He has such a massive ego and inflated sense of self importance. He tends to get very defensive over his Christian conservative/political views and just about everything else. He despises being proven wrong and he's very sensitive when someone disagrees with him. I've heard him get very snotty with callers with almost no justification. I've had some heated e-mail exchanges with him myself. He does seem to follow in the foot steps of Art Bell in labeling truthers as "wing nuts". George Noory is the best of that show.

Ian Collins talks about conspiracy theories

British radio last night (8th August).

It is in 3 1hr sections and starts 6mins 20.

He starts off with David Aaronovitch...




David Aaronovitch is pathetic. Listen to the con man use all the

David Aaronovitch is pathetic. Listen (if you can stand it) to the con man use all the tools in the propagandist's toolbox.

excellent article. . .

. . . the kind that can pull in people addicted to mainstream media, and make them aware of the importance of 9/11 truth.

I am thrilled to see this in a newspaper.

It is wonderful to see that the HeraldTimes published this.
Every dissemination action adds up.
As we repeat the message, more people will look.

I love letters to the editor...

This particular paper has a circulation of over 28,000 according to this

I just called them and she said their circulation is over 20,000 during the week and jumps up to around 40,000 on the weekends when they cover more area (suburbs). This also doesn't take into account the online readership I doubt.

Confirmed here: http://www.bloomingpedia.org/wiki/Herald_Times

Plus this was published in the Sunday edition so that means over 40,000 people had access to this information. Very cool.

Guest Columnist

I love letters to the editor too, but this is even more prestigious, as Kevin was a guest columnist. Better profile and able to exceed the 300 word limit.

Great outreach letter to the public. Also remember that readership is greater than circulation. My Greenville, NC paper has about 22,000 circulation but estimated 2.2 readers per copy.

* I'm still pushing for National LTE Day. If thousands of us submit a pre-written sample letter to our local papers, many could be published by the anniversary.


Good points.

We can all do this.


Such a great, succinct story going out to over 40,000 is indeed extremely cool.

What is the "Buskirk Chumley"? RL? Kevin? Any Bloomingtonians?

An odd, fun little appelation that.

The Buskirk Chumley is a Theater

The Buskirk Chumley is a Theater http://www.buskirkchumley.org/