Daily Show's Jon Stewart's Talk & Book Signing interrupted by "9.11 truthers" in NYC! Jon, "I can't handle it..."

Daily Show's Jon Stewart's Talk & Book Signing interrupted by "9.11 truthers" in NYC! Jon, "I can't handle it..."

by Priya Warcry on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 7:49pm

On a rainy dark night, I crammed into a standing room only Barnes in Nobles near Union Sq. in NYC to hear The Daily Show's Jon Stewart who appeared with his cast of writers & their new book "Earth: The Book: A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race." Jon was to speak and answer audience questions. While most questions seemed fairly benign, a couple of people started asking more challenging questions about the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Jon’s response was revealing.

After being introduced, Jon apologized for "looking like a homeless person" and "wearing a waffle t-shirt", adding, "my mom would nag me about what I’m wearing." When asked about their job, Jon's writers described the writing process as "drinking from a cup of sadness" as they watch the news In the morning, and viewed their job as "a catharsis because we take shit and turn it into...” Jon interrupts with, "turds of wisdom." The writer continues, "like a reverse digestion."

That described perfectly how I'd been feeling as a writer and an independent journalist forced to process the psychosis & sociopaths in my world and produce a usable nutrient, like an alchemist turns "lead into gold."

Jon then announced his upcoming rally in D.C called, "The Rally to Restore Sanity" which he invited us all to attend. I wondered how we could restore something that never existed in the first place. Jon then mentioned he had Bill O'Reilly on his show earlier in the day, which elicited some groans from the audience. "Some might call this a big Communist meeting" Jon responded to the big packed crowd. I glanced around the room at people I might not feel I had much in common with passing on the street. However, as Jon spoke I noticed that humor danced on their faces leaving a smile as if a ray of sunshine had broken thru the clouds to touch warmly and even from a great distance, intimately. Though we were strangers to each other, we smiled and giggled from time to time while Jon spoke as if we were being tickled by invisible angels whose sole job was to uplift us.

Based on his coverage of anarchist actions at protests, I felt Jon was at least an anarchist sympathizer. I knew that he didn't demonize us and though he did make fun of us, at least he gave us some coverage unlike the rest of the media, which he skewed, mocked, shredded, eviscerated and ridiculed on a daily basis, while draining it of all credibility. The "system or establishment" media tries to make itself look authoritative, credible and all knowing and valid. To tear away that facade, albeit with humor, is still a powerful political statement, although Jon maintains, "we are just a comedy show."

A woman with an exotic eastern European accent asked, "you are taken more seriously than CNN, but what does that say about this country?" Jon said, "I almost thought you were giving me a compliment, but you sure took that around the corner." He then mimicked her accent with, "you Americans are pathetic, I vill keel you!" Of course, I wasn't the only one who was amused by that. Even from all the way in the back in the religion section, where I had to stand on a number of religious texts to see anything at all. Sorry Deepak Chopra!

Suddenly, someone yelled out, "what about 9.11!? There was never a credible investigation! How can you believe the lie?!" Jon responded with, "I'm a (inaudible) ...because I think Al-Queda did it?" The same person or another, (I'm not sure, I was so far in the back) said something in response, and someone asked Jon, "what about building 7!" (In reference, to WTC building 7, which was a nearby building, which fell at free fall speed despite not being struck with any planes or significant debris.). Jon responded, "well, I'm not an engineer..." to which I thought, "Jon, I MUST introduce you to an engineer, who can tell you a lot about controlled demolitions and how the WTC towers were brought down." I hope Jon Stewart will meet Richard Gage, as I have!

Richard Gage is the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"

( http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html ) where 1322 verified architectural and engineering professionals" signed a petition "demanding Congress" conduct "a truly independent investigation." Jon would learn as as millions have, that "no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. In modern history " The hard science behind the research is impossible to deny. Gage’s website says “Getting buildings to fall vertically (i.e.: symmetrically about their vertical axes) is what the art and science of controlled demolition are all about…It is inconceivable that any random event or combination of events, such as aircraft collisions, fires, or fuel tank explosions, could cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns in a building -- especially a tall steel-framed building…”

This following excerpt is from the website 911research.org.

“In fifteen seconds the huge permanent steel structure of the South Tower disintegrated from top to bottom into an exploding cloud of rubble and dust. Twenty-nine minutes later the North Tower underwent the same process. Do buildings really fall through themselves like that, turning to dust in seconds? Is that really supposed to happen to a steel structure because of impacts and fires near the top? Perhaps not too many people were asking such questions because none of the series of events leading up to that were supposed to happen. We witnessed an increasingly improbable series of events, from a hijacking with knives, to a jet hitting a World Trade Center Tower, to multiple hijackings, to a second jet hitting the other Tower, to yet more hijackings, and a plane hitting the heart of the nation's military establishment. Each event in this series was more improbable than the last. So by the time we got to the collapsing skyscrapers part, we were conditioned to expect the unbelievable.” http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

Since, the 9.11.01 attacks, much independent research by credible professionals has made it impossible to swallow the lie for millions around the world as this impressive and compelling body of evidence is impossible to turn away from. However, many refuse to “even go there” or examine the available evidence, be it scientific, eye witness (many cops, firemen, medics and other first responders report hearing both subterranean and internal explosions prior to the collapse of the WTC towers) or the meticulously assembled information from government & military insiders, scientists, etc.

After Jon said, “I’m not an engineer…” he paused as police rushed towards the activist who kept trying to talk. Jon then said, “if you stop interrupting you can stay. Did you at least by a book?” The audience nervously tittered. As the activist quieted down, Jon then said in a hilarious tone, “any more 9.11 questions?” to which I said loudly and supportively, “yeah!” Jon looked up, but I was too far in the back for him to see me. What Jon Stewart said then was extremely telling. “You know what it is folks? I live down there and its too traumatic… even now.” I knew what he meant. During the ninth anniversary of the 9.11.01 attacks a few weeks earlier, a survivor told me, “some of us still haven’t been down to ground zero. Its still too much for us…” One mother, who had lost her son, braved the effects of her trauma and went down to ground zero for the first time on 9.11.09.

As someone who lived only a few blocks away and in “the zone” that had been initially sealed off by the National Guard in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, I would never forget the hundreds of fliers posted around our hometown with faces of husbands, children, wives, some of poor immigrants… as families searched in vain for their loved ones. Left with only each other to console. At the time, I was an intern at Democracy Now!. Though “shocked and awed” at first by the attacks, many eventually refused to believe the Bush/Cheney explanation and narrative and launched an independent investigation into a crime of such great magnitude that none of us expected or expected to be witnesses to. What we found is indisputable and irrefutable evidence that leads us to Dick Cheney’s door. Michael Ruppert who wrote “The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil” has said of the attacks that, “this is a crime that is prosecutable in court…”

Trauma however, is not about logic and argument and analysis. It is a severe psychological and emotional injury. Trauma is a word of Greek origin, which means, “wound” as in “our wounds are still raw and still hurt.” Jon actually said, “I still cannot handle it.”

Since those attacks, those seeking the truth about 9.11 have included many survivors, Fire department personnel, military personnel, scientific professionals, credible long time investigative journalists, and inneumarable “ordinary” citizens. Some are “patriots” and some are “anarchists”. Sometimes we don’t have much in common, and other times, we share a burning desire to know the truth and spit out the lie that makes us sick. We are forced to “handle” the truth. We are sometimes attacked and ridiculed, but we silence is not an option nor do we apologize for seeking and speaking the truth because of the 3000 plus dead people who died in the attacks, cannot ask questions. That is for the living to do. Us! We will not be silenced like they were. In Jon’s own words, “some things you cannot joke about.”

“Do not censor yourself! Death is the final silence!” – Audre Lorde.

On his show taped earlier that evening, Jon had said, “buy my book or burn my book! Go ahead I want you to burn my book! If you don’t the terrorists win!” Of course that kind of humor resonates with anarchists. I would tell Jon that letting the “official” lie of 9.11.01 go unchallenged without a credible investigation into the crime of the century would also be “letting the terrorists win”. The only thing “funny” to me about this was how much denial and emotion kept people from objectively “handling” the truth.

My fellow independent journalist, Brad Will, also an anarchist, was murdered in Oaxaca, Mexico in October 2006 while filming a protest. I know first hand that murder investigations take a long time and are very complicated. If that is the case in the murder of an individual, how could it not be all that much more complicated and difficult in a crime of the magnitude of the 9.11.01 attacks? We must not be dismissive and flippant when it comes to the work of thousands sincere individuals who are seeking to expose the lie - especially a lie that has allowed this government to justify so much war and terrorism.

‎"If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? I think I know some people in that category. Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day? Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil?" - Shelton Lankford, Lt. Col. USMC, Ret. - Statement in NYSpeaking on behalf of the newly formed "US Military Officers for 9/11 Truth", Lankfor noted, "As a pilot, I recognize that there are many aspects of the officially approved conspiracy theory of 9/11 that are incredible in the most literal sense of that word" - Col. Lankford

Certainly as an anarchist, government evil & State terrorism is not a hard thing for us to believe. Sadly, most anarchists dropped the ball on this issue. Before the evening ended, Jon said, “Well I don’t want to end on a weird note. How about we all go wilding thru the streets? How about it? Is this not a wilding crowd? Is this a literary crowd? Ok, maybe we can discuss Pynchon while wilding,…” Of course, I thought, “damn straight we’re a wilding crowd, or at least some of us…” Being an out of work writer, I couldn’t afford a book, so I opened the cover to quickly peruse the contents and in the first chapter it said, “John Donne said, “no man is an island” and Jean Paul Sartre said, “Hell is other people” and the story of humanity lies somewhere in between…” That pretty much summed up my human experience, as I slipped back out into the rainy dark September night.

See my recent article with Danish Scientist Dr. Neils Harrit.

"The Last Nail In the 9/11 Coffin" - Danish Scientist Proves the World Trade Center was “brought down by mixture of explosives" http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=431877219182

Folks in this thread have nailed it well

We are bringing up a traumatic event which most people. Even though they hear about it on the news everyday as an excuse for EVERYTHING, thinking about ones own knowledge and experience of the actual event is very difficult. This is very easy to forget especially after studying the truth and getting more comfortable with speaking about it over the years. We must constantly remind ourselves of this if we are to spread ideas about such a traumatic event. I started a facebook post I did last sept. 11th by saying that I understand if folks don't wanna think about 9/11 (said this in a nicer way of course) or explore more deeply into proving what they know about the event. Starting with this message got me loads and loads of positive responses, for I established a common ground with those who are skeptical of 9/11 Truth's position. I also have had alot of success, especially the last year, with initially apologizing for the audacious and obnoxious characters that people might have experienced regarding 9/11 Truth in the past. The idea's that most people and the most of the MSM have about 9/11 truth and 9/11 truthers involve the most extreme fringe elements and people who were ever involved with 9/11 truth. This is why we must continue to present ourselves in an inviting and warm approach to our spreading of information. Our approach should actually be like that of one who is speaking with someone who has just lost a family member. The fact that folks on some level are willing to listen to us question a very traumatic experience in their life, means that we must mutually respect the deepest level of bereavement which skeptics often require.

Remember the words of Jack Nicholson?

The Truth? You can't Handle the Truth!

Stewart could barely handle talking to B O'reily

he's only 5'5 in real life.

But I like that people are pressuring him.

He needs to have Richard Gage on his show.

let's be gentle... "The Truth is Not Enough"

Cindy Sheehan has described how some activists were obnoxious in telling her about 9/11 Truth.

It sounds to me as if Stewart is not acting as a gatekeeper, consciously.

I was a committed 9/11 activist for 2 years, with the goal to tell my fellow citizens about it everyday, wake up one person per day.

I didn't live in NYC.

When I moved back to NYC and went down to Ground Zero, I looked up to Building 7 and imagined that turning into powder in 7 seconds. I was scared shitless, physically. And this is after I was putting out publicly that I am "Building 7 of Hiphop", ie the one you don't know about, the one that's not in the media, and I'm one (of many) within whom Barry Jennings' spirit resides.

It sounds as if he has physical fear about it because he lives in the area. I agree with a recent article that suggests that Stewart and Colbert are at least being used to help NeoCons rebuild their public image and sell books. And, this is not an 'either-or', it's a "both, AND"... He probably knows the Truth and is in a shock-induced trance (as Richard Gage has described) as each of us were in after this psyop of all psyops. Please join me in this call for Compassion and gentleness. I recommend Visibility 9/11's interview with Ken Jenkins on "Staying Reasonable with 9/11 Truth". http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=608026

There are many benefits to us if he comes out in support for 9/11 Truth. Let's not throw out the baby (the individual) with the bathwater.... as a Human being, Jon Stewart has a right to his own Self and his own relationship to what 9/11 means to him... we're not inside his brain, he has his own Conscience.

I think that to demand that Stewart think as we do and stand with us is not right. He has a right to his opinion and I believe it sounds like he is being honest with the 9/11 Truth Movement in saying that he is still traumatized.

That Neocons must come on his show and traumatize him more... that might not be a battle we can really win. He has a right to his own Creative process and a right to his privacy and he can change that himself. Look at Bill Hick's example after the Letterman debacle. See this video for a rare interview to get what I mean... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2659597603744899891&hl=en#docid=...

Also, to put so much weight on any one person's embracing of 9/11 Truth can be very counterproductive if it ends up hurting that person. In that case it would obviously be immoral and unethical. In hoping to expose the truth so as to prevent illegal war and torture, let us not condone people being tortured psychologically by any activist in order to extract from them a confession that they find 9/11 Truth to be the real deal... "Veee have vays of making you talk... etc"

Let Jon Stewart have the Human Right of being able to have his own process...

And maybe the next time he has an event like this, the next time someone wants to talk to him, have a copy of Ken Jenkins' seminal article "The Truth is Not Enough" printed out, ready to give him, and explain that you are giving it to him in the spirit of empathy.

Humanity will win.

Jenkins' article...
The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth by Ken Jenkins

[this comment has been edited to remove the text of the above article; excerpts from articles are fine, if they're on topic and being used to support a point, but don't use comments to post entire articles - loose nuke]


"Cindy Sheehan has described how some activists were obnoxious in telling her about 9/11 Truth."

Would you post the source please?


i watched her and filmed her saying this at a We Are Change event (earlier this year) and have not released the footage...
she said this (I think) the other day when she spoke before the 9/11 "How our lives have changed" event" ..

i believe it 's on there . whenever she's talked about 9/11 on her radio show for the most part she always describes how people would ask her "did you see Loose Change".

In my opinion, what she's saying is that she felt like she was being objectified in the minds of certain activists...
"oh, I've got to MAKE SURE i speak truth to power ".
this is admirable, but the vibe I got from Cindy is that she was saying that the people she described saw her as a resource that they could use to get the truth out rather than as a person.



yo, I just discovered that

yo, I just discovered that you had replied to my previous post about ae911 Truth /3rd beam.
here's a link to it so you can read it.... I'm new to the forum and don't know if I reply today whether anyone will go back and see what I wrote, If someone can enlighten me to the wisdom of my thinking in this matter I would be delighted.


I checked it out

We probably have plenty in common. :)

pachamama, can you explain in

pachamama, can you explain it in much greater detail the next time?

Why? I note the irony...

Why? I note the irony... Pachamama is a name for "Mother Earth". By definition of the Schuar concept of that word, pachamama by defintion explains everything in Greater (ie divine) detail.

911 rtuth is not all of truth

In terms of Jon Stewart acting as a gatekeeper, I’m certainly in agreement with your conclusion that he is not, but for me, this is because of the legitimate alternative motives that he/they may reasonably have. Everybody has got to eat. Can truthers imagine what would happen to the Daily Show if they did go 911 truth in the mainstream? It would polarize a percentage of their existing audience. Advertisers could pull out. Since the Daily Show is referenced by just about every other news source, the show itself may have to be ridiculed, attacked and vilified by all the big cats and rolling on down the hill.

Every truther needs to learn how to do well without the reliable societal infrastructure of government and media to do well for them. What in US history compares to contemporary affairs, specifically in how a huge growing segment of the population to pull away from trust in all of it and to each actively conduct their own investigations? I can’t think of any examples, but we do have to learn how to do government and media (and perhaps civil engineering) as best we can as individuals and as a movement, in spite of the fact that we are not all arriving as professionals in these areas. We come for justice, where the parties normally responsible for doing so are not doing so.

And I will chime in with you on this; that truthers, indeed anyone, is overstepping their bounds by striking out at those who do not participate in it, never mind going so far as to suggest that a party does not have its own affairs to oversee, inclusive of everything that they need to accomplish in them, never mind ours! This is a free country (or so we like to say).

I’d be damned if you did this to me. To some extent, and under many circumstances, I am the boss of my life, and I practice discretion where I feel that it is most important to do so everywhere I go. In the case of the Daily Show, I think it has been trying to maintain itself as comedy, like where the audience laughs, and such that it is not a news show, which Jon Stewart has stated countless times over the years there and in interviews on other shows. Perhaps we should take into account also, that perhaps he has been having to defend himself in running a comedy show when on interviews and asked about his seriousness or quality of news coverage. It is a popular mistake, no doubt due to the quality of the news this show actually does have.

There is no pact between Jon Stewart and the 911 truth movement. Let us learn about solidarity, and stay inside the movement, and stick to stated contracts between agreeing parties. This includes contracts made by public statements, such as the recent statement by Cindy Sheehan. All of this having been said, the author of this article is giving us a prime example of the kinds of moves being discussed herein. Were it mainstream, I would think it was like Tokyo Rose. I find this article off in where it may frame Stewart as someone with a position in a 911 truth war. That is over the line, and it also may add opposition for me as an individual who may be affiliated with 911 truth and so as such I may even find my own self as one who is being marginalized. You have no idea how I operate as an individual, or what I am doing, and you and I have no stated agreements as to what we will do. Everyone is learning here and courageously so, so please consider this as food for thought. Consider the possibility that wrongful truther behavior in general could conceivably put certain people out. This is a movement that will gain from learning how to do it all stately-like, you see? Stick to the movement itself, and to that of which it is comprised.

I’m sure the most difficult aspect of putting this right in the head is the mind-twisting fact that the Daily Show is a comedy. It went and became news in effect for many people, but it is not. They cannot be asked to contractually meet the obligations of making such a claim. Conversely, if it is a regular news source, then shame on them for not reporting the news. I know that I have found myself on occasion at least feeling some sense of disappointment when news I wanted on the Daily Show wasn’t there (sigh).

If a truther wants a recruit, show them how to put their hands together and pray, and draw the line there. In the case of the daily show, we do not have the facts of how they may be operating internally, inclusive of so many variables. I think that they help a great deal in contemporary affairs in general. Perhaps even to say that they help this movement by lending so much valuable support to anti-mainstream sentiment in general. As I say, a party may practice its own discretion, as it sees things, to get to what they see as a good end goal and by way of a good road for them to get there. They may also be stupid; that is every American’s freedom.

You know, in writing this, I feel like thoughts are being drafted on how to be organized as a movement, and perhaps even to discuss training or by-laws, such as with the nature of the articles you reference, pachamama.

Herein, I would like to include a link in support of the position that Jon Stewart knows how to show compassion for a 911 topic and not in support of the government. This is a great skit, and I think it’s the kind of material that the American audience can love, and walk away from without having produced polarization, war or reservations within its own audience in the process. Maybe those are some of the things they think about.

Here’s the video, from August 5th, 2010:
(10 1/2 minutes)

Add: Try it this way

Think of 911 truth and the US federal govt as the American colonists and the British having a war. Pretend that the Daily Show is France, and that the Americans would like to gain their support. Where the Daily Show may be a powerful force, we would certainly like to have them as an ally. Wouldn't that be great? Let's be Benjamin Franklin, who was the greatest diplomat in the world in his day, and who secured the alliance with the French.

So, perhaps people should work positively in such a way as to attempt to create such an alliance. I find some of the facts of this case the kind that I have no trouble whatsoever saying in front of anyone. Such comments fly very hard in the face of the official story, but which do not bring opposition back upon me.

For example, the FBI states they have no evidence linking OBL or al qaeda to 911. Lots of good facts on this here....

Saying so pits the person's mind against their own authority. Use their brain to figure it out, because that problem will have to stick in their minds. It's their FBI. In fact, I would recommend this as information to get along to the Daily Show, as comments or input. In bringing this simple fact to bear in yahoo news discussions, it's the most censored fact I've tried to add there in the comments section. This has also been the heart attack fact in a few exchanges I've had with 911 truth opposition. Let their subconscious minds sit there and work on their own internal conflicts that result from it.

In fact, quoting the govt and stating the govt position really takes the fight off of me, because it means the person will have to have a problem with their govt (and as it should be). I'll be the messenger for that, and I'll do it all day.

Perhaps it is true that if the Daily Show had been prepared for Ahmadinejad's most recent public remark calling for a new investigation, great comedy could have coome from it, but they would need to be armed with the above information, and to attack it that way in order to avoid creating opposition and war in their own audience. Let people fight their own wars within their own minds.

I think the Daily Show could stay out of harm's way with their own audience by citing the lack of evidence, or of how bad that is. They don't have to state a position, just as no good news organization should either. They are not for opinions, they are for facts, so that the audience can form their own opinions.

Hopefully we can get video of this...


I found this that might be related.

Why Burn When You Can Shoot? Books, that is...

Ugh? Someone did

Ugh? Someone did censorship....can fix.

"Attacked by the Left. Attacked by the Right."

Quote from "The Court Jester and 9.11 Truth":

Another commenter on the site pointed out that one of The Daily Show’s staff writers – Kevin Bleyer – has contributed material to President Obama’s speeches and is a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Bleyer is also a Truman National Security fellow and one of the founding contributors to The Huffington Post, a site which strictly forbids questioning of 9/11. In the past, Bleyer has worked with Bill Maher and Dennis Miller, two other comedians who have regularly disparaged 9/11 activists. Surely this is all just a coincidence, but one that’s interesting enough to note.

What is it about 9/11 and its unanswered questions that makes it so hard for mainstream journalists, media figures and even comedians to address it in an honest, straightforward manner? Is it because if it became common, verified knowledge that we were lied to about those attacks that changed the world and launched us into endless war, the establishment would be too threatened? Would too many comfortable jobs would be lost?

Is this all about cowardice and greed?


"there is no such thing as coincidence..."

...some say. i wouldn't go that far but coincidences are to be distrusted.

to test whether a coincidence is in play, it's often helpful to ask "if it's not a coincidence, then what is it?"

here the passage mentioned (thanks stewball!) says, "The Daily Show’s staff writers – Kevin Bleyer – has contributed material to President Obama’s speeches and is a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Bleyer is also a Truman National Security fellow and one of the founding contributors to The Huffington Post, a site which strictly forbids questioning of 9/11. In the past, Bleyer has worked with Bill Maher and Dennis Miller, two other comedians who have regularly disparaged 9/11 activists. Surely this is all just a coincidence..."

i wouldn't be so sure. if the facts given about bleyer are true, i'd say the commenter is onto something. as pointed out, the common denominator among those mentioned is their mockery of 9/11 truth. coincidence? well, let’s see...if it’s not a coincidence, then what is it?

my take is that what we're getting here is a behind-the scenes validation that the entities mentioned are indeed left wing gatekeepers. no way bleyer’s connections are “by accident.” this scenario rings more as a tipoff that stewart, huffington, maher and miller are being kept in place as left wing gatekeepers.

At one point

on his radio show, Ed Schultz said discussing 9/11/01 Truth is a "career killer".

good article, Simuvac, and solid activism...

It's heartening to hear such a responsible voice from the left side of the political spectrum respectfully challenging Jon Stewart on his 9/11 blind spot. And you got an honest--that is, a HUMAN--answer from him!

We have to remember, and I think this speaks to Cindy Sheehan's observation that we can come across as obnoxious or strident (and we all have at times, no?), that in addressing 9/11 critically we are in effect confronting people with the original trauma of that event. We are essentially asking them to re-experience the wound which 9/11 inflicted upon us all. If some of us are readier than others to confront that trauma, perhaps that owes to our having dealt with more of it in our own lives than some other people have... Again, perhaps.

But if so, our experience entails the responsibility to modulate our approach until it reaches a frequency that doesn't threaten. (Something you appear to have succeeded at admirably with Mr. Stewart, Simuvac.) We must continue to seek a dialogue with those who might or can listen, rather than be satisfied with a rant against those who cannot. That is certainly something I have had to work on, as any number of beleaguered friends can attest...friends, I might add, who finally all sense, thanks to the patience that is a reflection of my love and respect for them, that there really IS something terribly wrong with the official story of 9/11.

The good news is that we ARE gaining ground. We are, as even Stanley Fish admits in the New York Times of all places, the folks next door, next to you in line, the stranger looking you in the eye. As polls suggest, and as responses on the street tend to support, roughly one in three Americans gets that something is up with 9/11, and a lot more appear to sense, however uncomfortably, that there could be something to what all us "troofers" keep nagging at. And THAT is progress.

We are the ones who can handle the ridicule, and still come back, time and time again, with all that annoying evidence, all those annoying facts, all the glaring contradictions in the official story, and all the incriminating items littering the public record. Let us also be the ones who, even in the face of threats and mockery, are able to remain respectful, and to keep our sense of humor. Especially in the face of the tragedy confronting us. As the saying goes, "laugh hard at the absurdly evil." It hates that.

Maybe Jon Stewart will learn how to take on the evil of 9/11, rather than remain in his wounded state. Then we can all think he's funny again.

No expectations for Stewart

The only thing I expect from Jon Stewart is to stay well within the bounds of what's considered acceptable at Comedy Central. He aned Colbert (and others on the media's version of 'the left') are employed to act as a counter to the O'Reilly Hannity Beck types, to create the illusion that Democrats and Republicans are soooooooooooo different from each other. And activists who expose all this as a charade and criticize both corporate war parties are, accordingly, a threat to this endeavor--and so, need to be attacked.

There are some people who will put their careers on the line for the sake of some higher good. I don't see Jon Stewart as one of those people. In that respect, I see him as being like most everyone else in the media.

Of course polite is always better than impolite. But let's not have false expectations. Let's not kid ourselves that, if we're nice enough and get him enough information, he'll come out for 9/11 truth someday. The day that someone can do that and still keep their job on a major cable or network channel will be AFTER the truth has already spread far and wide, in spite and not because of shows like 'The Daily Show.'

I really don't see that Jon Stewart should be mentioned in the same breath as Cindy Sheehan.

What he really said

What Jon said was a little different from the quote, it turns out, as I found on a video of the event. I added a comment explaining the details in a new thread here: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-26/buildingwhat-tv-ad-air-one-week-to...