I scanned through the comments at Truthout , I am not familiar with their work but R.L. McGee intimates that they are gatekeepers when he compares them to another publication by stating: "another 9/11 truth censor, Counterpunch, ...." This perplexed me because I found the comments quite supportive of the Truth side leaving me to believe that Truthout was holding out on their readers. What I find perplexing about that is not that they would gate-keep but the overwhelming attitude of the readers is so out of step with the editorial policy that it seems that the readers could and would somehow be able to reshape it. It is one thing to have a CNN or something, with a three minute segment on Iran, another on floods in Bangladesh, and yet another on a hurricane in Texas; in that example it is easy to steer around the truth because the whole show moves on a careening path. But to have a publication aimed at telling the truth and a majority of readers who know what that is and still have that publication avoid it seems,to me, a little odd. No, I am not naive and I know that censorship happens all the time but here we are talking about what in the industry is called a single focus magazine and the lack of 9/11 Truth content would be readily apparent. Probably many issues of Time go by without a blurb about Lady Gaga but if she were not mentioned in Variety or Billboard this would readily be apparent in the breach.

Inching Toward A Brick Wall of Huh???

One of the things that I did notice on the Truthout comments which bears discussion is 9/11 Truth Orthodoxy . Everyone knows the argument: stay on the path or we'll lose our audience. The idea is that anything off the beaten path like: "we were attacked by the Planet Jupiter," will lead to exclusion from the central debate. By suggesting that Jupiter was behind it you have ostracized yourself because everyone knows that there is no life on Jupiter; or they don't have an Air Force, or they are in the Confederation or whatever. What is telling about these exchanges, and you can check me out, is that they are not rational but emotional. If you then suggest the towers were brought down by, say, distilled kitten piss from which electrons were removed from every third molecule, that too is verboten.

I have this condition, unfortunate for me, called benign positional vertigo . I can and sometimes do lose my bearings. One of the things that is unfortunate about it is that it can look just like agoraphobia. I can freak out in the grocery store and have to go home. A lot of conditions are like that, one masking the other. For example: what is the antecedent condition, Irish or alcoholic? What matters is that the first you can't do much about as it is mechanistic and locked perhaps within the Irish Modal Haplotype and the other, somewhat more complex, is riddled with behavior and social conventions. So, it is often difficult to unlock certain problems as they are masked by other obfuscating complexes.

Clue: game of...... I have a friend that loves board games. She thinks that they are a nice social outlet. I have to decline playing with her, and it makes me sad, because the games make me miserable to the extent that they will drive me to drink. This is because of vertigo. Looking down at the list you have to keep and then looking at the board repeatedly will trigger vertigo in me and it is very stressful. The solution to the game is quite discreet, it could be that: it was Professor Plum, in the Library, with the candlestick . For me the solution can turn emotional as it is dizzying for me to keep up with the list using a pencil stub and keeping up with other distractions. The answer, as I said, is discreet; yet to find the answer you have to repeatedly go through every iteration and to me every vertiginous iteration, all of which are wrong, until the conclusion. The errors are part of the game every solution save the ultimate is wrong and yet this in no way prevents the progress of the game but is part of it, part of the process.

Revealed: A Brick Wall of Huh???

Huh, what did you say? I was working in an auto factory. A woman from the paint department remarked at lunch on my Ziploc® bag that held my sandwich, the one with the colored Smart Snap® seal. This has a blue and yellow stripe and when sealed it turns green. "Watts, that," she said, and I explained it. Her response was: "de lawd! they must be somthin' to that!" (that is how they speak in Tennessee) And she worked in the paint department mixing colors some of which were quite subtle. So were you to put forth the proposition to her that 9/11 was an inside job you would probably get: "do watt?" (another genuine idiom). I'll see your five and raise you ten: In poker the outcome is also discreet, you are up or you down you win or you lose and your opponent may be bluffing; also you don't always know the truth if you fold. In an ideal world you could propose the Anionic Kitten Piss Theory and be met with a check or a bet as in poker; this we call discourse. I'll see your Kitten Piss and raise you a Jupiter Air Force. Noting wrong here, at least we are talking. That is an ideal world but in our little world... to borrow a phrase from the hack painter Bob Ross (requiem in pacet) that is not what you get. You get: "de lawd," or "huh" or "that's crazy talk." And here is the Brick Wall of Huh: SAT Reading Scores Are the Lowest They've Been in 40 Years. And of course once you tease out the negative influences that push these scores down, like class and income, you have to tease them back in again, if even arbitrarily, because you have to know: its true, huh!

Be sure to see the correction in thymesup's comment below.

MPBN has not yet agreed to show ESO. I got an email from people congratulating Lynn for having already lined this up. Sorry about that. Best of luck, Lynn.