Randi Rhodes & Paul Thompson Discuss ABC's "The Path To 9/11" - 9/12/2006

Not posting this to start an argument.

I firmly believe this is when we were our most "powerful" as a movement. We were still being ignored for the most part, the media and "debunkers" hadn't really had a chance yet to do their best to discredit us so we were still credible in MANY peoples eyes, Paul Thompson was still "the man," and a year later I wrote an article entitled "This Is Not The Controlled Demolition Movement" when we were being defined both from without and within as the movement that thinks the buildings were brought down in a "Controlled Demolition," and a "missile hit the Pentagon." Then, it was later terrorist sympathizers, holocaust denying murderers, anti-semites, and so on.

Another point can be made that "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families" was released in late 2007, and that barely got any attention, both without and within the "9/11 Truth Movement."

I figured out something...

The corporate news does. They NEVER (with exceptions I'm sure) give context to a story. This applies to everything, but I'll use 9/11 as an example. Let's say a report about 9/11 comes out that puts into question what we were told about 9/11 (if we're lucky enough). One thing the corporate news does is cover it for maybe a day or two (if we're lucky enough). That, in itself is horrible. However, without the context, the report that came out doesn't have the "oomph" it needs to really have an impact. Here's an "article released today by my friend that is all about context. That's all my "facts" piece is, other than giving people information.

Imagine if every time a report about 9/11 came out, and they went through some of why the 9/11 Commission can't be trusted. Or, showed an example of another lie about 9/11. Or, started with an acknowledgement that we were lied to about a great many things concerning 9/11. Those stories would have a greater impact than one without context.


Is a great piece of history.