Entire February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist Devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy: The Case of 9/11/2001
By Elizabeth Woodworth, Professional Librarian
For 50 years the American Behavioral Scientist has been a leading source of behavioral research for the academic world. Its influence is shown by the fact that it is indexed by an extraordinary 67 major database services, causing its papers to be widely exposed on the international scene.
The publisher, Sage, is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington DC.
Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic.
The six papers in the February 2010 issue are devoted to the recent concept of "State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD's)," with emphasis on 9/11 and on how human behavior has failed to recognize its reality. [Ref. abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6 ]
Original article at http://www.ae911truth.org/info/179
- ae911truth's blog
- Login to post comments
I'm taken aback
This is a remarkable development!
The arc of history IS long, but it bends toward justice.
It's a shame
It's a shame that much of this thread was steered off course. Having read these articles, I can say with confidence that this raises the work of our movement to a new level.
We are now moving beyond forensic evidence and getting solid intellectual traction in the process of exposing the underlying criminality responsible for 9/11.
The "State Crimes Against Democracy" (SCAD) construct alone is worth the read:
"This article examines the conceptual foundations, political context, and practical implications of research on state crimes against democracy (SCADs). The SCAD construct is designed to move beyond the debilitating, slipshod, and scattershot speculation of conspiracy theories by focusing inquiry on patterns in elite political criminality that reveal systemic weaknesses, institutional rivalries, and illicit networks." ("Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government," Lance deHaven-Smith)
Please don't post the papers on filesharing sites
it's been brought to 911blogger's attention that distributing these papers (i.e. via file-sharing sites) is a violation of copyright.
The papers can be accessed through many school's research databases, if you have access.
In addition, the publisher, Sage, is selling the issue for $24. (or papers can be downloaded individually for $25 ea.)
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6/
Thanks for your cooperation; comments with links to the filesharing sites are being removed or edited.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Highly recommended reading for all scholars and SCAD researchers
“Scholars who demure that 2 + 2 = 4 (i.e., the awesome intellectual silence making permissible the blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics in the World Trace Center Towers’ collapse) in fact serve a vital purpose: obscuring from judicious, democratic public review the arbitrary wishes of shadowy mandate and power. We may never know who or what, really, was responsible for 9/11, the Reichstag Fire, and like littered legacy of deception. But we will surely know who is responsible for not even trying to find out, for not safeguarding the secret doctrine that 2 + 2 = 4.”
These were the concluding words of Matthew T. Witt, (University of La Verne, California) in “”Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship”, American Behavioral Scientist 53 (6), quote on page 934.
I was a privileged early bird to be able to access these articles early on-line, printed them out, and read them from a book I made.
I second turboglo that this academic material raises our movement to a new level, not only in the US, but internationally. Please, if you can order the February issue, do so without delay, and present it /discuss it in many forums! The last time I saw such good work was issue 13 of Global Outlook: http://www.globaloutlook.ca/Store/Magazines/13/13_Executive_Summary.htm or, the scientific proof in Harrit’s et al Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
These are historic publications of our times!
Make them known!
Thank-you,
Dr Eric Beeth
Brussels, Belgium
www.mp911truth.org/#Beeth
"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)
Link doesn't work :(
Error
No file choosen.
Please choose a file you want to upload to RapidShare. You can get further information in our FAQ section.
your work is too popular
"This file is neither allocated to a Premium Account, or a Collector's Account, and can therefore only be downloaded 10 times.
This limit is reached.
To download this file, the uploader either needs to transfer this file into his/her Collector's Account, or upload the file again. The file can later be moved to a Collector's Account. The uploader just needs to click the delete link of the file to get further information."
Maybe we should support the publisher?
Our cause might be better served by supporting the publishers. From Elizabeth Woodworth I have this:
"It's now confirmed that the February edition is available in print, and can be ordered for $24 for the whole issue.
Contact SAGE Journals Customer Service department via e-mail at journals@sagepub.com or phone 1-800-818-7243 then hit #2, then #0 for operator, then ask for "Journals", and they will mail a copy.
Otherwise individual papers cost $25 to be viewed for one day, on the journal's website, and cannot be downloaded from it. (Because the pdf could be freely circulated if it were downloadable)."
Yes
This is really worth supporting.
I just ordered a copy
I just ordered a copy using the 800 number (above). It was pretty darn easy, and now I can feel good about supporting the publication, eh?
I just ordered a copy
I just ordered a copy using the 800 number (above). It was pretty darn easy, and now I can feel good about supporting the publication, eh?
2010 is young
and its ALREADY proving to be a dynamite year for 9/11 truth!
Furious AT The Silence On NORAD
Adam,
true, and it would be an even more impressive year if my shocker of an article on NORAD, Popular Mechanics magazine and The 9/11 Commission Report had been covered by the 9/11 Truth Community. They don't seem to care?
Do you have any observations as to why not one person in the 9/11 Truth Movement has commented on this find, and why the article was spiked?
I just don't get it, and I am furious at the silence!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I agree, the silence is infuriating ...
and frustrating ... not just for you personally, but for all of us trying to raise the issue and challenge state criminality.
Don't take it personally, all we can do is persevere and persist, stay strong, stay focused, keep plugging away ...
Your research and efforts - like all research and efforts by individuals and groups concerned with raising 9/11 truth - are valuable, effective and incredibly important.
"When people are confronted with evidence contradicting the U.S. official account of 9/11, it is unlikely that immediate, prolonged discussion and debate regarding evidence supporting alternative accounts will change people’s minds. However, the more the general public is presented with dissenting opinions, the more accessible to conscious processing that information becomes; such familiarity can translate into increased support for those dissenting opinions... An opinion is likely to be more widely shared the more [frequently that] different group members express it... Repeated exposure to an opinion increases the accessibility of the opinion in memory and results in a feeling of familiarity when the opinion is encountered again... Opinion repetition from one source can lead individuals to change their own attitude toward an issue."
Stay positive and keep up the good work.
Snobbism
johnscriv,
thanks for the comment. I've waited exactly one month for it!
What gets me is that the article also proves (using The 9/11 Commission Report itself!) that Popular Mechanics magazine and NORAD lied about NORAD's true monitoring capabilities on 9/11. One would think The 9/11 Truth Community would like to hear about that.
It 's just bewildering to me. Maybe it's simple snobbism; if David Ray Griffin had found the quotes I found in The 9/11 Commission Report admitting that NORAD was actively monitoring on radar Flights 77 and Delta 1989 and was looking for Flights 11 and 93 on their radar screens, then I'm sure the article would have been plastered all over the Internet.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I don't think it's snobbism
I understand the frustration you feel, Dean. It is very difficult to get ones voice heard on the issue of 9/11, there are so many obstacles and barriers to the truth movement, and we all know why that is. At the root of this problem are the criminal players and the corrupted system that permits their continued criminal activities by refusing to consider that these criminals even exist.
I don't think it helps to blame fellow truth activists who feel every bit as furious and frustrated as you do, simply because there is not a great response to your own personal efforts. We all have to deal with this sort of disappointment if we are making an effort to raise 9/11 truth.
I think your work is important, keep pushing it out there, don't get discouraged by unsatisfactory responses, these are what we get all the time and we can't let that get us down or we'll never prevail.
I think we need to show each other respect and appreciation for our collective efforts. Every little bit counts. Let's not forget that most of us are doing this simply because we believe it is vitally important to the health of our democracies, our human rights, civil liberties and the future our children will inherit, and for those innocent people in other countries who are suffering as a result of our govts' response to the crime of 9/11 ... we do this out of a sense of civic responsibility, not for personal kudos or financial gain.
But the truth movement is not a coherent, organised movement, it is an enormous, diverse, dispersed, loosely knit world wide coalition of like minded souls, all doing our best to make a difference, to have an impact, to challenge the stranglehold of official dogma, to expose the criminality that has infected the state and currently threatens humanity... we need to focus on supporting each other, not wasting our time and energy on fighting each other...
ACARS Article Was Posted In The NEWS Section Even Though...
johnscriv,
as I said to Danse in a reply to his comment below (he suggested I rewrite my article to the format suggested by LeftWright):
-- you mean like the traditional format in the article below?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22732#comment
Not to mention the broken English.
But don't get me wrong here, the content of the article from our Italian friend is one of the best I've read, but it's not traditional, and it takes a lot of concentration to understand, but I managed to comprehend it after an hour. I didn't care about the yellow and blue colors used to emphasize portions of quotes in the article. I got through the broken English just fine too. What was important to me was the CONTENT. Period." --
Now, according to LeftWright's arbitrary posting guidelines for inclusion to the NEWS section of 9/11 Blogger, the outstanding ACARS study article should have been posted in the BLOGS section, and I would have missed it. Thank God it was posted in the NEWS section because that article impacted the May 2008 article I wrote on Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Airport (http://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/oneofouraircraftisn%27tmissing).
The ACARS study shows TWO Flight 93s in the air. After some conversation with Woody Box on this matter, it hit me that on 9/11 there were standby aircraft at other airports that were to be used in case the primary aircraft couldn't take off due to a mechanical failure, sick passenger/disruptive passenger, or a flight delay caused by other aircraft that were delayed. Now my article on Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Airport makes more sense to me.
If you remember, last year I commented here on 9/11 Blogger that I believed that Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 took off from military airfields because military airfields could control for unforeseen complications as discussed above. However, using standby aircraft would do the job just as well. For example, if Flight 77 couldn't take off from Dulles Airport, then the standby aircraft at another airport would take its place.
When you think about it, the planners of the 9/11 attacks would have had to have employed standby aircraft at different airports just in case the aircraft at the primary airport couldn't take off.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Constructive (hopefully) feedback
Hi Dean,
When you first published the NORAD papers IV article, I went to look at it and read through it. Honestly, it didn't have as big of an impact for me as I was expecting (after having seen your comments in various places in the days leading up to the publish date).
I've been seeing your concerns expressed several times in the past few days in other comments, so I decided to go back and have another look at the information you published in hopes of providing you some feedback that you could use to maybe have a deeper impact on people.
Anyway, after going back to your site for the second time, the biggest takeaway I got from the information is that, based on the 9/11 commission report itself, one can infer that
1. Popular Mechanics was lying about whether or not NORAD was looking "inwards" on 9/11
2. NORAD spokesperson Douglas Martin was also lying when he stated the radar tracking was like a donut
My next takeaway is that you're asserting that these two items together imply that there was a grand conspiracy to cover up the true nature of NORAD's mission.
I hope I'm right about the big takaways. If I'm not, then that might be a red flag for you - if I don't "get it" then maybe others aren't either.
Anyway, assuming that I understood the points you were trying to make, let me make a few comments...
The first comment is that for whatever reason, I had to read your publication three or four times to get this takeaway. The first time I read it several weeks back, I can remember not getting it at all. Now I know I'm not that smart, so it may take longer for me to get the point than other people, but I do think that there must be something you could do to "connect the dots" more efficiently. I don't have much good advice on how to improve that however.
My second comment is that, at least from my experience, the biggest misconception that most non-truthers have about NORAD and the military response is that it was just a big screwup and that any lies told by NORAD are just to cover for their screwups. Given that, I would guess that most non-truther people would discount the statements by Douglas Martin as just CYA and possibly just being ignorant of the FAA radar situation.
The third comment I wanted to make is that I think you need to elaborate a little bit more on how you established the truth of the pseudo-mathematical statement:
LIED(popular mechanics) AND LIED(Douglas Martin) => GRAND_CONSPIRACY(911)
The way it stands, I don't feel like you made a bullet-proof case that
1. PopMech lied (rather than possibly being "innocently" misinformed)
2. Douglas Martin lied (again, possibly he was just a misinformed spokesman)
3. That the combination of these two implies that was a grand conspiracy to cover up criminal malfeasance in 911
Without providing a more clear/well-explained series of logical implications, that people can follow along with, I think people (however incorrect they might be) will automatically and subconsciously lump your statements into "raving-lunatic" category.
Please don't take my comments as a rebuttal of your publication or of your fundamental points. Rather, I'm interested in:
1) Seeing you not be frustrated by what you perceive to be a deafening silence
2) Seeing if you can provide a more easily understandable and defensible explanation of why your findings are so important so that I and others can more easily use this information to help us further the cause of truth.
Ditto for me
I admit I have had trouble really grasping where you were going with the article. Despite that, I linked to it from my blog, since my general sense was that it was important.
Still, you might consider rewriting to make it clearer to someone who has not looked much at that area of 9/11. Sure, I am not always that fast on the uptake, but probably you need to give more background in the article. I know that you have been working on it in your other articles, but to topic has not been a hot button for me so I have not looked as hard as I have at WTC7.
I do appreciate that you are putting in a great effort, and in no way am I belittling your work. I just need an explanation of what you think is going on that is clearer to me. Doubtless other have the same take on it.
Regards
Now I'm No Longer Furious, I'm Just In Shock
mikezimmer,
my article clearly says that the official narrative on NORAD is that NORAD couldn't monitor United States airspace. I even quoted NORAD and Popular Mechanics magazine to make that clear. I would think by now everyone who is active in The 9/11 Truth Movement knows what the official narrative on NORAD is!
My article then, for the first time, quotes previously unnoticed passages in (of all places, and this is the big shocker) The 9/11 Commission Report itself that affirms that NORAD did monitor, on radar, hijacked aircraft that originated within the United States on 9/11. It's a huge find, and I'm shocked you didn't get it!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Probably others did not get it as well
Dean,
Please don't be shocked. Reflect on why people might not have fully grasped your point - and maybe don't see the implications as clearly as you do. Note I am not denying the implications, just saying that for me personally it did not come out. Perhaps only a failure of my imagination and reading comprehension, but it could indicate that a re-write might make it more obvious. Remember, you are immersed in the topic - others are not.
Regards
Subject Matter Confusion
lemmingbar,
The NORAD Papers VI article covers what The 9/11 Commission Report itself admits was NORAD's true monitoring capabilities on 9/11. It's the 9/11 Commission Report's quotes that call Popular Mechanics (PM) magazine and NORAD's accounts a lie, not me. But I don't really care what PM and NORAD said (there accounts are secondary to my article's main point).
My article's main focus is what The 9/11 Commission Report admitted about NORAD technicians actually monitoring on radar Flight 77 and Delta 1989, and looking on their radar screens for Flights 11 and 93.
Let me give you an example using the World Trade Center. What if you found unnoticed passages in The 9/11 Commission Report that said there were bombs in the buildings. You then write an article on it and nothing happens! That's the essence of what I'm furious over.
I'm afraid you missed the subject matter of my article.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I'm still not getting it
I'm sorry, I'm still not getting your point. Sorry for being so dense. Maybe it's because I haven't spent too much time understanding the NORAD angle and related areas so that I'm not able to piece the information you are providing together with other information you have in your head to jump to whatever conclusion you have in your head.
Perhaps you could just come out and spell it all out, step by step, so that dense people such as myself can get it.
Maybe you could start out by summarizing your findings in such a way that you cannot help but understand what the problem is. For example, you could start out saying something like (fill in the blanks below with the key info).
1. The 9/11 Commision report discusses NORAD technicians monitoring Flight 77 (let's save Delta 1989 for backup , unless you think it is really really important to argue the point). Therefore, there is no argument that NORAD was in fact monitoring this flight.
2. The commission report further notes that NORAD was activity looking at their radar screens for flight 11 and flight 93.
3. This is important because
a. (fill in the blanks)
b.
c.
4. This also contradicts key elements of the commission report and/or other official reports in the following ways (for example...)
a. On page xyz of 911CR, it states (fill in the blank)
b. On page wxy of some other document, it states (fill in the blank)
c. The president, in his state-of-the-union speech claimed that (fill in the blank)
d. The New York Times in an article dated abc, stated that (fill in the blank)
5. Together, the above facts imply:
a. (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank with short explanation)
b. (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank with short explanation)
5. And these implications in turn, taken together imply that there was a grand conspiracy to (fill in the blank)
Then after setting the stage with the conclusion you are trying to get me to understand, you can then go on to explain each point in the above in more detail. You can provide quotes as it makes sense to avoid forcing people to go to the source documents (few will do this, but it is good to provide a link as you do in your articles in case one should want to look).
In reading your response to Mike Zimmer, I see that you are shocked that he didn't get it. My suggestion, for whatever its worth, is that you need to assume that 99% of people are not as informed as you are about the facts related to NORAD and/or the 911 Commission report. Also, 90+% of people will not bother to go through all the articles on your site to gather all the relevant facts together. So if you want to impress upon people the importance of your findings, you need to take the time to clearly and succinctly connect the dots for people. It's unfortunate that this is the way it is, but that is reality. To do otherwise, practically begs for people to give you a deafening wall of silence. That's what you've got so far and you shouldn't be surprised by this.
The Article Couldn't Be Any Clearer for 9/11 Truthers
lemmingbar,
I expect that 99% of people wouldn't get my article either, but not 99% of persons who read 9/11 Blogger, especially since the beginning of my article spells out what the official narrative on NORAD was on 9/11. I then follow that with what The 9/11 Commission Report admits (accidentally probably) was NORAD's true monitoring capabilities over the United States on 9/11.
My article is perfectly sequential:
1. It tells the reader what the official narrative on NORAD was on 9/11; then
2. It hits the reader with the previously unnoticed passages from The 9/11 Commission Report that say NORAD was monitoring, on radar, hijacked aircraft flying over the United States on 9/11.
I couldn't be any clearer!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Don't be so indignant
Dean,
I'm sorry you feel offended by my comments and those of Mike Zimmer. I'm also sorry that you felt my attempt at constructive criticism was anything but.
I'm sorry I wasted an hour of my time trying to understand your article and writing up some hints to try to help you get your head out of (fill in the blank).
I'm also sorry that people who go out of their way to try to give you advice are simply pummelled with: any real truther would have gotten my article, so you must not be a real truther.
Call me what you will, belittle me all you want. My criticism still stands and obviously, everybody on this board must not be real truthers, because NOBODY got your article. THIS is why the silence has been deafening.
I'm new here, so I guess I fell for the "let's be nice and try to give constructive criticism" approach rather than just ignoring you like everybody else has been doing. Chaulk one up for experience. Now I know better.
Play-Acting
lemmingbar,
what are you talking about? "Call me what you will, belittle me all you want." If one is a 9/11 Truther, then one better understand the facts of NORAD, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93, otherwise you're a danger to the movement if you don't know what you're talking about. But since you say you're new here, then why the phony offense since I clarified in my previous comment that those in the general population I wouldn't expect to understand my article. Why are you play-acting here?
And, as I said, the article proceeds from the official story on NORAD to The 9/11 Commission Report's admission of NORAD's true monitoring capabilities on 9/11. Instead of playing persecuted, why not now join me in calling for the posting of my article in the News section at 9/11 Blogger.
I'm not offended by your remarks, nor am I shocked by your comments since you are new here. I'm shocked by the non-response from those who are veterans of 9/11 Blogger.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
re-read first comment
Go ahead, take my advice or not. You'll continue to get deafening silence on your work and you'll wonder why. You'll be all furious and you just won't get it.
Facts are facts, whether you choose to ignore them or not:
1. No one has made any comment about your work, with the exception of me, John, and Mike.
2. Your articles, by your own admission have not been given front-page status and no one seems to care.
3. No one has even acknowledged your points - not that I have seen, anyway. And not for lack of trying by you.
There must be a reason.
Here's some other possibilities:
1. Your ideas are crazy and/or worthless and no one on this blog wants any part of them
2. You can't explain your ideas well enough so that anybody but yourself can understand them
3. You've angered everybody you've encountered and nobody wants to waste any more of their time on you
4. Everybody except you is a complete idiot and only you have been blessed with enough intelligence to figure out these dark secrets so hidden before our very eyes.
5. Nobody saw any of your comments/postings and so was not aware of your fabulous find
6. No one here actually cares about 911 truth and therefore they do not care about your damning new evidence
I think that mostly covers the range of possibilities.
I gave you my opinion as to what the reason was, but you did not accept it and further insulted me. Given that and your further comments, I've revised my opinions. But since it is your viewpoint that you're trying to get everybody to pay attention to, I'll let you decide which of the possibilities is most likely the reason for the observed facts.
Even Veterans Get It Wrong
lemmingbar,
don't feel bad. Even veterans such as Barrie Zwicker make tactical miscues when talking about NORAD on 9/11. In the last documentary I saw him in (the Canadian CBC documentary, The Fifth Estate. see link below.), he said "There's no U.S. Air Force...That is when the penny dropped for me". The host of the documentary then went to Popular Mechanic's editor James Meigs who said that NORAD wasn't prepared to monitor aircraft that ORIGINATED in the United States. If Barrie Zwicker had read my earlier five articles on NORAD, he would not have fallen into that trap, and affirmed up front that NORAD on 9/11 monitored ALL aircraft flying towards the United States and WITHIN the United States. One has to know the subtleties of the subject or else one is going to get pummeled by the opposition.
Fast forward to 4:00 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4xhrJyKGQ8&NR=1
See how Barrie Zwicker puts his foot in it?
Now, for some reason unknown to me my shocking article on NORAD and The 9/11 Commission Report was spiked. If it had been covered, James Meigs and the other bastards he brought with him to Popular Mechanics in the summer and fall of 2004 would be receiving unemployment, and Popular Mechanics itself would either have folded or about to fold. Maybe we have a lot of readers of Popular Mechanics magazine in the 9/11 Truth Movement!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Everyone cannot be an expert on everything!
If one is a 9/11 Truther, then one better understand the facts of NORAD, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93, otherwise you're a danger to the movement if you don't know what you're talking about.
Are you really saying that we need to have a PhD in 9/11 truth to educate the public?
While I certainly agree that we should all strive to be as informed as possible on as many facets of 9/11 truth as possible, that's asking a bit much, don't you think?
I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to say "I don't know, I'll have to look into that and get back to you, ok?"
Tolerance and humility go a long way when building a movement.
I've Been Waiting Over A Month Now, And Now I'm Furious Again!
LeftWright,
if you're going to educate the public on any aspect of 9/11 truth, you better have your facts straight and your strategy thought out.
It's now been over a month since I posted at DNotice.org my shocking expose of The 9/11 Commission Report’s admission on NORAD's true monitoring capabilities over the United States on 9/11. Why should it take a month? Why should I wait a month? Would you treat David Ray Griffin the same way if he had been the one to find those unnoticed passages on NORAD in the 9/11 Commission Report? No, you would have posted his article immediately, of course.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Dean -
Exactly how is your article relevant to this blog?
This is not the first time you have attempted to hijack a thread to hype your article, please stop doing this.
Seeing as how you feel so aggrieved by this perceived slight, let me briefly address this issue here and now.
Start by looking at your blog entry, I assume this is the one you are referring to:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22504
There we find a few short paragraphs and a link to the rest of the article. Clicking on the link does not take us to the full article, but to an entire web page where we have to scroll down to find the article. You probably lost 50% of the people who clicked on the link right there, I know you lost me the first time I tried to follow it. Then, once you scroll down you find the relatively short article in blazing read, yellow and white with the notes in an entirely unreadable blue. Thus the visual presentation of the article is not professional, not serious and hard to read. Thus, the second time I tried to read the article I just took my tired and overworked eyes elsewhere and emailed you to ask for a version I could print and read carefully, which you refused to do. [Even by cutting and pasting it I have to then highlight all the text and change it to black, just how much work do you want busy readers to do in order to read what you write?]
I would suggest that if you really want people to read the article, you would make it as accessible and readable as possible, is that too much to ask?
With that in mind, next time put the entire article in the blog (we are talking about twelve short paragraphs and a few notes, yes?) and maybe people will actually read it and comment on it.
Additionally, the general tone of your comments regarding this article/blog does not draw readers to look at it, but rather repels them from it, imo. The fact that you have pushed it on threads where it is clearly off topic (like this one) does not help your cause either.
Where else have you posted your article? Is it even on OpEdNews? Did you submit it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Did you send it to Dr. Griffin? Have you contacted the many people in the 9/11 truth community who have online radio shows and podcasts to see if they want to interview you about it?
If you really feel that this is as groundbreaking as you claim, why haven't you put it everywhere on the web that you could, in every form possible?
We have to be the media AND our own PR firms as well, yes?
Finally, based on your own description of the article here, it calls to mind the FBI busting Al Capone for tax evasion, it's argument is one of technicalities which are just not very sexy and thus don't get the attention that NIST admitting to free fall or the discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust attracts within the 9/11 truth community, let alone the general public. Most people already look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a whitewash full of hundreds of lies, so one more lie about NORAD and radar is really not that consequential to many, if not most, people.
I will say that I think your find is useful to me as an activist interested in educating the public and I will add it to my ever growing bag of facts, so thank you for that.
I hope that you will take these criticisms in the spirit that they are given (one brother in truth to another).
Be well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.