http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQuIhJId1JY&eurl

It is always curious to me why a Host and a panel of people take up a discussion on a subject they obviously know nothing about. Also there is nothing funny about the truth of this subject.

...Thompson is a hardcore LIHOP, possibly a closet MIHOP.

Doesn't put forward any theories, just facts. That is his mantra.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Paul would read an excerpt from the 9/11 Report...

I'm being Paul.

"The 9/11 Report says that the Secret Service didn't think it was important to run the President out of the school...

However, as you can see by these previous news reports...

April 2000, MSNBC reported, "They would move the President out of any dangerous situation as soon as possible, regardless of whether or not it was a photo-opportunity.

And on 9/10/2001, CNN reported that "The head of the President's security detail established that the protection of the President comes first, even if he's in a room full of school children."

Both stories are false, but you get the idea.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I don't think it's necessary that Paul proclaim himself "LIHOP" or "MIHOP".

Simply documenting in detail the MSM's timeline is enough; it serves as an invaluable resource for all 911 researchers.

This is one of the things people have a problem with: the idea of division of labor.

There's a place for Paul, a place for Alex, a place for Tarpley, a place for Schoenman, a place for Scott, a place for Chomsky.

I included the last one just to bust your balls.

It's funny though, people give Greg Palast a pass even though he's been more hostile to 911 truth than Chomsky. Ditto all the right-libertarians at anti-war.com. Ditto all the liberals on TV, from Jon Stewart to what's his name on MSNBC.

I'm not saying Chomsky shouldn't be criticized -- I think he should -- but it's weird that people single him out while ignoring the fact that very few intellectuals have had the balls to come out in support of 91 truth.

They should ALL be criticized. At the same time, we shouldn't fall into the trap of "us vs. them".

Just my opinion.

I have very little doubt that Paul Thompson has a better understanding of 9/11 than anyone. Almost to the point where he can probably tell us what happened.

However, that would be speculative, and that's what he tries to avoid.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I don't see how he helps. You don't need a weatherman...

Anyway, things become clearer as to who is for what as time goes on. It will be fun to watch some of the above try to justify their silence when the truth is more widely known. This is the kind of thing you NEVER let people forget.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Go scan over www.cooperativeresearch.org The Complete 911 timeline and tell me he doesn't help.

GEEZ!

We owe a huge debt to that guy for having the informatin to back up MIHOP, whether he is on record endorsing it or not.

Paul doesn't help?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

R.T., I don't disagree, and that was Peter Dale, BTW.

LOL Willard Scott :)

I just had to comment on the antiwar.com issue. I used to read them daily for about 4 years(3-6 hours a day). I literally read almost all the major headlines and issues relating to, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, South America, and the sections on the war at home. I feel that they did an excellent job of covering those issues. Any one who spent a large amount of time like I did would probably agree. In many cases there would be stories that the MSM would cover but at antiwar.com you could get more details about the story and as a result see how the MSM was spinning the story by changing the focus of the story, omitting information, or outright attacking other viewpoints. Antiwar.com has done an excellent job on those issues. Unfortunately, they bomb completely with regard to an unbiased presentation of 9/11 information. I have personally forwarded 9/11 documentation such as the very simple(high school level physics) speed of the collapses. I never recieved any response and those issues were not brought up by authors on the site.

It is unfortunate but those who decide what goes on the site are suffering cognitive dissonance on the 9/11 issue. I was astounded to find that they won't hardly touch the topic because it IS the biggest causal factor in the major US wars they are covering. Is that a sign of cognitive dissonance or what??? Needless to say I have switched to reading 9/11 related material in the manner I used to read the antiwar material. The antiwar material is great but unless the site owners are willing to take the blue pill and wake up they are wasting their time describing the post-9/11 effects. With out examining causal factors what is the point of looking at the effects? It's half of the story. The site has done a superb job documenting the actions of the PNAC crew and their motives hopefully they'll wake up and start to realize 9/11 WAS part of the PNAC agenda.

Here's to those of us willing to bite the bullet and face the harsh realities the world throws at us! Wake up Antiwar.com!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

I have been reading antiwar.com for years and I have always contributed to their fundraisers but I've thought about it and I will not be contributing in the future. The disrespect for those who question the official version of 9/11 undermines Justin Raimondo's intellectual credibility, sorry to say.

is by Raw Story today:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_53_say_Bush_Administration_hiding...

georgewashington.blogspot.com.

yeah, i sw that too but I still don't understand why the NYT & CBS would have a poll conducted in the first place and then not use the results. Did they think the results would be different? What is the deal? Why would they risk the data getting out if the didn't intend on breaking the poll themselves? We need MSM to cover this MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!! There are still honest, good people that just don't even know to question 911. Damn the MSM!

polls covered by the MSM either. Did anyone see them discussed back in the day?

georgewashington.blogspot.com.

I agree and am wondering the same thing . . . still, I was excited to see it at the top of Raw's page yesterday but perhaps I am overreacting.

I'm giving it until after the elections . . .

has picked it up, too:

http://buzzflash.com/

georgewashington.blogspot.com.

This needs to be on TV to reach the masses, the still uninformed masses! On MSM news networks. Or in MSM print.
Damn MSM---this is BS!!!! Someone better cover this!!!!

Isn't this also coverage?

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/poll_only_16_percent_believe_gov...