(As of 5:17pm Central Time --11.30.2008-- "Change.org" has removed the request for a new 9/11 investigation from their website. -rep.)

Initial blog post published: 2008-11-28 17:46:16

In this week's International edition of Newsweek (Dec 1, 2008), there's an article entitled "President 2.0". In reading it, I discovered that a new site (http://www.change.org/ideas) is collecting and posting ideas for the Obama administration and the top 10 ideas, the ideas that have received the most votes, will be presented to the President on Inauguration Day.

An idea was just added to suggest that a new investigation into 9/11 be conducted.

Please click the link below and VOTE for this idea. Then forward the link to everyone you know and ask that they vote for it too. It this is for real, it is an excellent opportunity to get out collective voice heard. Loud and Clear. Finally.

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/conduct_a_new_independent_investigation_into_the_attacks_of_september_11_2001

Thanks in advance.

(Image updated - 12.2.2008)

http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/230407vans.htm

A much underreported aspect of the 9/11 attacks is one that concerns transmissions, sightings, reports and statements alluding to multiple mysterious suspects in different vans packed with explosives that were stopped and detained in New York while the towers were burning and in the aftermath of the attacks.

The walls of MSM protecting the official narrative of 9-11 are cracking from the pressure of the truth.

The Huffington Post finally put the 9-11 conspiracy on its website. As one of the alleged left gatekeepers, the HuffPo's reluctance to carry this topic is finally caving in thanks to Rosie O'Donnels courageous stand on TV and Bill O'Reilly's mad attacks. Better late than never.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/31/rosie-oreilly-feud-over_n_44669.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451741,00.html

The biggest political magazine in Germany, Der Spiegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel), has a dandy new 911 article. It is increasingly hard to argue against 911 truth with a straight face as the article’s arguments against the demolition hypothesis proves. Here is just a couple of their ‘points’ and why they couldn’t be more wrong:

“Why did the towers fall so quickly?”, they ask, then they answer:
“flammable materials inside - such as carpets, curtains, furniture and plastics - helped increase the temperature at the top of the towers to almost 1,000 C”

- So ignoring the fact that the air temp of 1000c would NOT have resulted in a steel temp of 1000c, the main problem with this argument is that it does not answer the question. The question is how to make the ‘it just fell down’ hypothesis fit the evidence of the fall time.

“Could the towers have been blown up?”, they ask, then they answer:
“demolishing two buildings the size of the Twin Towers would have been a massive undertaking.”

- Do we even need to respond to this silly argument?

Good interview with Rick Siegel in the Netherlands on the 16th of September in Utrecht.