hitpiece

Utne Reader HitPiece On Russia Today And 9/11 Truth

http://wearechangenewjersey.com/?p=918

http://www.utne.com/Media/Conspiracy-Channel-Russia-Today-Anti-American-Propaganda.aspx
The Conspiracy Channel
With a larger staff than Fox News, a worldwide Russian TV network spreads a unique brand of anti-American propaganda
by Sonia Scherr, from Intelligence Report - January-February 2011

The Conspiracy To Rewrite 9/11

Rewrite or expose?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/03/INGR0KRCBA1.DTL

Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham's actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that "some of us here are going to try to do something." Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer -- possibly a government official -- called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 -- and Bingham -- became part of Sept. 11 lore.

"The cell phone calls were fake -- no ifs, ands or buts," Avery says in "Loose Change," a film he wrote and directed that's one of the most-watched movies on the Internet, with 10 million viewers in the past year. "Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise."

Jones Replies to Reynolds and Wood

And once again, a 9/11 Activist and Investigator has to take time away from investigating and exposing the true perpetrators in order to respond to attacks.

Download a 500K preliminary report by Steven Jones in MS Word format here:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

A notable quote from this document:

I could go on, but the fact is that as editor of the Journalof911Studies.com, I have invited Morgan Reynolds and whoever he wishes to join him, and another author to write papers on BOTH sides of this issue – did REAL planes hit the Twin WTC Towers, or not? Both sides agreed. In this way, readers will have two peer-reviewed scholarly papers side by side, both confronting the evidences presented above and whatever other evidences they wish to bring in – and then the reader can judge for himself or herself. And that is MUCH better than ad hominem arguments – it is the way of modern science.

I couldn't agree more. Thanks to PhrankM for sending this in.

Is Wikipedia subject to "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations"?

An article by Professor James Fetezer (co-founder of 9-11 Scholars for truth ,http://www.st911.org) titled "Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say about Scholars for 9/11 Truth" makes interested reading and is thought provoking considering the treatment of the 9/11 truth movement by Wikipedia, or the unseen hands and minds which control it. Wikipedia claims to be a non-biased searchable knowledge base, a "wiki", that is essentially a website that allows users to easily add, remove, edit available content. Wikipedia is a tremendous source of factual information, however we must always question the information and validate information independently of Wikipedia. If the general public feel that Wikipedia is a great source of "factual" information, you can be assured that the government has also realised and acted on this. If "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" is to be taken as a terms-of-reference for all that has transpired since September 11th 2001, then surely the statement "The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict" (page 69), needs to be taken as seriously as the often quoted "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 63).