I came out of retirement as a 9/11 truth activist for the next 2 weeks to help promote Richard Gage's "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" speaking event in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (one stop along Richard's cross Canada Tour). This is one more example of how to put the issues of 9/11 on the hearts and minds of Canadians using the highly effective civil information[ing]. All I did was show up with some leaflets at to a rally here in Edmonton organized by the Occupy Edmonton movement. One Year ago February 21, 2011 Dr Niels Harrit, his wife and I did 9/11 civil info actions at this exact same square when the Libyans were rallying to oust Gaddafi from Libya...
More on 9/11 Civil Information Activism - http://www.ciactivist.org/
Befitting a citizen: a civil duty.
The act of informing.
The practice of vigorous action.
If you want the public to hear you once, you have to say what you're saying five or 10 times. Canadian media mogul Izzy Asper
My local newspaper has published two letters. One from my campaigning colleague two weeks ago and the response is from myself this week. The circulation is about 20,000.
Published on Mar 17 - 2010
Two-thirds of respondents stand by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, which blamed al-Qaeda for the attacks.
The recent suggestion by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 attacks were a “fabrication” is rejected by a large proportion of Americans, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,007 American adults, 62 per cent of respondents disagree with Ahmadinejad’s claims that the “Sept. 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan.” Only 26 per cent of respondents agree with this notion, and 12 per cent are undecided.
Republicans (80%) are more likely to reject the statement than Independents (66%) or Democrats (55%).
Also see this poll with a similar but slightly different question:
Poll: Most Americans want military trial for 9/11 suspects
Scroll down for the 2nd poll. Visit originals for hyperlinks. Posted in full for posterity - loose nuke
55% in New York Oppose Civilian Terror Trials
Friday, November 20, 2009
Just 35% of New York State voters agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the confessed mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks and five other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds that 55% are opposed to that decision, which is part of the Obama administration’s effort to close the terrorist prison camp at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba.
But 57% are at least somewhat confident that New York City will be safe and secure during the trials of the terrorism suspects. Twenty-three percent (23%) are very confident.
Full text given here.
For the graph see
or jpg in attachment or at http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/WPOpoll-911.jpg
International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11
For Release: 21:01 GMT September 10th, 2008
Contact: Steven Kull (202) 232-7500
College Park, MD—A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
In no country does a majority agree on another possible perpetrator, but in most countries significant minorities cite the US government itself and, in a few countries, Israel. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.
On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.
As always, I appreciate constructive criticism/ideas, fact/logic/link checking, etc.
This 11 part 9/11 Truth article series is an overview of evidence that contradicts the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and the still unanswered questions raised by this evidence. The official story, essentially, is that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and no one else conspired to facilitate or benefit from the attacks on the US on 9/11. This story maintains that all the important questions were answered by the Congressional and FBI investigations, and the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission concluded that no one else should be held accountable- for Clinton and Bush Administration, INS, CIA, FBI, FAA, Air Force, Pentagon and NORAD “failures” to “connect the dots”, heighten security, warn the public, stop the alleged “hijackers” (despite numerous opportunities), intercept the planes and prevent the attacks- and for the destruction of World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 and the murders of nearly 3000 people (including those who died at the Pentagon and on Flight 93).
I've struck against this very eloquent research report about the real opinions of the Europeans towards the European Union:
The main facts from the last year research made by the British think-tank OpenEurope, conducted in all member states of the European Union:
1. On the average 41% inhabitants of the Europe have thought, that the E.U. should have LESS powers than it already has, and another 23% of the cake think, that the E.U. powers should remain as they are - i.e. 64% of the E.U. member states citizens positively don't wish anything like the proposed Lisbon Treaty (-a new treaty almost completely based on the text of late "euroconstitution", refused in referendum in France and Netherlands - but of course: the pro-E.U. politicians fraudulently keep saying it is not true).
- And there are in this regard much more obstinate nations, than Irish (who recently refused the many powers transfering Lisbon Treaty in the referendum). The list is led by Finnish, Austrians, Swedish and British. Irish in fact are far beyond them - much less sceptic.
Burning Conscience: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out
A searing interview with Avichai Sharon and Noam Chayut, both veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces and members of Breaking the Silence. Sharon and Chayut served during the second intifada, an on-going bloodbath that has claimed the lives of over three thousand Palestinians and nine-hundred-fifty Israelis. After thorough introspection, these young men have chosen to speak out about their experiences as self-described "brutal occupiers of a disputed land." Producer: Sat Gwin
Alternate Focus is available on the Dish Network, Free Speech TV, Channel 9415, Saturdays at 8:00pm EST and on cable stations near you. Check www.alternatefocus.org for details.
Some discussions at www.lies.com have involved one blogger (knarlyknight) defending 911 skepticism against a group of intelligent, misinformed believers of the official conspiracy theory. I think he's done a great job, but maybe he could use some help or expressions of support from experienced 911bloggers?
Anyone willing to drop by www.lies.com, read the comments, and make a few comments of their own in the spirit of 911 truth?
I realize this is a low gain approach to activism, but it seems that knarlyknight is making some inroads there. Getting the folks from Lies.com onto the 911 truth side would be good. Go to the comment section under the most recent blog: How Bad Is It?
At the least it is entertaining to observe how he takes the discussion from war and deception and relates it back to 911 truth and then holds his own against all the others who do not agree. Some of the older entries are also good that way, especially the one titled Dyer On Loose Change.
I haven't looked at the South Park episode dealing with 9/11. However, this 911blogger website's traffic statistics seem to suggest that it served huuuuuuuuuugely to direct curious people to look up for "truther" sites. I wonder how many hits 911truth.org did get as a result (after all, one character was wearing a T-shirt with their address on it, and 911blogger.com did only reap the "side effect")?
Second, I've come across an interesting an interesting article at www.opednews.com ("Analyzing South Park's 9/11 Show"). It's really worth a read:
'One thing I've found over the last few years is that media will often write a "9/11 hit piece" and then weave within it many links and information that gets the reader curious about the fact that the official story doesn't really make sense, when you look at it. This harkens back to the old KGB run Soviet Union, where journalists would "hide" facts within stories, and the Soviet people were savvy enough to get the "real" message.
A few months after 9/11 a Canadian newspaper writer did just this, writing what looked like a 9/11 hit piece, but working major disturbing facts in it, and then giving my email address firstname.lastname@example.org for those wanting more information. When I called him, he apologized for the hit piece quality, but said that's the only way he could get the facts to the public, past his editor. The result was amazing. I got hundreds of emails from angry Canadians who believed that 9/11 was an inside job, and who'd read past the Trojan horse hit piece aspect and saw the facts within the article.'
It's perplexing the way people hold tight to their views even when they hold views that might be considered exclusive to each other. The American mind is quite baffling. It seems that if any 2 people talk and hear each other long enough, they will find things that they agree upon and things they disagree upon. Why do we always focus on the disagreable part?
He said, she said: Who’s right? - CNN.com
Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have traded sharp words this week over which administration – Clinton’s or President Bush’s -- did more to pursue Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. Who do you think is right? Why?
You'll notice that all of these news organizations are covering this issue by simply phrasing the argument as who did better, or who is more at fault. Perhaps a few thousand emails with some real facts and questions will get the point across - that we are still being lied to, and that the media still doesn't understand its role in holding government officials to account - no matter what side of the 2 party paradigm they fall under.
Please take a few minutes and send in an 'I-Report' as to the failures of this administration and the previous one, obviously they need the help.
As the fifth anniversary approaches of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, we'd like to hear from you about how that day has changed your life in ways large or small.
You might have started volunteering to honor those who died or decided to spend more time with loved ones. Or maybe your world view has grown pessimistic.
Please share your thoughts and any specific actions you've taken. Be concise. We will publish a selection of responses.
Please send your comments by Monday. Include your name and daytime telephone number so that we can verify authenticity. To respond by e-mail: email@example.com. To send by mail: 9/11 Anniversary, Newsroom, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 1735, Seattle, WA 98111.
www.nytimes.com By CARL HULSE and MARJORIE CONNELLY Published: August 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — Americans increasingly see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism, and nearly half believe President Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The finding that 51 percent of those surveyed see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader antiterror effort was a jump of 10 percentage points since June. It came despite the regular insistence of Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans that the two are intertwined and should be seen as complementary elements of an overall strategy to prevent domestic terror attacks.
Should the trend hold, the increased skepticism could present a political obstacle for Mr. Bush and his allies on Capitol Hill, who are making their record on terrorism a central element of the midterm election campaign. The Republicans hope the public’s desire for forceful action against terrorists will offset unease with the Iraq war and blunt the political appeal of Democratic calls to establish a timeline to withdraw American troops.