9/11 Truth is Not "Old News"

Every time an important fact undermining the official story about 9/11 is raised, defenders of the government's version try to label it as an "old story" which is "not news".

Are they right?

Well, the Iraq war is "old" news, right? The fact that Bush lied us into it?

The fact that it was an unnecessary war?

The fact that it is bankrupting the U.S.

Oh wait ... The war is CONTINUING, so it is still news.

Similarly . . .

The entire "war on terror" is based on 9/11.

TRILLIONS have been spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the government's story about 9/11 (and so the U.S. is in a recession, and possibly heading into a depression.

Many, many people have been killed and tortured due to the government's story about 9/11.

America's constitution has been shredded due to the government's story about 9/11. Spying on all Americans. Public dissent cracked down on, free speech stomped on ... due to the government's story about 9/11.

That's all old news, right?

Oh wait . . . all of these things are still ongoing...

Indeed, many former high-level officials are warning that the government might use false "provocations" to start new wars.

Is it therefore remotely possible that it might be worth double-checking what the government says about 9/11, given that hundreds of top structural engineers, architects, scientists, military leaders, congressmen -- and even the 9/11 commissioners themselves -- question the government's version of how the Trade Centers were destroyed?

In modern day America, is checking the government's claims so unusual that that is considered news?

Incidentally, the "old story, not news" label was actually perfected by Karl Rove. Specifically, Rove taught people to "slime" the character of the person accusing the White House of wrongdoing, or otherwise to misdirect the debate. If that that was not possible, or was not working, he advocated labeling any harmful facts as "old news", and thus not worth paying any attention to.