New Strategies for Challenging the Propaganda Machine

Two ideas have surfaced today about how to stand up to the mainstream media companies which censor real news and solely act as cheerleaders for the powers-that-be:

• Buy put options or short-sell stock -- that is, bet that the stock will go down -- of the offending companiess (just call a stockbroker and say you want to buy put options)
  

• Put pressure on the FCC to deny license renewal for the offending companies by writing a letter to network affiliates stating that the company is not serving the public interest
  

Both of these tactics come from Ron Paul supporters as a way to challenge Fox News' decision to exclude Dr. Paul from its presidential debate. However, these tactics can be used by anyone who is frustrated that the giant news corporations (owned by neocons, defense contractors, and others who do not share the interests of the American people) are censoring the truth and instead acting as the lapdogs and stenographers to the powers-that-be. Don't just target Fox news, but all of the media companies suppressing truth.

Of course, people can also boycott the sponsors of the offending media. For example, here is a list of Fox News' sponsors. And more ideas for boycotts are here.

And for those who already own shares of stock in an MSM company, another option is simply to sell them. If enough people sell, that will drive the price down and hit the MSM in its bottom line.

Each of our Individual Voices Is More Important Than We've Realized

I just read a study which says that even one dissenting voice can give people permission to think for themselves. Specifically:

Solomon Asch, with experiments originally carried out in the 1950s and well-replicated since, highlighted a phenomenon now known as "conformity". In the classic experiment, a subject sees a puzzle like the one in the nearby diagram: Which of the lines A, B, and C is the same size as the line X? Take a moment to determine your own answer...

The gotcha is that the subject is seated alongside a number of other people looking at the diagram - seemingly other subjects, actually confederates of the experimenter. The other "subjects" in the experiment, one after the other, say that line C seems to be the same size as X. The real subject is seated next-to-last. How many people, placed in this situation, would say "C" - giving an obviously incorrect answer that agrees with the unanimous answer of the other subjects? What do you think the percentage would be?

Three-quarters of the subjects in Asch's experiment gave a "conforming" answer at least once. A third of the subjects conformed more than half the time.

Get it so far? People tend to defer to what the herd thinks.

But here's the good news:

Adding a single dissenter - just one other person who gives the correct answer, or even an incorrect answer that's different from the group's incorrect answer - reduces conformity very sharply, down to 5-10%.

Why is this important? Well, it means that one person who publicly speaks the truth can sway a group of people away from group-think.

If a group of people is leaning towards believing the government's version of 9/11, or believing the official mythos of the war on terror, or that the U.S. holds "free and fair elections", or that impeachment should "stay off the table", a single person who speaks the truth can help snap the group out of its trance.

There is an important point here regarding the web, as well. The above-cited article states that:

when subjects can respond in a way that will not be seen by the group, conformity also drops.

What does that mean? Well, on the web, many people post anonymously. The anonymity gives people permission to "respond in a way that will not be seen by the group". But most Americans still don't get their news from the web, or only go to mainstream corporate news sites.

Away from the keyboard, we are not very anonymous. So that is where the conformity dynamic -- and the need for courageous dissent -- is vital. It is doubly important that we apply the same hard-hitting truthtelling we do on the Internet in our face-to-face interactions; because it is there that dissent is urgently needed.

Bottom line: Each person's voice has the power to snap entire groups out of their coma of irrational group-think. So go forth and be a light of rationality and truth among the sleeping masses.

9/11 Commission Report: Second Edition

Preface: Now that it has been discovered that the Pentagon, CIA, Vice President and other agencies and officials lied to The 9-11 Commission about the timeline of the military's reaction to the hijackings, the interrogation of alleged members of Al-Qaeda, orders given regarding response to the hijackings and other issues, the Commission has decided to issue a revised, Second Edition of our Report.

Our revised Second Edition removes all material based on false or unverifiable information provided to us by the United States government.

As such, we hope that this revised Second Edition will lay to rest once and for all the distrust in the government that so many Americans have expressed, and will remove all controversy concerning the events of September 11th.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States.

Recommendation: Keep monitoring the weather.

Notes to the Second Edition: Because the government has refused to give the Commission access to any of real sources of unbiased information concerning the 9/11 attacks, obstructed our investigation, failed to fund the investigation in any meaningful fashion, and sabotaged our investigation from the first day, the weather for 9/11 is the only thing our Report can really discuss.

[GW's comment: The above is, of course, parody. The first sentence of the "Second Edition" is the first sentence from the original report, and the "recommendation" is just satire -- the Commission's series of "Recommendations" end their Report.

It is true, however, that I couldn't read much past the first sentence of the Report without running into claims based upon alleged confessions made by alleged members of Al Qaeda, concerning which information the government wants us to simply take its word, since it has destroyed any videotapes which would show what these people actually said, if anything.

In addition to the supposed interrogation information, there is also the false information about military reactions to the hijackings, Dick Cheney's provably false statements about when he entered the PEOC command center and what orders he gave there, and many other demonstrably false assertions.

So, while this may be parody, it is - unfortunately - not far from the truth.]

With McCain's Affair Public, Ron Paul Is Back In The Race

Now that the New York Times has gone public with John McCain's affair, Ron Paul has a real shot at picking up a lot of McCain's supporters.

Ron Paul announced that he was temporarily scaling back his campaign; but he did not say he was dropping out. Indeed, Dr. Paul decided several weeks ago to:

"Stay in the presidential race in the hope that a scandal would cripple McCain and leave Paul going head to head with Huckabee but essentially shift all campaigning efforts to focus on his Congressional seat which is now under threat."

With the Times' revelations about McCain, this may have been a very wise strategy indeed. The race may suddenly be wide open again.

9/11 "Confession" Falls Apart

An article in the Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:

[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

***
even though he knew some al-Qaeda players, he provided interrogators with increasingly dubious information as the CIA's harsh treatment intensified in late 2002."

For example:

Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.

"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."

***

"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.

Coleman goes on to say:

Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.

***
Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"

The article also says that Abu Zubaida might have been tortured for months.

Bottom line: According to the FBI, the information which formed the basis for the 9/11 Commission Report was based on the ramblings of a literally crazy guy after he had been tortured for many, many weeks in a manner that was guaranteed to destroy his trust in his interrogators and which was contrary to effective interrogation techniques.

Disclaimer: The government also allegedly received information from other people who were severely tortured. Maybe they weren't crazy before they were tortured (although they probably were afterwards). It doesn't matter though . . . torture is a notoriously inaccurate way to obtain information. Moreover, since the government destroyed the tapes, we don't really even know what they said or who they were.

Government's Evasiveness about 9/11 is Proof of Guilt

When a suspect who is confronted with a direct question repeatedly tries to change the subject and refuses to answer the question, that's evidence that he's guilty.

For example, if a suspect is repeatedly asked "did you stab Mr. Roberts?", and he replies "I didn't take the money!" every time he is asked, that is strong incriminating evidence that he did in fact stab Mr. Roberts. That's especially true if no one asked him whether he took any money.

NIST is doing the exact same thing in regards to the basic questions which 9/11 activists keep asking.

For example, NIST's new factsheet contains the following question and response:

2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

What NIST is saying is that -- when the airplanes hit -- the Towers oscillated for a short time, and then the movement quieted down, so that NIST didn't have to account for the movement in its analysis.

But that's not the question that 9/11 victim's family members, scientists, engineers, architects, military leaders and lawyers are asking. When 9/11 activists talk about "conservation of momentum" or "conservation of energy", they're not talking about the oscillation from the plane impacts.

What they're referring to is:

(1) The speed of the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 should have been slowed much more than actually observed by the still-intact portion of the buildings below the collapse zones; and

(2) Once the upper 30-story block of the South Tower started toppling over sideways, it should have continued to fall sideways well away from the base of the South Tower.

See Dr. Steven Jones' paper for details.

In other words, 9/11 activists have been asking a very clear and direct question:

"Aren't explosives necessary to explain why WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed at virtually free-fall speeds, and why the upper block of the South Tower started toppling over and then straightened itself out during the last phases of the collapse?"

NIST's response that the oscillations from the plane impacts soon straightened out is answering a totally different question. The fact that NIST is answering a question referring to something that occurred around an hour before the collapses -- which is what the 9/11 activsts' question refers to -- shows that NIST is intentionally avoiding a direct question. NIST is, in essence, saying "I didn't take the money", when we've been asking " whether Mr. Roberts was stabbed.

In addition, everyone knows that when a witness is caught lying or changing his testimony, it effectively discredits him. If the witness is himself the accused criminal, then perjury, inconsistent testimony or destroying evidence tends to implicate the defendant's guilt. See this and this.

As I pointed out yesterday, NIST makes the ridiculous claim that it did everything it could to preserve evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Centers, when everyone knows -- even NIST's own former head of fire science and engineering -- that evidence was intentionally destroyed.

An agency trying to accurately research what really happened would not destroy evidence, falsify results, and repeatedly try to change the topic by addressing straw men and red herrings.

NIST's New Factsheet: Not Based on Fact

NIST has just released a new factsheet in response to pressure from 9/11 activists (especially the petition by family members and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice).

Scientists, engineers and architects will pick apart the factsheet in detail in the coming weeks. However, I'd like to address one particular misleading statement by NIST in the meantime.

The factsheet claims NIST did everything it could to preserve evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Specifically, in response to question # 4, "Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?", NIST responds:

The complete collapse of the WTC Towers destroyed virtually all physical evidence except the major pieces of steel and mechanical equipment. In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site. FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.

Makes NIST sound like they did everything possible to collect and preserve evidence, and then make the evidence available to the public, right?

But it's just not true.

In fact, NIST's former head of fire science and engineering, who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed.*

In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and NIST has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

* He also called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

1993 Bomb Was Planted In Secret Service Parking Area

Everyone knows that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but -- at the last minute -- cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake power for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report.

I just found another interesting fact about the 1994 bombing. As one of the leading websites for building-related information states:

"The immense blast happened at 12:18 PM local time in the Secret Service's section of the car park underneath and between what are New York's tallest buildings."

Note: Is it possible that the Secret Service -- the premier security agency in the U.S. -- left their cars totally unprotected? If so, that would have been very sloppy security.

Co-Chair of Congressional 9/11 Inquiry and Former Head of Senate Intelligence Committee Confirms White House Cover Up

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, revealed that the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview one of the most important witnesses imaginable:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence that might have linked Saudi Arabia to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

* * *

The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

This isn't some fresh-face kid talking. This is a consummate insider: the former head of senate intelligence and co-chair of the congressional 9/11 inquiry.

If the White House refused to allow an interview of a government informant who was landlord to two of the hijackers -- one of the most valuable leads it could possibly pursue -- what other investigations did it spike? And if the White House killed an investigation to, allegedly, protect its Saudi friends, how much more motivated would the White House have been to kill investigations into areas which implicated elements of the U.S. government itself?

Only Fascism Can Liberate America!

Because some people are too stubborn or too stuck in dysfunctional thinking patterns to hear the truth about fascism when it hits them over the head, I suggest that we try a different approach: Parody.

When a comic does satire -- an exaggeration of what we're thinking -- it can wake us up, so that we can see the truth and laugh at how we've been acting. That can give us the freedom to stop doing the same dumb thing and to try something new.

So put satirical slogans on freeway blogs or bumper stickers to snap people out of their coma, like (by way of example only):

Only Fascism Can Liberate America!

Torturing People Makes Them Like Us!

We Need to Destroy America in Order to Save Her!

A "Decider" King is What Our Founding Fathers Wanted!

Supressing the Truth is What Makes Us American!

Big Brother Is Our Friend!

Don't Investigate 9/11 . . . The Truth Might Be Scary!

Free Speech is Anti-American!

We Need a Dictator In Order To Save Our Freedom!

Good luck waking people up . . . and have some fun doing it.

Pelosi and Harman Aided and Abetted 9/11 Cover Up

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blocking efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, or to take any other real steps to save America. One of the grounds for impeachment is that the government made knowingly false claims about 9/11.

Congresswoman Jane Harman chaired the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security which pushing for the labeling 9/11 truth sites as terrorist incubators.

What do these two congresswomen have in common? They were both part of the 9/11 cover up.

Veteran reporter Robert Scheer gives the background in his opinion piece today in the San Francisco Chronicle. The first two lines of the piece set the stage:

"When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, were they also destroying the truth about Sept. 11, 2001? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day - and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy - comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers.

Scheer then moves on to Pelosi and Harman' role in the cover up:

But what about those congressional leaders who were briefed on the torture program as early as 2002? That includes Democrats like Nancy Pelosi . . . .

Pelosi claimed that "several months later" her successor as the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of Los Angeles County, was advised the techniques "had in fact been employed" and wrote a classified letter to the CIA in protest, and Pelosi "concurred." Neither went public with her concerns.

Harman told the Washington Post "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four . . . an insider reference to the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees . . . .

Not only did the congressional Gang of Four fail to inform the public about the use of torture by our government but they also kept the 9/11 Commission in the dark.

Pelosi testified before the commission on May 22, 2003 but uttered not a word of caution about the methods used. However, more than two years later on Nov. 16, 2005, Pelosi stated correctly that on the basis of her "many years on the intelligence committee," she knew that "The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is ... uncorroborated and it is worthless."

***
As matters now stand, they not only concealed torture but, more significantly, they abetted the waterboarding of our democracy.

Pelosi and Harman played an instrumental role in the 9/11 cover up by keeping their knowledge about the interrogation videotapes secret from the 9/11 Commission and from the American people (they weren't the only ones who knew). This is made all the worse because Pelosi knew that intelligence "collected by torture" is worthless, and yet she never even hinted to the Commission or to anyone else that the CIA's version of events should be questioned. They could have stopped the whole farce cold -- but they chose to go along with it.

These two congresswomen -- who are fighting against 9/11 truth -- previously aided and abetted the 9/11 cover up. Is that why they don't want the truth to come out?

The White House and Congress Knew about the CIA Interrogation Videotapes

According to a former "senior intelligence official", the White House knew of the existence of the CIA interrogation tapes since 2003, at the very latest, and tacitly approved the destruction of the tapes in 2005.

Indeed, former CIA agent and State Department counterterrorism official Larry Johnson said that it was “highly likely” that President Bush himself had viewed the videotapes of the 2002 interrogations that were later destroyed. And the White House counsel knew in advance about the planned destruction of the tapes. Is that why the White House has instructed its spokesperson not to answer any questions on the subject?

And according to the Director of the CIA, Congress was also informed about the existence of the tapes, and -- later -- of the CIA's intention to destroy them.

Indeed, Senator Rockefeller has confirmed that the Senate Intelligence Committee knew of the existence of the videotapes in 2003. And Congresswoman Harman has confirmed that the House Intelligence Committee also learned of the existence of the videotapes in 2003. Is that why Senator Rockefeller opposes any real investigation into the destruction of the tapes, saying “I don’t think there’s a need for a special counsel, and I don’t think there’s a need for a special commission"?

The obstruction of justice regarding the tapes appears to have been orchestrated by the very highest levels of the U.S. Government.

Are the Wheels Coming Off the Government's 9/11 Myth?

The 9/11 Commission Report states:

"[This report relies] heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaida members . . . . Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports . . . . We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting."

One of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

The only point on which I fault Kean, Hamilton, and the other commissioners is their reluctance ever to challenge the CIA's walling off Al Qaeda detainees. The agency gave us all interrogation reports bearing on September 11. It even put to the detainees some questions sent them by commission staff. But the CIA refused to permit any direct access either to the detainees or to the interrogators and their interpreters. We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.

Given that the Commission could not even speak with the interrogators about what the alleged detainees said, let alone the detainees themselves, it is not surprising that even the Commissioners did not have confidence in the veracity of the interrogation reports.

Now that the CIA has revealed that it did film videos of the interrogations, but lied to the Commission about the existence of videotapes, and that it destroyed the tapes, even the co-chairs of the Commission, Kean and Hamilton, admit that the whole thing was a farce, and that the government obstructed justice. Here's Lee Hamilton:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

Chairman Thomas Kean said the CIA's destruction of the videotapes "hampered the panel's investigation into the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington". He also said "They told us we had everything they had on the detainees .... You don't expect not to be told the truth, but we weren't told the truth."

As previously reported, the Commission's executive director said that the Commission had requested interrogation videos, and the Commission's general counsel said that destruction of the tapes amounted to obstruction of justice.

While the mainstream media is studiously ignoring the deeper issues raised by the destruction of the tapes, there are signs that truth may be slowly rising to the surface after having been held underwater for a long time.

For example, while ignoring the real players behind 9/11, even Huffington Post and Digg- which normally avoid any story questioning 9/11 -- have picked up on the possibility that the tapes were destroyed because they showed that people other than a guy on dialysis living in a cave and his 19 pals were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Are the wheels are coming off the government's 9/11 myth?

Offense and Defense in 9/11 Truth

The best quarterback in the NFL can't score if he's getting sacked every play. He's got to have good offensive tackles to keep the hounds away from him long enough to make the play.

The same principal applies in 9/11 truth.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 911Truth.org are helping to spread the truth about 9/11 in an effective way. And yet both groups have been accussed of being "homegrown terrorists", or at least radicalizing people and tending to create terrorist sympathizers. See this and this.

If we don't get some offensive tackles in to support ae911truth.org and 911truth.org, they won't be able to keep on spreading truth and demanding a new investigation.

What to do?

To start with, please consider pitching in to a 9/11 defense fund so that defamation and civil rights lawyers can sue anyone who falsely accuses these groups of supporting terrorism simply for speaking the truth. Please consider donating directly at ae911truth.org and 911truth.org. These are not the only groups doing good work, and any other groups or individuals who are harassed for speaking truth should be supported.

In addition, we should support all of the websites that are calling "foul" when the defenders of the official version use illegal and immoral tactics to try to suppress the truth from coming out.

We've got to know how to protect our quarterbacks so that we can win. While it is true that the best defense is a strong offense, it is also true that -- without offensive tackles -- no quarterback would complete a single play.

Ready, break!

New York Times Bestselling Author Aims at 9/11 Coverup with Both Barrels Blazing

New York Times bestselling author Steve Alten is releasing a novel January 22nd which addresses the 9/11 stand down, the injection of false radar blips into air traffic controllers' screens, PNAC, the 9/11 Commission whitewash, the Anthrax attacks, and related issues.

Written in the exciting, cloak-and-dagger style of Tom Clancy, the novel -- The Shell Game -- has a shot at educating a large segment of the American public who would otherwise remain in the dark about some aspects of 9/11.

Alten is well-aware of media censorship of 9/11 truth (for example, he agrees with this analysis, he also sent me an advance copy of the book), and is trying to break through the media blockade using his resume as bestselling author to spread his message.

I just finished reading The Shell Game, and caught up with Alten by email.

GW: I really like The Shell Game, Steve. It had me on the edge of my seat, and I stayed up later than I should have a couple of nights to finish it.

SA: My books tend to be ... page-turners. The Shell Game does that and adds another twist ... it's all real, or it predicts what may really happen unless we stop the insanity. To stop it you must first be aware of it.

GW: If enough people read The Shell Game, it could bypass media censorship regarding 9/11 and reach people who would otherwise not be exposed to the facts. But if it doesn't sell well, then it will simply be an entertaining read for those already aware of the facts behind 9/11. So how are your efforts to promote The Shell Game going?

SA: We've been getting copies into the hands of key 9/11 groups over the last six months. Now it's up to them to create a buzz ... along with my mainstream fans.

GW: The Shell Game reads like a mix of Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and Dan Brown. Are those 3 authors all influences on your writing?

SA: Clancy, Thomas Harris, Ian Fleming...among others.

GW: Your discussions about 9/11 will be familiar to those who have studied the issue. In addition to Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon and David Ray Griffin's writings, what other 9/11 writings do you like?

SA: 9/11Truth.org. And videos like Loose Change.

GW: My father-in-law says that people predicted Peak Oil decades ago, and were proven wrong. Does the discovery of the massive new oil reserve in Brazil change your conviction that Peak Oil is upon us?

SA: Unless it is as big as Ghawar ... no. Oil IS running out. If not, do you seriously believe we'd have invaded Iraq?

GW: I've heard before that many of the world's top microbiologists have been killed under suspicious circumstances, but I've never heard anyone link their deaths to an alleged plot to reduce world population through biological warfare. That was the scariest part of the book for me. Do you have any evidence that the elites are really planning a massive depopulation of this kind?

SA: Read Rubicon and extrapolate Peak Oil.

GW: Well, I hope you're wrong. In any event, thanks, Steve. I hope the book does well.

SA: With your help it will ... for all of us.

UPDATE: Bill Douglas, Janice Matthews, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Robert Bowman and several other prominent 9/11 activists have signed the following endorsement for Shell Game:

We, the undersigned, urge everyone seeking truth, peace and justice, to not only purchase this new novel, "The Shell Game," but also to email out this appeal to all you know who seek truth, peace and justice in the form of 9/11 truth coming out. In turn, please urge them to do the same with all their contacts and urge them to do the same. We can break 9/11 truth open if we work together and focus on this project for the next 30 days.

Yours in 9/11 truth, peace and justice,

Bill Douglas, 911 Visibility Project
Co-Signatories:
Janice Matthews - 911Truth.org Executive Director
David Ray Griffin - 9/11 Researcher and Author
Kevin Ryan -former UL chemistry laboratory manager & NIST report whistle blower
Dr. Robert Bowman - Rtd. Colonel US Air Force, 9/11 truth leader; thepatriots.us/
Cosmos - TruthAction.org "The Eleventh Day of Every Month" Campaign
Carol Brouillet - Organizer of 1st National 9/11 Truth Conference in San Francisco
Mike Berger - "Improbable Collapse" Documentary Producer - 911Truth Spokesman
David Kubiak - 911Truth.org Board member
Kevin Barrett – Muslim/Christian/Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth

More Evidence of Obstruction of Justice in 9/11 Investigation

By now you've heard that the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda members. The interesting part of this story is that the 9/11 Commission claimed that it obtained most of its information about the attacks from these interrogations (and then only indirectly as reported by the military to the Commission; the Commission never met the alleged detainees, was not allowed to submit questions to them directly, nor was it allowed to question the alleged interrogators to assess their credibility).

The New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ....

“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

But is the destruction of the tapes -- and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact that the tapes existed -- a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times goes on to state:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Indeed, 9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton says:

"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.

And co-chairman Thomas Keane said “I’m upset that they didn’t tell us the truth.”

This isn't the first evidence of obstruction of justice by the government regarding the 9/11 investigations. For example:

• The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (although they never bothered to tell the American people about that fact)

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

• Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

• A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"

• The FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found

• The former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed

• In addition, the official investigators themselves were denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center . The blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

Of course, even had the government told the truth to the 9/11 Commission, the Commission was set up as a whitewash anyway.

Propel the Truth

As you know, Digg buries 9/11 stories (see Hunting Down Digg's Bury Brigade, Proof Digg's Bury Feature Abused to Suppress Controversial Content, Time To Fight Back Against Online Disinfo Agents and Trolls and Bury The Bury Brigade).

But Netscape has just launched its own version of Digg called "Propeller". After only a couple of weeks, it is already listed as about the 1,500th most popular website on Alexa.

Use Propeller to spread 9/11 truth.

To see how it works, please vote up my 9/11 story by clicking here.

Former President of Italy: 9/11 was an Inside Job

On November 30th, the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, wrote in Italy's largest newspaper:

[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.

Mr. Cossiga joins a very long list of top military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists who question the government's version of 9/11.

The above is a rough translation using Babelfish. Someone who speaks fluent Italian will be able produce a much more accurate translation.

Mr. Cossiga previously stated, in 2001:

The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.” (p. 36-37)

Note: Criticizing Zionism, as Mr. Cossiga does, is not the same as being anti-semitic. See this, this and this.

Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski -- who was the key whistleblower who revealed that the Pentagon had a special division producing cooked intelligence on Iraq -- recently wrote:

"The republic is dead. Not sick, not dying, not failing, or in a gradual decline, not waiting to be resuscitated, but already stone cold dead."

Is she right?

Well, there are some indications that America as envisioned by the the Constitution and the Founding Fathers doesn't just need our help. Is not merely in trouble, or fragile, or under attack. But rather, there are indications that America is already dead. That we lost. That its over.

Mushy-Headed America

Is it really that bleak?

I'm not sure. But I do know that the very mushy-headed optimism of many Americans blinds them to the fact that their own government could be ruthless enough to create baseless propaganda, manipulate intelligence, and pull off false flag attacks on American and allied citizens.

I believe that hope is vitally important. But if we don't see the situation as it really is, then we just have our heads up in the clouds then and we're not standing on the ground. We first have to see things as they are, and then use the power of hopefulness.

For example, if you don't discover that your house has mold, you can't fix it and make it healthy. If your doctor doesn't tell the patient he has cancer, the patient has no chance of getting better.

If you put all of your eggs in a basket without noticing there is a hole in the bottom, you're going to lose your eggs. And unless we acknowledge when something we like is broken, we can't fix it or -- if beyond repair -- build a new one.

Albert Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." If we do the same thing over and over, and it hasn't worked, we should wake up and acknowledge it isn't working. Otherwise, we cannot fix it.

America of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution is not yet dead . . . but that it is mortally wounded.

Instead of separation of powers, we have a tyrannical executive branch. Instead of a free market economy, we have massive subsidies, credits, manipulation of the stock market, and other things which skew the system so that there is not a level playing field.

The leaders we have now and the way things work are wholly corrupt. The structures are rotten and moldy, and have to be ripped out and rebuilt. The pipes are clogged, and nothing will move unless they are totally cleaned out.

The neocons and neoliberals, the imperialists and military-industrial complex, the lobbyists and dual loyalists have all cannibalized America to the point that it is hardly breathing.

The drafters of the Constitution would not recognize this place, except perhaps as a repeat of tyranny under the British crown.

America is mortally wounded. I'm calling a code blue.

Who's Going to Save Us?

Mad King George and the loyalists in the legislature are not going to voluntarily give us freedom or liberty or allow us any real input and a representative government. The Supreme Court (which handed the election to Bush) isn't going to do it.

Many liberals who still hope that the Democratic congress has some intention of impeaching Bush and Cheney, investigating 9/11, fixing the voting system, ending the Iraq war, or preventing war against Iran. They are hopelessly naive.

Did writing letters to our Democratic representatives work to stop the Iraq war? Has it worked to force a new 9/11 investigation? Is it working to prevent a war against Iran?

Many people voted for a Democratic congress and then trusted them to fix things. But they didn't, and it has now become apparent to those paying attention that the Dems are part of the problem.

Those who still naively trust that the Democratic congress members are good folks who are trying to stop the Neocons is blinding them to the fact that the Democrats don't want to do anything between now and the next election (and most of the Democratic presidential candidates don't want to do anything to change things even after the election).

On the other side, most Fox news watchers hope that the Iraq war will turn out okay. Or that the "terrorists" are certain brown-skinned people that we can defeat. Or that the destruction of liberties in the U.S. is temporary.

Their rose-colored glasses are preventing them from seeing the truth as much as the liberals.

Only massive civil disobedience has the chance to re-start America's pulse and save our country.
The patient is mortally wounded and the prognosis is grim. Only heroic measures can save the patient. Massive civil disobedience is the only thing with the power to re-start the heart of our nation. .

Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

People assume that the jet fuel which ignited the fires in the Twin Towers made the fires quite hot. However, Thomas Eager, a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a defender of the official story explains that the jet fuel actually made the fires cooler:

" . . . the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual . . . .

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

Indeed, jet fuel can only burn at a maximum temperature of 599 degrees Fahrenheit under normal conditions (other than a controlled burn using a high-oxygen mixture).

Obviously, the jet fuel was a source of fuel, and so contributed to the ignition and spreading of the fire in the first place. However, there was actually very little jet fuel in the overall scheme of things. Moreover, that jet fuel and office supplies were the sources of fuel for the fire almost guaranteed that it would be a fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire, which burns cool.

While the title may be slightly flip, the purpose of this essay is merely to show that jet fuel -- contrary to most people's assumption -- would not have created a hot fire. See this.

Finally, it is true that the soot from the jet fuel and other burning hydrocarbons may have raised the temperature somewhat. However, as Professor Eager points out, the fact that it was a fuel-rich fire -- at least while the jet fuel was still burning -- decreased the temperature of the fire "by a factor up to two", which would more than offset the increase due to reduction of radiative heat loss. Again, the bottom line is that the WTC fires were not very hot.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

There is an old legal saying: "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. It means that someone accused of a crime he didn't commit -- even if eventually acquitted -- is deprived of justice if he rots in jail for a long time before he is able to prove his innocence.

This is also true for the crime of state sponsored terrorism. Because previous incidents of assassination and false flag terror have been covered up, rogue elements within the U.S. government have been emboldened to carry out larger and more deadly attacks.

If the elements of the U.S. government who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks are not quickly brought to justice, then:

• The people of the U.S. will rot in a police state before they are able to prove that the Bill of Rights is innocent of the claim that it undermines American security
  

• The American people will be buried under a mountain of debt to fund the many trillions of dollars spent in wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. as part of a phony war on terror

• A lot of people living in the countries attacked as part of the "9/11 wars" will be killed, maimed and tortured

It is standard operating procedure for all U.S. dirty tricks to be covered up for 30 years or more, or until all of the players are dead. But in the case of 9/11, we can't wait.

Delaying justice for the 9/11 attacks would deny justice to the American people and to the world. Indeed, delaying justice would guarantee that the criminals kill again, and that America as we know it is destroyed, and the American people and the rest of the world suffers as a result.

DUCT TAPE EVERYONE'S MOUTH TO STOP TERRORISM!

The government has discovered that terrorists are using their mouths to promote anti-American sentiments. (People are questioning the government, so they must be terrorists). The mouth has been determined by patriotic Americans to be a bad, radical and terrorism-encouraging structure. It is bad, bad, bad.

Therefore, everyone's mouth must be covered with a strip of duct tape at least 2 inches long and at least 1 inch wide at all times (other than mealtime).

We must keep all Americans' mouths closed to protect America, land of freedom! Do it for the sake of liberty! Do it to protect our cherished free speech which terrorists hate so much!

Ridiculous? Of course it is. If someone promotes or incites criminal activity, that individual can be arrested.

But trying to "fight" or shut down the entire internet to "protect" our country is like trying to duct tape everyone's mouth shut because a few people say bad things.

No, HE Couldn't Fly Either

The fact that Hani Hanjour -- the alleged pilot of the Boeing airplane which crashed into the Pentagon -- could not fly at all is now being challenged by apparent CIA informant Louai al-Sakka, who says that it was actually Nawaf al-Hazmi who piloted the plane. Al-Sakka explains that al-Hamzi was a "a veteran operative".

However, al-Hamzi was also a terrible pilot.

According to the New York Times, al-Hamzi's flight instructor, Rick Garza, said:

''They had zero training before they got here, so I told them they had to learn a lot of other things first,'' Mr. Garza said.

* * *

Mr. Garza said that their aptitude for flying was poor from the start, and that it never improved.

''It was like Dumb and Dumber,'' Mr. Garza said. ''I mean, they were clueless. It was clear to me they weren't going to make it as pilots.''

Similarly, according to the CBC:

The two men [Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi] signed up for lessons at a local flight school, but they were completely lacking in natural abilities. After a few sessions their instructor, Rick Garza, told them there was just no point in continuing, "They seemed to have a very strong interest in flying larger aircraft and that's when they brought up the subject of flying Boeings. 'Where can we learn to fly Boeings?' I just kind of chuckled a little bit and said -'It's a long road before you get to Boeings. Several years from now, but you have to start out in a smaller aircraft. If you can't fly the little four-seat aircraft, there is no way you are going to be able to fly a Boeing.'"

The two men reported back to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that learning to fly was a lot more difficult than expected. He was surprised, "Bin Laden and I never considered whether any special skills or talents were needed to pilot an aircraft. We thought that learning to fly an airplane was much like learning to drive a car; it was easily accomplished with the correct instruction. It was a mistake in judgment."

So the official story cannot be rescued by this "new" information from a CIA operative.

Do 9/11 Conspiracies Stem from a Distrust in the Government?

Why do two-thirds of all Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks, but took no action to prevent those attacks?

The defenders of the official version of 9/11 argue that "the high percentage is a manifestation ... of an American public that increasingly distrusts the federal government." In other words, they argue that the approximately 200 million people who say that the emperor has no clothes have an illogical distrust of the emperor, and so they are seeing things.

They've got the whole cause-and-effect backwards.

In fact, the American public increasingly distrusts the federal government because it is becoming more and more obvious that elements of the government carried out -- or at the very least -- aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks. Despite the say-nothing media, the American public is getting the fact that the government's story about 9/11 just doesn't add up and that the vast majority of people in every relevant field who have examined 9/11 say so.

The reason two-thirds of the American public believe the emperor has no clothes is because he doesn't . . . and yet he and his cabinet are demanding that we compliment him on his clothes. That's why we distrust him.

What do we trust? Our eyes and our brains.

And for those who think that the majority of Americans who question 9/11 are crazy, psychoanalyze THIS!

Are People Who Question 9/11 Afraid of Al Qaeda?

Defenders of the official story about 9/11 argue that people who question that account are too scared of the threat from terrorism, and so create false conspiracies which are less scary . . . in order to reduce their anxieties.

For example, Time Magazine says questions about 9/11 won't go away because "the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting." Similarly, the BBC, in trying to sweep questions about 9/11 under the rug, says "we take comfort in complicated stories about wider conspiracies, usually involving remote, distant figures." And John McCain, in his forward to Popular Mechanic's book Debunking 9/11 Myths, says "We want to believe that 19 men could not murder our citizens, destroy our grandest buildings, and terrorize our country. Surely, something more was at work."

Are they right?

No. Its scarier to believe that the government who we've always believed would protect us was complicit in the mass murder of American citizens than to believe a bunch of foreigners did it.

How Scary is Al Qaeda?

Moreover, the BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares" shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype).

And a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

Indeed, many of the so called "Al-Qaeda" terrorists turn out to be operatives from Western governments.

How Scary would a Government Conspiracy Be?

On the other hand, how scary would it be if powerful elements within the U.S. government carried out (or at least aided and abetted) 9/11?

Well, the U.S. :

• Is the most powerful country in history

• Has access to every weapon of mass destruction in existence

• Has many billions of dollars at its disposable

• Frequently runs war games and terror drills, which are often the cover for false flag operations
  

• Has carried out false flag attacks on numerous occasions in the past

• Has a lapdog press that will rally to defend and cover up the crimes of the U.S. government while it instead blames every problem -- even the California wildfires -- on Al Qaeda

• Has a militarized police force, the ability to spy on all Americans, torture facilities all over the globe, and a legal framework which can brand anyone who disagrees with the government as a "terrorist"
  

What's scarier, the threat from a bunch of ragtag idiot wannabes from across the pond who fancy themselves as terrorists . . . or having people who murdered 3,000 innocent Americans with their fingers on the levers and resources of the world's largest police state and sole superpower?

I wish that it really had been Al Qaeda that carried out 9/11 by itself (we could easily stop such people if the government actually tried). A conspiracy involving the government is a lot scarier.

Indeed, psychologists and psychiatrists say that people who do not question the government's version of 9/11 are in denial -- that is, that they are too afraid to look at the facts.

The River Always Wears Away the Boulder

Those who are trying to force fascism, injustice, and repression on America are using raw power to try to stop the truth from becoming widely known. They are intimidating, harassing, torturing, and imprisoning those who recite the facts and name the crimes.

The good news is that "Trouthe wil out. Ryghtwysnesse may nat ben hid." (Lydgate). Or to put it in slightly more modern language, "Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but in the end truth will out."(Shakespeare).

Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." We are in the second stage: opposition to truth through the use of raw power.

But truth is an unstoppable force. Truth will defeat raw power over time, just as a stream wears away the biggest boulders. A boulder may crash into the river and divert its flow, for a while . . . but eventually, the river will win.

As Jim Watkins says, "A river cuts through rock, not because of its power, but because of its persistence".

Those who speak out against the government's crimes and injustices are like hundreds of millions of drops of water, while those who are attempting to crush the truth are really only a handful with a score of minions. No matter how big the boulder, we will prevail in wearing away the dam of fascism, draining the swamp, and re-establishing freedom.

Our efforts to spread truth are ongoing, and not one-time affairs. So a more accurate analogy than drops of water might be that we are like hundreds of millions of tributary streams pouring into a raging river of truth. What boulder can stand in the way of that kind of force?

Standing Up to the Schoolyard Bully

U.S. Congressman John Olver (D-MA) said recently that he

"is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections".

As Ralph Nader describes it, Olver and the rest of Congress are afraid that -- if Bush or Cheney are impeached -- they might declare martial law and suspend the 2008 elections:


How is Congress failing to remove Bush and Cheney from office based upon such fears any different from Neville Chamberlain trying to appease Hitler so Hitler would not attack?

Appeasing bullies only encourages them to become more aggressive. Appeasing criminals only guarantees that they will strike again and commit bigger crimes.

Don't Americans remember that the only thing that works is standing up to the schoolyard bully?

The River Always Wears Away the Boulder

Those who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks and their bootlickers are using raw power to try to stop the truth from becoming widely known. For example:

• They are labeling as terrorists anyone who questions 9/11

• The government is ordering the media to censor all questions about 9/11

• People have been fired, punched, referred for psychiatric treatment, spied upon and maybe even killed for speaking 9/11 truth

The good news is that "Trouthe wil out. Ryghtwysnesse may nat ben hid." (Lydgate). Or to put it in slightly more modern language, "Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but in the end truth will out."(Shakespeare).

Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." We are in the second stage: opposition to truth through the use of raw power.

But truth is an unstoppable force. Truth will defeat raw power over time, just as a stream wears away the biggest boulders. A boulder may crash into the river and divert its flow, for a while . . . but eventually, the river will win.

Those who question the government's version of 9/11 are like hundreds of millions of drops of water, while those who are attempting to crush the truth are really only a handful with a score of minions. No matter how big the boulder, we will prevail in wearing away the dam of fascism, draining the swamp, and re-establishing freedom.

Our efforts to spread truth are ongoing, and not one-time affairs. So a more accurate analogy than drops of water might be that we are like hundreds of millions of tributary streams pouring into a raging river of truth. What boulder can stand in the way of that kind of force?

Are Those Who Question 9/11 Anti-Semites?

Anti-semitism is one of the most frequent allegations levied by defenders of the government's version of 9/11 against people questioning that account.

Is it true? Are 9/11 activists really anti-semites?

Well, prominent Rabbi Michael Lerner and other Jewish leaders are calling for 9/11 truth. Indeed, Rabbi Lerner says that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world.

And many of the leading members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and other groups questioning 9/11 are Jewish. As are some of the other prominent individuals who have called for a deeper investigation into the events of 9/11. Indeed, some of the most-committed and hard-working 9/11 activists, such as Jon Gold and many others, are Jewish.

Moreover, the charges of anti-semitism are clearly illogical. For example, a book has been labelled as anti-semitic even though its co-editor is Jewish and it contains contributions from 4 Jewish writers.

So that must mean that these are "self-loathing" Jews, right? No, actually. I know many of these people quite well, and they are wholly comfortable being Jewish. Many are proud of their heritage and their faith.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell once stated, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.” Presumably, criticizing illegal acts by Mossad or other Israeli services would also be acceptable.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having a debate based upon whether or not there are credible facts justifying the hypothesis that portions of the 9/11 attacks were subcontracted out by rogue elements within the U.S. government to people associated with Mossad or other Israeli intelligence services, just as it is reasonable to discuss whether or not there are facts implicating British or other allied intelligence services in aiding and abetting the attacks.

There are admittedly a very small number of people claiming that they are for 9/11 truth but making anti-semitic remarks. However, they are shunned by the overwhelming majority of 9/11 activists who abhor anti-semitism. People who say "the Jews did it" and then use a bunch of anti-semitic and derogatory language are probably government infiltrators. Again, however, debating factual evidence one way or the other concerning the possible involvement of people affiliated with an allied intelligence service -- British or Israeli -- is not anti-semitic ... it is Constitutionally-protected free speech.

Ellsberg Confirms 9/11 Censorship

Former government official and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that Sibel Edmonds' case is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers".

Ellsberg also confirmed the media's censorship about 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations.

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.

* * *

"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"

Let's recap:

• High-level government personnel (the media would not take low-level people seriously) are calling the media threatening to prosecute anyone who reveals that U.S. politicians and other insiders committed crimes in connection with 9/11 for violating national security

• The failure of the media to cover the Edmonds' story is so normal and routine, that Ellsberg isn't even seem surprised by it

And if the New York Times refused to run a story revealing that the NSA had been illegally spying on Americans for over a year until after the election was held, how much more likely is it that the media would cover up -- for political reasons -- the greatest crime committed by the U.S. government in its history?

Edmonds herself sums it up pretty well when she says: "The only way they got away with it was because of the mainstream media."

The media can't pretend that they are trying to protect national security, as Edmonds confirms:

"I am not about to expose any methods of intelligence gathering. I am not going to expose any ongoing investigations, or even any investigations that may be ongoing," she told us, explaining that all relevant investigations about which she has information were long ago shut down by the government.

"I am not going to name any informant's name. I am not going to jeopardize any ongoing intelligence. Anything I'm going to be talking about, I know they are investigations that have been shut down by January and February of 2002."

And the media can't feign ignorance. Edmonds says "I know [the media] have it because people from the FBI have come in and given it [the information] to them. They've given them the documents and specific case-numbers on my case."

To a Fascist, ALL Americans are Terrorists

According to the wannabe-fascists:

• The majority of Americans who question the White House's "endless war" strategy are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

• The many millions of Americans who support presidential candidate Ron Paul are terrorists

• The vast majority of Americans who question the government's version of 9/11 are also terrorists

Together, that adds up to pretty much the entire American population! Why don't they just come right out and say it? They view all Americans as terrorists . . . except, of course, the handful of sociopaths who support dictatorship.

Ideas like liberty, justice, representative government, free speech, and the open debate of ideas are terrifying to fascists and their agenda, and so they label those who hold these American values as enemies.