Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor

gretavo's picture
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor
07/15/2009 - (Pilotsfor911truth.org) April Gallop, a survivor of the Pentagon Attack on September 11, 2001, is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and other officials for their possible role in the attack and failure to evacuate the Pentagon. The lawsuit cites Flight Data Recorder Analysis. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been called upon to sign our names and professional reputations to the analysis which will be presented before a judge in a court of law.
Several individuals who make excuse for the govt story such as Glenn Beck, some who refuse to put their names and faces to their claims such as those who spend their days and nights obsessed with us, and those who endlessly attempt to smear anyone who questions 9/11 (albeit poorly), constantly complain we will never take our concerns to court. They have once again been proven wrong.
To read pdf copies of the affidavit's being filed please visit -

or Download directly here. (right click and save target as..)
For full complaint filed by April Gallop, and discussion, please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15787

Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. See http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease for a summary of Pentagon Analysis. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture

and Kevin Barrett calls out Arabesque et al...

Sunday, July 19, 2009
9/11 Pentagon "Jetliner Attack" Illusion Exposed
The Proof that 9/11 Was an Inside Job that Several Leading 9/11 Truth Sites Don't Want You to See

In his first 9/11 book The New Pearl Harbor (2004), David Ray Griffin wrote that if the government's version of the "757 attack" on the Pentagon was not THE most obviously false part of the official story, it was at the very least tied for first place. (Presumably with Building 7.)

Since then, Griffin has not changed his mind, and the vast majority of 9/11 truth-seekers agrees with him.

Unfortunately, a tiny fringe element of truth-seekers (real and/or counterfeit) has been working overtime to smear anyone who brings up this issue. Worse, they have been smearing the very people who who have been doing the hard work necessary to settle the issue. And even now, after the issue has been definitively settled, they continue to fight a rear-guard action in favor of the proven-false proposition that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It would be funny, except that these people have seized power at several key 9/11 truth websites and used ad hominem attacks to vilify the researchers who have proved that David Ray Griffin was and remains correct: The government's "757 attack on the Pentagon" story is either AS obviously false as its claim that WTC-7 collapsed from fires, or possibly even MORE obviously false.

Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team, have worked their tails off doing primary research. Using the government's own alleged black box data (Balsamo) and in-depth recorded interviews with every Pentagon witness they could track down (Ranke and Marquis) these three guys have proven beyond anybody's reasonable doubt that the government's story is false. What's more, Ranke and Marquis have offered a plausible alternative hypothesis--a jetliner flyover timed to coincide with the detonation of a bomb--and found convincing eyewitness testimony to back it up. This alternative hypothesis lines up well with the evidence Barbara Honegger uncovered in her interviews with Pentagon personnel.

These brave researchers have been repeatedly smeared by -- who else? -- the anonymous cyber-entity that calls itself "Arabesque." This web handle (I have no idea if an actual person corresponds to it, or whether its true name is Operation Arabesque) specializes in cherry-picking little out-of-context word-turds from the internet, and assembling them into deceptive TIN RATS (They'll Never Read All This S**T). The result looks somewhat like actual scholarship to those unfamiliar with the genuine article, and provides those guided more by emotion than intellect -- especially people who are deathly afraid that the 9/11 truth movement will become identified with a claim that looks outlandish to the general public (!) -- with reasons to embrace their knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than engage intellectually with the evidence. (Check out this excellent deconstruction of Operation Arabesque's deceptive attacks on CIT.)

It's funny how the opinions of real 9/11 truth leaders like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (who recently endorsed CIT's work) are ignored by certain 9/11 sites, while the deceptive nonsense spewing from the cyber-orifice of Operation Arabesque is accepted. It makes you wonder about the judgement, if not the sincerety, of the people who run these sites.

I urge everyone to watch CIT's new 81 minute presentation, National Security Alert, and listen to my interview last week with Craig Ranke and this coming Tuesday with Rob Balsamo: http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/shows/fair-balanced. Also, please note that Rob and Pilots for 9/11 Truth really need some financial help right now. You can contribute by scrolling down the left column to the "Chip In" button at PilotsFor911Truth.org.

Don't let the trolls, ops and gatekeepers put these brave 9/11 primary-evidence researchers out of business.
Posted by Kevin Barrett at 11:53 AM

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/07/911-pentagon-jetliner-attack-illu...

juandelacruz's picture

Thankyou Kevin! Finally, all

Thankyou Kevin!

Finally, all the pieces are coming together.

casseia's picture

Panties... bunched... with increasing... force... at TA

After moderator "siddhartha" bumps the thread in which John Lear's no-planery is discussed (Lear is an individual member of Pilots for 911 Truth):

Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 344
Location: London, England

Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:52 am
Why is this being *bumped*?

What is the new relevance of Lear's debunked views?

Presumably since CIT are in discussion again the aim is to suggest that because Lear is a no-planer, PfT are a no-planer organisation? Please say that is not what is being suggested here...

I've not seen anything on the PfT website, their videos or their articles where they suggest or endorse no-planes, Lear is a single man.

Anyone who would make that argument would presumably also say that if a single person who had signed up to ae911truth came out and said there were no-planes that would make ae911truth a no-planer cult?

Thinking about it... it would be a pretty effective way of damaging the reputation of the group to sign upto it and then make such an announcement, I'm surprised the ops haven't thought of that one yet... or maybe they have?

truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 780
Location: Los Angeles

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:26 pm
Don't like that? Do ya? Huh? Not your thing? Huh? Rubs you the wrong way? Maybe? Huh? Not a big fan? Huh?

Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 344
Location: London, England

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:28 pm
Not a big fan of no-plane theory, no.

Not a big fan of cheap guilt by asociation smear tactics either.

truthmover
joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 780
Location: Los Angeles

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:50 pm
Not a big fan of cheap guilt by asociation smear tactics either.

Gosh you're snappy.
And unconvincing.

Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 344
Location: London, England

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:52 pm

Not a big fan of cheap guilt by asociation smear tactics either.

Gosh you're snappy. And unconvincing.

What am I trying to convince anyone of?

It appears that Sid is trying to convince people that P4T are a no-planers organisation based on a statement by single person who had signed their petition then come out as a no planer.

Are you convinced of that?

siddhartha
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 367
Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:55 pm
"Pilots for Truth" IS a no planes organization and a QUACK like John Lear fits PERFECTLY at the top of their roster. You, Stefan, are a notoriously gullible (yet extremely arrogant and belligerent) individual and it comes as no surprise that you suck up their garbage and act all inflamed when someone tries to point out the reality of the matter.

truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 780
Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:03 pm

"Pilots for Truth" IS a no planes organization and a QUACK like John Lear fits PERFECTLY at the top of their roster. You, Stefan, are a notoriously gullible (yet extremely arrogant and belligerent) individual and it comes as no surprise that you suck up their garbage and act all inflamed when someone tries to point out the reality of the matter.

Word.

I'm going to try to be in front of my computer tomorrow at 9 am Pacific Time listening to Barrett's interview with Rob Balsamo -- because it is obviously scaring the shit out of some people.

gretavo's picture

I think the fake truthers are coming unhinged...

as in losing their sanity... do they seriously think they're convincing anyone with this "Pentagon skeptics are no-planers" crap? now, as the resident avocat du diable (my nod to Thierry Meyssan) I have to wonder out loud--are we being manipulated into supporting a particular group of Pentagon skeptics with the classic "make them rally around someone by launching absurd attacks on them" gambit? Because at some point they are going to go Fetzal? Or because someone somewhere has finally concocted some "definitive proof" of AA77 having hit the Pentagon?

juandelacruz's picture

I was thinking of that too.

I was thinking of that too. But the reaction of the fakers looks like genuine panic. In contrast with what Kevin B. claims that the Pentagon is as compelling evidence of 911 misdeeds as WTC demolition, I think we still have a better idea of WTC7 where we know that it was demolished. At the Pentagon, we only have conflicts of witness vs the OCT but no evidence of bomb traces at the scene, video of plane flyover, etc. Oh yeah, dancing Mossad were only caught filming at WTC, and the Silverstein angle too.

casseia's picture

Yes, that's definitely uncalled-for hyperbole

to suggest, as Kevin B. does, that the Pentagon (as anomalous as it is) has the same "truth value" as WTC7. Waaaaaay too ambiguous -- and I don't know how/why you would approach a 9/11 truth naif with the Pentagon information.

Keenan's picture

Well, the perps seem more afraid of the Pentagon Attack fraud...

being exposed. While we don't have concrete proof of the flyover/bomb residue at the Pentagon, we do, however, have sufficient evidence to prove WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. And that is enough to prove an inside job and disprove the bullshit LIHOP/islamic menace part of the OCT - the most crucial part.

Why are the purps putting way more energy into damage control and disinformation on the Pentagon vs the WTC demolition? I believe it is because even if WTC demolition were exposed, they could still argue (as nonsensically as it sounds to us) that Al Queda was still involved. The Pentagon is a different story, Once we prove that there was not plane crash at the Pentagon, and that the damage was caused by a PsyOp/military deception, THAT NECESSARILY EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY THAT AL QUEDA COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

I'll go with what the perps are most afraid of - which is obviously the exposure of the Pentagon Attack Deception - and conclude that it is AT LEAST as important as the WTC CD evidence for exposing the 9/11 truth.

casseia's picture

Yes, you're right

that this could all go the way of "Bush allowed al Qaeda to blow up the WTC with Pakistani thermite." But I think another big factor is that the Bentham paper was a kind of threshold -- after which we (or they) may conclude that explosive demolition is a done deal, a stick-a-fork-in-it explanation of events. Gold certainly gets jumped on whenever he mentions his hesitations now -- I don't think there's any more "be nice to Jon -- it's okay for him not to believe in CD because he does so much for the family members" malarkey.

My comment was a reference to how this information could be *used* -- by us, in truthing. I'm still wrapping my head around CIT's work and I wouldn't try to wrap a non-truther's head at this point. OTOH, as someone said recently, at the very least, CIT is doing invaluable work from a historical perspective.

gretavo's picture

hey now, be nice to jon gold!

he does so much for the fam... oh wait, there's no more of that? damn! :)

Keenan's picture

2 different types of smoking gun evidence

I should clarify that when I stated that on the one hand we don't have the same kind of physical concrete evidence at the Pentagon as we do at the WTC which can be put into a scientifically peer reviewed article, we still have smoking gun evidence of a different type at the Pentagon. At the Pentagon, the evidence we have is in the form of eyewitness testimony, which doesn't take a scientist to analyze and is a simple matter of logic. In this case anybody with half a brain can make a logical determination that if 100% of all verified eyewitness testimony, 14 people so far, who were closest to the event and had a clear view of the area, independently confirmed that the flight path was North of Citgo and nowhere near the light poles and was at an angle that could not have caused the damage to the building, then that proves that the physical damage was caused by something other than Flight 77 and had to have been staged by a military deception.

As far as how we use it in truthing, you have a good point that it may at first appear to be a more convoluted presentation than the, for example, a simple video of building 7 being demolished + the peer reviewed and confirmed evidence of thermite.

I think that with these 2 different types of evidence - in the one case peer reviews science, and in the other case a simple matter of corroborating eyewitness testimony - there are different kinds of people, some of whom would more easily accept one type of evidence than the other. I've experienced in my truthing that certain people seem to be more impressed with scientific evidence with calculations, etc., whereas other types of people avoid the scientific "complexity" and say, "well, I'm not a scientist so I have no idea how to form an opinion on such a thing" but are more impressed with simple eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon, along with photos that don't show any plane parts, etc.

gretavo's picture

the point remains that they never met the burden of proof

to back their allegation that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Where is the actual physical flight manifest from that flight? Where is the collection of the totality of plane wreckage collected at the site? Where is the surveillance video?

None of this has been provided.

They clearly lied about just about everything else on 9/11.

Reasonable conclusion for why they provided none of the hard evidence listed above? Because they don't have it. Period. To argue in the absence of real evidence that the OCT is likely true, or that the burden is on us to prove it false, is to serve the cover-up, pure and simple, and a handful of fake truthers is clearly guilty of that at this point. They shouldn't think that they won't be on the list of those held accountable in a court of law as accessories after the fact to these crimes.

P45's picture

siddhartha the almighty just banned me from the 'action

Unluckily for him I always have my screengrab app running when I visit that temple of truth.

 

casseia's picture

Yup... batshit crazy.

It *is* almost enough to make me think we're getting the reverse-double-inverted manipulation.

And "truebeleaguer" writes:

Can anyone provide information on the use of runway 15 at Reagan National (DCA)?

"element" was claiming that the normal flight approach to runway 15 went right past the Pentagon and that flight 77 in flying away could simply merge with this course.

S/he then disappeared without backing up this claim. Does anyone know whether 757s or 737s routinely used this runway and whether such a near-Pentagon approach path existed?

S/he *was disappeared* -- that is, banned -- but in keeping with the Orwellian vibe, no one will cop to it. So s/he gets to look flaky or non-responsive.

Keenan's picture

Element was apparently just BANNED from TrueFaction

element, one of the more intelligent and articulate supporters of CIT, and one who was trying to hold the liars - Arabesque/Victroria/Julian - feet to the fire, was apparently just banned with no explanation:
http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31669#31669

What's interesting is that he was just banned at PrisonPlanet Forum at the same exact time, which points to coordination between mods at all the fake truth sites.

I will be writing more about the recently unfolding events when I have more time. The winds of change are blowing rapidly right now and I'm sure we've only just begun to witness the ground shaking change of course that is happening with the 9/11 truth movement.

Some things that will be coming up soon:

Stephan Jones will have to make a decision about how to disassociate himself from disinformation agent Jim Hoffmam which he partnered with after SJ911Truth split up from Fetzer, and join with Richard Gage and the mainstream truth movement...

Cosmos/YT will have to make a decision as to whether he will go down with the sinking Operation Arabesque Ship, or whether he will try to regain some credibility and join the mainstream truth movement...

I'm thinking about writing an Open Letter to Cosmos to that effect.

Keenan's picture

Gage's endorsement of CIT has fake truthers in FULL PANIC MODE

I really think we are witnessing the spectacular grand finalé and collapse of the desperate gang of fake truthers who are in full-on PANIC MODE after Richard Gage of AE911Truth endorsed the work of Citizen's Investigation Team. They now understand in horror that their truther capital is totally depleted and nobody will give them a bailout. What a lovely display of true colors for everybody to see, as the little click of disinformation agents that thought they had everything under control are falling off the cliff and desperately flailing about, being forced to show their true colors like never before and dispelling any doubt as to what their real agenda really is.

With David Griffen and Richard Gage's endorsement of P4T and CIT and the undeniable FACT that the mainstream 9/11 truth movement WILL NEVER AGAIN FALL FOR THE FAKE FLIGHT 77 CRASH AT THE PENTAGON, the Real Truth Train has left the station of the Church of the Pentagram Boeing at FakeVille and is now moving faster than the comical circus of fake truthers, led by Clown-in-Chief Arabesque, can run in vain, never to catch up.

Get some popcorn and enjoy the show, folks, because it can only get more hilarious and spectacular from here.

gretavo's picture

man after my own heart

"it can only get more hilarious and spectacular from here."

I'm afraid you're probably right--let's enjoy the hilarious part before the desperation leads to someone "jumping the big shark"...

juandelacruz's picture

If only we were all in

If only we were all in eyeball range, I would be inviting everyone to pop open champagne or bottles of San Miguel Pilsen.

gretavo's picture

oh smack, someone's infringed on our trademark!

but if it *was* this siddhartha vader character i don't think I'll make a fuss--look at his avatar, he's like, made of living new age energy!! between him, "Cosmos" and Colonel Jenny Sparks there's like a whole Justice League on our tails!

casseia's picture

So to continue...

Rob Balsamo himself showed up at TA to object to the smears in this thread. The moderator changed his homepage link from PfT to some nutty John Lear thing, and then the usual thuggery started, with much high-fiving among the pig-pilers, and then they banned Balsamo. Most delightfully, at one point one of them referred to "the many people who read this site and do not comment" as if somehow able to discern that the majority of those people agree with the pigpilers. Of course, after watching dissenters ridiculed and banned (and then ridiculed some more when they are no longer able to respond), it's not likely that dissenters are going to feel welcomed to the conversation.

But here's one comment from "Atomic Bomb" that I hope may be instructive:

I have not posted in this forum for quite a long time and in fact have not looked at it for a while because I was not at all happy about the way everyone acted in the kennebunkport tussel. I did not like the way Tarpley acted in response to the accusations made nor did I like the accusations themselves. This issue with Balsamo and PFT smacks of the same kind of thing and will most likely result in my NOT participating here again for a long while.

For the record I am offering my personal opinion here not the opinion of any organization.

To try and be brief here is the way I see it. PFT conducts original research and makes their findings available for all to see and they attach their real names and reputations to their work. The anonymous bloggers here do not conduct original research or attach their real names and reputations to their work. They critique the work of others such as that of PFT.

It is easy to sit back behind a screen name and nitpick anyone to death because people are not perfect so some issue can ALWAYS be found with ANYONE. "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone" comes to mind in this situation.

Now before anyone flies off the handle at me for pointing that out please note I have NOT said how I feel about Lear's association with PFT.

I am writting this because I believe in the 11th of the month truthaction campaign and would like to see it continue to grow which I am sure it will. This blog thread however is NOT a positive thing nor is it helping the 11th campaign grow faster.

Those who post here need to take a cue from Dr. Stephen Jones. Dr. Jones dealt very effectively and thoroughly with the Judy Wood DEW and Morgan Reynolds hollogram disinformation without personal attacks even in a very bad situation where his original group was being torn apart by Fetzer and Wood etc. Jones did not call anyone a disinfo agent or engage in name calling or use guilt by association (GBA) tactics. His methods worked, he simply researched the theories in question, found them to be unsupportable and explained why they were not scientifically valid. Enough said. Jones methods work and he clearly came out on top of that tussel.

What is happening here is an example of how NOT to do things assuming for the moment that you want this blog and the 11th actions to grow that is. Now regardless of how irrational or potentially damaging to PFT Lear's opinions may be Rob Balsamo makes a valid point when he says that the title of this thread is guilt by association (GBA) in and of itself. The fact is Lear is a qualified pilot and therefore can join PFT. Lear's personal views do not constitute the views of PFT. This is an absolutely valid point and it is very bad form to attack PFT for the views of Lear even if you regard those views as bizarre. THAT IS GUILT BY ASSOCIATION (GBA). IT'S MCCARTHYISM.

If you want Rob to kick Lear out of PFT because in your view he is potentially damaging to the 9/11 truth movement this is the absolute wrong way to do it. The way to do it is to compile your information about Lear that shows his analysis of 9/11 issues to be in error and submit that analysis to PFT and the 9/11 truth community and let PFT and Lear respond to the information. It will then come out in the wash. Lear's other views are irrelevant to the issue at hand and should not be brought into it unless and until PFT directly advocates those same views. That is the way Dr. Jones would go about this. That is the right way to do it.

The wrong way to do it is to attack Lear because he believes in aliens on the moon and then imply that PFT therefore endorse aliens on the moon theories. That is McCarthyism pure and simple. The reason I think anonymous bloggers don't do it the right way and instead tend to gravitate towards GBA is because new research is difficult and time consuming. It would take time you see to painstakingly research Lear's claims and uncover all the details about why those claims are incorrect. It is vastly easier to just sling some insults at Lear about his non 9/11 related views and use GBA against PFT.

To ban Balsamo from the forum when he came in here to defend his organization shows me that this forum is acting disingenously. Gagging the opposition just makes you look bad, really bad. In fact the only reason to ban him is because his points were valid and he exposed the hypocrisy of the GBA tactics used here.

If I believe the Pyramids were not built during the reign of Khufu but are in fact much older does that mean I am potentially damaging to the 9/11 truth movement? Does that mean the 9/11 organizations I belong to hold those same beliefs? Does it make me a disinfo agent waiting to spring a trap on the truth movement?

Do you see the logical progression here and where it leads? I hope so because I like Cosmos and what he has built.

I certainly understand the truthaction bloggers involved in this thread desire to distance the 9/11 truth movement from Lear and I would hope Rob Balsamo sees why that is so and makes sure from here on out that Lear clearly distinguishes his personal views from those of PFT. This is no way to go about it though and I hope the board management sees why that is so. Some self examination is in order here, without it the future growth of this blog is questionable. This is not a personal attack and I hope is not taken as such.

So now let the chips fall where they may. For what it is worth these are my opinions and I think they are shared by many but articulated by few. My name is Adam Ruff and I approved this message.

gretavo's picture

I fear for Atomic Bomb's post!

Surely there is some fundamental law of the universe along the lines of matter/anti-matter destroying each other that will ensure that this extremely well reasoned comment will be annihilated as a result of its proximity to the rest of the content at TrueFaction...

gretavo's picture

and what's with messing up users' profiles?

What does that say about the moderators/owners of that site? For that matter, isn't it interestingly similar to what "Jules" of TruthMove did on his "9/11 Burnout" blog, which is to write a post dissing our site and then deleting all of our very polite and thoughtful replies, replacing them with a single foul mouthed anonymous comment calling him names and linking to WTCD? And then insinuating on the truth action forum that indeed one of us posted it?

Annoymouse's picture

why don't you jerk offs jump off a cliff?

All you ever try to do is defend terrorists. You liars call everyone LIHOP who doesn't agree with you because you want people to think there's no threat to the world from jihadism. You're all probably on Saudi Arabia's payroll!

Check it out, this is what REAL real truthers do: http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-change-and-transparency...

gretavo's picture

Sander Hicks and Michael Ruppert are such obvious shills

 Now let's see, Sander Hicks working to expose the truth about 9/11--what truth does *he* believe, "anonymous"?

 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus-claims.pdf

OilEmpire.US guide to 9/11 disinformation that distracts from real evidence of complicity

“Oil Empire is among the best current political websites. 9/11 has been examined by hundreds of writers, some of them

quite excellent and others more limited -- but there are still other 9/11 sites whose illogic and rhetorical chicanery suggests

disinformation. Oil Empire is by far the best resource for discriminating among the various 9/11 sites, seeking

the genuine and avoiding the bogus. The mechanics of 9/11 are important. But the crime remains an isolated incident

unless it's framed in a larger narrative of world affairs.” -- Jamey Hecht, assistant editor, From the Wilderness

“Your sixth sense for 9/11 disinfo is intuitive and deadly accurate. It’s as necessary as original research."

-- Sander Hicks www.sanderhicks.com

“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended

victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the

credibility of anything stuck to it by association.” -- Michael Ruppert, “Crossing the Rubicon,” p. 184

“The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ came to be shorthand for ‘discredited

whacko’ in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the

obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels.

“If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you

have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff.”

-- Sander Hicks, www.sanderhicks.com

gretavo's picture

what's thiiiiiis?

Sander Hicks was an early promoter of JIM FETZER. Nice.

American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone
by Four Arrows and Jim Fetzer
www.drenchkiss.com/wellstone_conference.html

A good summary of the basic evidence that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated just before the 2002 elections. Wellstone was predicted to win re-election, had voted against the invasion of Iraq, and was hated by the Bush family (one of his first acts in DC after winning election in 1990 was giving President Bush the First a tape of Minnesotans urging that there not be a war on Iraq).

"American Assassination" was edited and published by Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding."

http://www.oilempire.us/wellstone.html

gretavo's picture

More revealing early Sander Hicks Crap

Must be read to be believed--some of this stuff is freakin hilarious in hindsight--but for the fact that people are still promoting him as some kind of "truth leader"...

 

The power and the pitfalls. A GNN special report.

“The climax arrives this week!” That’s the way the New York 9/11 Truth web site announced a series of events examining the unanswered questions of 9/11 that kicked off today at Manhattan’s Symphony Space. More events are planned, leading up to a major panel discussion at the Manhattan Ballroom on Saturday, Sept. 11 (for more info see the Summer of Truth web site).

Dubbed “The Omission Hearings,” today’s panel was hosted by former Congresswoman and fulltime rebel rouser Cynthia McKinney. McKinney opened by saying, “I’m finally on a commission where it’s alright to ask questions.” She added, “We have no political ideology but the truth. The truth about America’s tragedy belongs to all of us.”

Today’s panel also included John Judge, co-founder of 9/11 Citizens Watch and chief author of the coming “9/11 Omissions Report,” a detailed of counter-narrative to the best-selling official 9/11 Commission report. As Judge explained, the official report was more than just a cover-up, it was an “exoneration” – each chapter draft was sent to the White House to be vetted before it was set to print. There are no redacted passages in the final report, he said, because it had, in a sense, been pre-redacted. Judge told the audience of about 300 that the report could be considered to be at least partially written by the very people it was investigating.

Also testifying were:

- Jenna Orkin, a member of the World Trade Center Environmental Organization, a group investigating the environmental disaster of Sept. 11 and subsequent cover-up.

- Barrie Zwicker, Vision TV, Canada, who discussed the history of false provocations and pretexts for war.

- Nicholas Levis from 911Truth.org, who presented an overview of findings by the 9/11 research community as compiled online in the ongoing 9/11 Omissions Dossier.

- Michael Ruppert, the former LAPD Narcotics Investigator, and publisher of www.fromthewilderness.com, and author of the coming book, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.

- Paul Thompson, author of The Complete 9/11 Timeline, the leading online resource for 9/11 research, whose new book from Harper Collins, The Terror Timeline: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11, represents the antidote to the official report.

Was 9/11 a U.S. government plot? Did Bush know and just do nothing to stop it? They may sound like crazy conspiracy theories (and they may turn out to be), but GNN invites our readers to investigate the facts themselves. The above sources are the best places to start (also see Chapter 3 of our new book True Lies).

Earlier this summer, GNN asked writer and INN correspondent Sander Hicks to give us an overview of the growing movement. Here is what he found:

The 9/11 Truth Movement

When GNN asked me to report on the “9/11 Truth Movement,” I shuddered. How can one attempt to describe this fractious, nation-wide phenomenon of disparate researchers and activists, spread far and wide, but tied umbillically on the web? This amorphous network of folks has only recently become known as “The 9/11 Truth Movement” and even that general term is sort of a stretch. The “movement” has displayed a tendency to stop its work, fragment into sharp sects and bitter rivalries. Can loner net junkies unify into truth warriors and turn the tide of history?

At its worst moments, the 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term “conspiracy theorist” came to be shorthand for “discredited whacko” in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. Suddenly, it’s not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels. If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff.

Similarly, the 9/11 Truth Movement bears the seeds of its own destruction. At times, the serious questions seem threatened to be drowned by the theories about “pods” being attached to the bottom of the planes, “napalm” being planted in the World Trade Center explosions, or the real ringer, “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon at all.”

This reporter attended the movement’s first national conference in San Francisco in late March. Anyone who still believed that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon was instantly labeled an agent of “limited hangout.” In the movement, this term (coined by President Nixon while trying to limit disclosure on Watergate) is always pronounced with a sneer.

But let’s start first with the issues that unite the movement. Fortunately, the Bush Administration’s architects of death have provided a wealth of subjects. It seems they do everything under a veil of secrecy. Theories to explain their obvious collusion and conspiracies naturally follow. To try and get a pulse on the concerns of the movement, in May, I composed a poll and began to circulate it online. My questions were as follows:
1. If you could ask the entire 9/11 Commission one question, in open session, what would it be?
2. What has been the 9/11 Commission’s biggest sin of omission?
3. If you could replace the 9/11 Commission with a three member panel, who would be on the panel?
4. What’s your background before becoming a 9/11 Truth Activist?
5. What other causes are related to 9/11 Truth Activism?

The number of answers I received was not overwhelming, so what follows can’t be considered a scientific survey. But among the twenty or so responses, a pattern emerged. And the quality of the answers was a refreshing surprise. Respondents described themselves as business people, mothers, environmental activists, musicians, professors of English, writers, and one described their background tersely, with a simple, “IT.” (Is the “IT” career “information technology” or just a neutered pronoun?) Their answers were intelligent, free-thinking, and fearlessly reasoning outside the box of the official story.

“Damn,” the reporter thought, “maybe these Don Quixotes will some day be a potent threat, a historical force.”

Multiple respondents said the 9/11 Commission’s biggest sin of omission was the failure to grill Bush and Cheney under oath, using their power of Subpoena. Musician and prolific member of a group of New York-based 9/11 activists Michael Kane said the one question he’d most have liked to ask the commission is, “What explanation did George Bush give to you in closed session for his incomprehensible actions on the morning of 9/11?” Derek Davidson pointed out, that the Commission has “the power to force officials to testify in public, but instead they have been begging officials.” Davidson’s burning question to the commission is, “Why do you keep avoiding questions about the actual day of 9/11/01 as relates to the stand down of U.S. military jets?”

Other questions: “Why did World Trade Center Seven collapse?”

World Trade Center 7 was never hit by any planes. Yet after an explosive sound, the building collapsed into its own footprint around 5:20 PM on the day of 9/11. Building owner Larry Silverstein gave an interview to PBS’s Frontline, in which he talked of making the decision “to pull building seven.” Many have pointed out that “pull” in construction terms usually means to demolish a building by blowing up its structural columns. But others have pointed out that he could have been referring to “pulling” the firemen inside the building to prevent a further loss of life. The official story from FEMA is that a small fire in the upper reaches of the building probably spread down to fuel tanks in the basement and blew up the whole thing. But even FEMA is not sure that they can back that one up. On May 1, 2002, FEMA wrote in their report, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.” Thanks. Meanwhile, the public is left with the image of the WTC 7 collapsing into its own foundation, and an official story that insults our intelligence.

“Why the fast clean-up of a crime scene?”

All the wreckage and steel from Ground Zero was sold to recyclers and shipped out to China and India, thanks to a quick deal New York City made with two New Jersery companies: Metal Management Northeast and Hugo Neu Schnitzer East, (one of the largest scrap recyclers in the nation) of Jersey City.

“What about the war games being conducted on 9/11?”

English professor Dr. Jamie Hecht summarizes why the recent revelations about military drills that were taking place on and around 9/11 are important to understanding what happened that day. “Several simultaneous war games were being run, having been scheduled months in advance. These included Northern Guardian, which tied up so many U.S. fighter aircraft that there were only 8 left to protect the entire northeastern United States that morning. Another two war games run on the morning of September 11th were Vigilant Warrior (NORAD) and Vigilant Guardian (Joint Chiefs); the first a live-fly ‘hijacked aircraft’ drill using real planes, the second a virtual drill of the same kind. These made it impossible for NORAD and FAA controllers to discern the genuinely hijacked planes and intercept them.”

The scheduling of three simultaneous war games on 9/11 certainly explains how the NORAD and FAA could have been caught off guard. But then the question becomes—how did the terrorists know to strike on 9/11? These are some well-connected terrorists!

Back to Dr. Hect: “When the planes hit, I knew the Air Force had been somehow neutralized. Now we know how and by whom.” On that day, Hecht “felt a loss begin…it has continued with an urgency and momentum that I attribute to the scope of what was lost: three thousand New Yorkers, half the Constitution, and most of the Republic.”

When asked to propose members for a new 9/11 Commission, respondents suggested: South African President Nelson Mandela, Populist Super-Attorney Gerry Spence, former Bush I Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts, and 9/11 Widow Kristin Breitweiser. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, & Independent Researcher Mike Ruppert both received multiple nominations. Other suggestions included “pitbull progressive” Congressman Henry Waxman, Senator Ron Paul, and David Ray Griffin, author of the 9/11 “Truth Movement’s” big publishing hit The New Pearl Harbor.

Griffin’s book also came up in a discussion with respondent Eric Douglas, a downtown Manhattan-based architectural designer. Douglas said we wanted some sort of “matrix, or spreadsheet” to map out the different 9/11 authors and researchers. “I don’t have enough time to research and critique every book and website on 911, so I have to rely on other researchers and determine their credibility. How to figure out who believes what.” I suggested he also read Daniel Hopsicker’s Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover Up in Florida. Douglas compared the book to The New Harbor Pearl by saying, “They are at fairly opposite ends of the investigative spectrum. Griffin is a big-picture academic clearinghouse of unofficial 911 thinking, and Hopsicker is a relatively single-focused bulldog gumshoe who tenaciously tracks down the off-odors he finds along the way. There are also many books that deal with the motivations for U.S. Middle East involvement. But there still seems to be a dearth of specific 911-related findings in print. Griffin is good, but it’s not his stuff. Hopsicker is good, but too narrow.”

II. Relating to the World

After the first set of questions, I posed a new batch, aiming to be more provocative. Here’s what I sent out:
I wanted to ask you about the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement in your town. Does it exist? Has it become an actual movement or is it just a bunch of folks with shaky credibility? Or is that credibility gone recently from nothing to something? What about the media in your town? Does talk radio talk about it? Is there an Indy Media Center and do they talk about it? What about the “Left” in your area? Do they discuss stuff about 9/11?

These answers were much more reflective. Several times, the answers seem to consider, if we truly have a movement here, what will it take to gain mass support?

While doing background research for my story on FBI/ATF informant Randy Glass, I happened to speak with Mr. Jon Vincent, who retired from the FBI only last year. Vincent had been the partner of FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, who gave a tear-filled press conference after 9/11 apologizing to victims’ families. He described being stymied and punished by higher-ups at the FBI for trying to investigate Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists. Yet, Mr. Vincent is not willing to consider the implications of his former partner’s story. Given a quick five-minute summary of the evidence that the Bush White House knew of the 9/11 attacks, did not prevent them, and is trying to cover up the trail, Vincent doesn’t deny that the facts seem to damning. Yet he’s not willing to entertain any anti-Bush theories. Vincent would “rather go play golf on Saturday and be able to sleep at night,” rather than think that the government is complicit in mass murder.

Perhaps you need to be on a different plane to be able to perceive the truth. Demitria Monde Thraam, a San Francisco artist and web designer, says that “Being part of/peripherally connected to the drug subculture for half my life has caused me to already know that our government can and does murder its own…The belief that GWB Co. allowed the attacks is not a belief that many people can literally stand having and still be able to sleep at night…I think this is the major problem we have to deal with, much more important than proving particulars about the event itself (i.e. whether there was or was not a plane hitting the Pentagon, et cetera.)”

The movement is also having a hard time getting the broader “Left” in America interested. Fred Schlange in Chicago wrote, “It is a non-issue in Chicago Media…though the student papers at University of Illinois show some interest. The Left in Chicago is still very cautious. Many of us were burned by the Chicago Police Red Squad in the sixties, and we still carry the scars. Literally.”

But hope springs eternal in small-city Peoria, Illinois. E-list administrator and truth activist Connie Cook Smith writes, “When I presented my two years of research in Peoria on the second anniversary of 9/11, 50 people came to the talk. That’s a small number, but for conservative Peoria, it was considerably more than I expected, out of a population of 112,000—especially since my promos stressed that I would focus on the deceptive aspects of it.”

Kezia Jauron connects with a community of over 50 fellow progressive activists in the San Fernando Valley, outside of L.A. She reports, that “When trying to discuss these issues with mainstream progressives not often caught deep in thought, the attitude toward 9/11 has been ‘but regardless…millions of lives have been lost and the whole world is forever changed.’ Even though it’s thousands, not millions, and probably four-fifths of the world could not give a shit.” Other Valley voices have quiped to Jauron, “If you can’t get beyond the politics of 9/11, I don’t understand your involvement in politics.”

But what are the theories inside the 9/11 Truth Movement(s) that Jauron herself finds incredible? “Use of remote control [to pilot the planes.] Individual interviews with rescue workers and debris removal crews proving the results of explosives [referring to the work of the otherwise excellent Christopher Bollyn]…The report that San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was told not to fly as of 9/10.” Jauron’s got a point there. Many have heard that Brown was warned not to fly. It’s true, but he didn’t take the warning seriously until he saw the disaster taking place on 9/11 en route to the airport.

Lisa De Witt of Tucson, Arizona, reports, “Most of the news that comes occasionally through the TV or radio about 9/11, I see first on the internet. One specific example I can think of right off hand is the story about the Saudi flights which took place after 9/11 while everyone else, including Clinton, etc., was grounded. I had read about it as far back as a year or more ago on the internet. And when the 9/11 commission finally got around to questioning Clarke, which I watched on CNN, they asked him if he was the one who gave permission for the Saudis to leave the country. Still, there is a lot of stuff that doesn’t make it into the mainstream news, like the Sibel Edmonds story.” DeWitt is making reference to the former FBI translator who is fast becoming a thorn in the side of Attorney General Ashcroft. Earlier this year, she was stopped from translating Al Qaeda-related documents at the FBI.

DeWitt recommends everyone read Edmonds in her own words here, from when this past June, Edmonds sued the Justice Department and desperately fought an eventual gag order. But before being silenced and having all her material re-classified, she accused the Attorney General Ashcroft of hiding “serious criminal activities…complicity in covering up.”

In Texas, Al Rogers reports that in the “People’s Republic of Austin,” “the left here seems to be disinterested in 9/11 truth-seeking. I’ve signed up for local “9/11 meetups,” but they get cancelled because they can’t even get the minimum 5 people to sign up. This is surprising to me, because the Austin Public Access TV schedule includes at least 5 weekly shows that discuss the 9/11 conspiracy on a regular basis. The hosts are intelligent & informative, but are mostly approaching the topic from a conservative/Christian perspective.”

Speaking of sketchy conservative 9/11 voices, a new documentary is advancing one of the more “out there” theories: that the planes that crashed into the WTC had “pods” attached to their underbellies. The cheaply produced, but well-packaged, “9/11 in Plane Sight” is atrociously reasoned and fact-free. It’s reliant on a few blurry photographs and a lot of enthusiasm. This is theorizing by right-leaning whackos who haven’t considered the effects of globalization, or the reality of rageful Islamic reaction to US Foreign policy.

Baltimore financial advisor Jim Funck also reports, “I had not heard of the 911 truth movement. A quick look up on the internet shows 3 people signed up in Baltimore.”

The news is better from Savannah, Georgia, where New York Green Party activist Mitchell Cohen helped organize a successful “People’s 9-11 Truth Commission” march and press conference at the G8 protests, reporting they got “Lots of radio and TV coverage.” Cohen opines that “marches in small towns across the country will garner much more publicity than trying to do splashy events in NY or San Francisco.”

Maybe Cohen’s right. When this reporter spoke alongside UN arms inspector Scott Ritter and 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani in late May at the Riverside Church, the leaders of New York 9/11 Truth had high expectations. They wanted to pack the gigantic hall and be able to say they had drawn 1,500 people. When a decent 600 attended, they took that as a sign of failure. Yet, the event got great press coverage in print and on radio, and helped legitimize the cause in the media capital of the USA.

Adam Hurter in Amherst, Massachusetts deserves an award for the most succinct, eloquent and inspirational bit of political prose in the entire poll:

“Most people, including Leftists, are scared of the notion of conspiracy. It’s hard and scary to swallow that an organized gang of powerful capitalists within our own country killed the President in 1963 and then organized September 11 four decades later. It happens to be true. And much of the Institutionalized Left is denying the reality. It’s the reality that has the potential to bring people together in recognition of our common enemy, the fascist/capitalist force that is dominating the world. The Truth is the force that has the most genuine revolutionary potential.”

Closer to home, he reports that there is a small organized 9/11 Truth Movement in the Northampton/Amherst, about a half-dozen folks. They have held a couple rallies, and are planning to bring 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani to town. Although no local media cover 9/11 questions in the area, copies of “The New Pearl Harbor” are flying out of the bookstores.

Back to Adam Hurter: “A big part of the problem is that there are countless ‘red herrings’ out there: false or distracting stories and information about 9/11. When people see information that was used against the official story turn out to be untrue, the credibility of the whole conspiracy stance is weakened in their minds. People should be encouraged to consider the implausibility of the official story itself.”

Recall that Monde in San Francisco laid out the core problem: He effectively said, that in a movement obsessed with making a scientific, unassailable, meticulous argument, we get ourselves caught in a maze. If we can’t relate to people where they are, with more than just cerebral data, we’re not going to be able to create a massive paradigm shift. Fahrenheit 9/11 touches the same nerve here—the point at which people have to decide whether they will allow themselves to make Bush a suspect in mass murder. To Monde, and this reporter, this is more of a challenge than “proving particulars about the event itself (i.e. whether there was or was not a plane hitting the Pentagon, et cetera.)”

III. Red Herrings

The No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon theory was first advanced by Thierry Meyssan, in two books he first published in France, The Big Lie, and then in the follow-up, Pentagate. Due to the lack of evidence left by the wreckage, the flight pattern of the plane, and the lack of security video footage, the theory goes: American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Instead, it was probably a smaller plane or a cruise missile.

On the other side of the argument are people like John Judge, director of 9/11 Citizens Watch, and Penny Schoner. The former personally knows a female flight attendant who was regularly on flight 77. Visiting the wreckage, she was shocked to find a bracelet that once belonged to her friend. (Which is not the only odd coincidence in 9/11 information: Kristen Breitweiser was unable to recover any of her late husband’s Ron’s remains from the WTC, except for his ring finger, still wearing their wedding ring.) In a widely-read piece entitled “Not all conspiracies are created equal,” Judge lashed out at the No Plane posse, writing, “Rumor is not research, and we only sully the truth by jumping to believe the sensational. Cynicism is healthy, but informed cynicism is the only way to avoid paranoia and confusion. Not all conspiracies’ are created equal. The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it. That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati.”

Penny Schoner is a colleague of Judge’s and published a booklet called “American Airlines #77 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01.” Spiral bound and self-published, the book includes 86 eyewitnesses, most of whom saw the American flight actually make impact with the Pentagon. This reporter bought a copy from Schoner at the conference in San Francisco. Even though she charged me $20, the full color photos made it totally worth it.

Part of Meysan’s theory is that the nose cone of the plane could not have penetrated 3 layers of the Pentagon, and have made such a small distinct hole on the third. At the street level, most proponents of the theory (most of whom obviously haven’t read Meysan’s book) believe that his theory is that the original hole on the outside of the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to have caused it. After reading Schoner’s booklett and viewing her pictures, I realize something. Part of the problem is the image that has come to be associated with Pentagate, and Meyssan’s entire theory is this one:

Yet that photo is admittedly inside, on the third layer of the Pentagon (and on the front cover of Pentagate.)

There is a wealth of other photos that should be weighed in the balance with this theory, such as:

This photo, and countless others like it don’t appear on the most “out-there” 9/11 Conspiracy websites. Because there’s a over-imaginative, ultra-radical, element in this movement that believes the more outlandish the theory, the better. Anything is possible. Nothing is true.

Poison for something that aspires to be a “movement.”

Professor Jim Fetzer teaches the Science of Logic at the University of Minnesota in Duluth. He’s an expert on the murder of JFK, having edited and written three books. We’re working together on a new book about the death of Senator Wellstone. I asked him about the use of “red herrings” in the cover-up on the JFK hit. How have independent researchers been deliberately thrown off the trail in the past?

“Setting up Oswald as a pro-Castro communist sympathizer was a major red herring, intended to send investigators off in the wrong direction. The FBI, the Warren Commission, Naval Officers, Agents of the Secret Service, members of the press, were all used to disseminate disinformation.”

Thierry Meyssan is a President of Reseau Voltaire, a left wing activist network and think tank, and is also National Secretary of the “Radical Left” Party (PRG). I don’t mean to imply here that Meyssan is fomenting disinformation on behalf of the US National Security State. Perhaps his Pentagon theory was just a notion from gauche-field that Meyssan happened to put on paper. But it certainly has found an audience in the movement. At the San Francisco conference, the “No Plane” theory was discussed by organizers as if it were a proven fact. There didn’t seem to be any dissent, and if there was, no organizer gave it a forum.

But for the sake of argument here, let’s consider that John Judge and Peggy Schoner are correct, that No Plane theory is just a distraction. It certainly is an effective way to discredit the movement. How can I prove it? My mom.

Mom’s a right-leaning “independent” who voted for Bush I, Reagan and Bush II. She’s vocal, and stubborn and fiercely anti-abortion. But after the London Daily Mail favorably reviewed David Ray Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor, and after she saw Fahrenheit 9/11, things began to change. She swiftly withdrew her support for Bush, and (temporarily) planned to vote for Kerry/Edwards. But what about 9/11? Are the theories that she once dismissed as “kooky” now more considerable?

No.

Why not Mom?

“I know two people who saw the PLANE (not a missile) go into the Pentagon.”

The entire 9/11 Truth Movement can be dismissed by the dismissal of its most outlandish theory. The 9/11 argument is a chain of logic, but in any chain, with a big weakest link. Mom happens to live within ten miles from the Pentagon. She knows a priest and a friend’s daughter who saw the plane hit. Neither want to talk about it much.

Perhaps the more seasoned activists, like John Judge and Penny Schoner are right. Schoner is a former Maoist partisan, and Judge is a veteran of the Washington Peace Center. He is also active in the Committee on Political Assassinations. Are the “Pods” and the “No-plane-into-Pentagon” theory just the red herrings of the movement? The Lee-Harvery-Oswald-Castro connection that discredits the Truth Movement as a whole? Disinformation has been a successful strategy in the past.

How can this movement advance when people who are skeptical and smart find an unacceptably illogical theory? They will be turned off, and run from the entire inquiry. If there’s one theory out there that is obviously false, the masses can be kept in intellectual submission, because the official story will represent safety, validation, freedom from ridicule. The 9/11 Commission report acts as a kind of co-dependent parent, offering the promise of comfort and delivering more addiction to a big family lie. The architects of disinformation take it as given that people fear ridicule.

Back to Demitria Monde Thraam in San Francisco: “The ‘Pentagon missile’ issue cannot be directly proven – I used to believe it but realized it didn’t matter as much as the fact that whatEVER hit the Pentagon hit it in that one little sector being renovated at the time. I am also beginning to see the wtc7 issue as being a possible distraction – most folks would easily accept demolition of a nearby building as a safety measure, whether it was actually done so for that reason or not. We need to focus on what is known, obvious and impossible to refute.”

IV. Epilogue

Jan Hoyer of 9/11 Visibility made a silent movie about handing out 9/11 pamphlets, rambling the workingclass sections of Kansas City, outside punk shows and bodegas. The camera catches the different reactions to a dedicated activist handing out information. There’s something oddly poetic and wistful about a silent movie on trying to inform the entire public in a big city in the breadbasket. Something about Kansas and wheat strikes this reporter as pure and hopeful and admirable.

Kansas City 9/11 Visibility holds protest vigils every Saturday. If KC is indicative of what’s going on in the rest of the country, the movement certainly goes through a lot. Jan Hoyer and his friends have been shoved by the manager at the local Barnes&Noble, attacked by 25 year old “Rush Limbaughites”, and highly monitored by police after attending church services in a minority neighborhood. In February, they braved subzero cold to hand candidate John Edwards the famous “deception dollar,” a flyer with key 9/11 websites, dressed up to look like an oversized greenback. In Edwards case, he accepted the deception dollar and in exchange gave his “trademark boyish smile on command.”

When the amped-up right-wing twenty-five year-old started screaming in their face at a protest vigil, Kansas City Bob simply sang a little hymn, in response. “Let There Be Peace On Earth and let it begin with me.” Finally an African-American police officer arrived and talked to the lad about the Constitution. It took an hour. Then, the boy came back to the protestors, apologized for earlier saying, “America will never be safe until you are removed from the streets”, and walked away.

Down in Southern Maryland, the “Undiscovered Suburb,” twenty miles south of DC, lives Evan West, an old friend of mine from high school. He now teaches freshman English in a small town where he lives with his wife and two children. I asked Evan, How is the 9/11 Truth Movement doing in Bryans Road Maryland?

“The liberal fringe and most of the black community have no problem believing that Bush could have had something to do with 9/11. To them, it is just another bi-product of the corrupt, white male machine that has conspired to oppress for hundreds of years.”

“I know that Bush and his cronies are liars. I know that they use a far right religious ideology to justify their amoral actions. I’m just not quite ready to say that they had a hand in killing 3000 innocent people.”

Just you wait, Evan. Once this 9/11 Truth Movement works out a few kinks, it’s going to be unstoppable. The Truth is the force that has the most genuine revolutionary potential.

When I asked Green party Brooklynite Mitchell Cohen, “Is there any one theory or branch of the 9/11 Truth Movement you find more credible than others? Any that are less credible?”

He said, “No comment. We are all working extremely hard to unearth the truth.”

http://gnn.tv/articles/120/The_9_11_Truth_Movement