9/02/06: This morning my local paper ran several anti-conspiracy

[screembloodymurder]

theory pieces; one by an AP Religion writer (review of David Ray Griffin's book) and one by the NY Times. In the last few days, I've seen a number of other CT put-down articles in major papers. The articles present no evidence for the OCT and appear to be written for the sole purpose of ridiculing the skeptics. The authors seem to have very similar styles and a definite agenda. Here's a few quotes from the AP religion writer's "unbiased book review":

"Such 911 conspiracy theories have heretofore been spread abroad by Internet sites and Muslim extremist (some of those theories have blamed Jews, something Griffin goes out of his way to avoid)."

and

"He's a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth along with Kevin Barret, a Muslim instructor at the University of Wisconsin, who's under fire for making similar accusations."

Is it just me or is this an orchestrated effort to discredit anyone who dares to question the OCT? And if so, how does our government control these writers?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Phase 2 of the struggle according to Gandhi: "Then they ridicule you."

I have long been fascinated by this phenomena. The inability of most of the OCT believers to simply argue the facts without resorting to ridicule speaks volumes.

As to your final point, I doubt our government "controls these writers," per se. They may encourage them, they may provide talking points, they may use inducements or personal relationships to promote these stories.

A good comparison might be the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Many writers promoted the talking points, many writers ridiculed people like Scott Ritter, many writers failed to examine the basic assumptions of the bush administration's stated reasons to go to war and failed to examine the downsides of going to war. This doesn't mean that the government 'controlled those writers' but they certainly used those writers to propagandize the public.

In the case of the strange case of 9/11 though, it has it's inherent downside. Simply by mentioning, for instance, that only a kook would believe there was something fishy about the 9/11 commission's report, or that anybody with half a brain would see that there is nothing strange about the total collapse of three buildings on the same day educates the public to the fact that building #7 fell although it wasn't hit by an airplane, and that maybe the 9/11 commissions report isn't all that sound.

One thing is certain, we are past phase 1 of Gandhi's 4 part axiom; They are no longer ignoring us.

[screembloodymurder]

2. The references to Jew bashing and Muslim extremist

are carefully crafted to paint CT as racist or terrorist. Anyone who has followed the 911 Truth movement knows this has nothing to do with their contention that the 911 Commission Report was a sham. I wonder if a search of the author's past works would show a history of propaganda pieces.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Perhaps. We know our current fed. government has been particularly

gung-ho in the the use of blatant propaganda, ie paying for fake stories to promote their agenda.

[FoxOnTheRun]

4. Not only you

The remarks were apparently made by Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, probably one night in 1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:


There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm



It's pretty easy to see for everyone who has three brain cells, internet and knowledge about the subject

But it works for the occasional newspaper reader and uninformed person.
And if they are forced to retract some of their claims, like WorldNetDaily for example, nobody notices it.

Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments by Jones.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540

[TAM]

5. Kind of the OCT versions of Loose Change

While I do not like or agree with articles that bash without evidence, logic, or good intent, I would say that these articles, on the average american, will have the same effect as a flimsy piece of junk like Loose Change, filled with speculation, hearsay, opinion, and very little, if any facts or sound evidence. I look at them as cancelling each other out.

[FoxOnTheRun]

8. I agree that

most of them will have the reverse affect...

With average american you mean?

Americans don't know 9/11 year: poll
From correspondents in Washington
10aug06

SOME 30 per cent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published today in the Washington Post newspaper.

While the country is preparing to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attacks that claimed nearly 3000 lives and shocked the world, 95 per cent of Americans questioned in the poll were able to remember the month and the day of the attacks.

But when asked what year, 30 per cent could not give a correct answer.

Of that group, six per cent gave an earlier year, eight per cent gave a later year, and 16 per cent admitted they had no idea whatsoever.

This memory black hole is essentially the problem of the older crowd - 48 per cent of those who did not know were between the ages of 55 and 64, and 47 per cent were older than 65, the poll shows.

The Post telephone survey was carried out July 21-24 among 1002 randomly selected adults. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. Text

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20078748,00.html

The poll shows that its mostly the non internet crowd that doesn't know when 9/11 happened, I would say.

I'm not in america so it's difficult to get a picture of the average american. But I'm pretty much convinced that a big majority knows what is going on.

You have many americans who are fed up with the media or politics,
but you also have those who are completely uninformed who think G.W.Bush is a "good christian man"

[petgoat]

9. Big Diff: Loose Change was made by college students.

This other bashing is the New York Times.

[truthmover]

6. Why these stories are hitting now...

Every time there is a big media event related to 9/11, the mainstream has to gird itself with a response to those who question the story. They have no intention of directly addressing the evidence, as that would be giving it airtime and they have no adequate response, so they resort to negative propaganda. With the release of Oliver Stone's film, the NIST debunking report, and the anniversary, the mainstream is in overdrive trying to prevent people from being curious about what really happened.

I don't think its going to work, and that ultimately many of the "journalists" will be discredited for their anti-historical behavior. Let's not let it deter us. The movement is growing because we do have compelling facts to offer. Thankfully, in personal conversation, facts have more weight than propaganda. With so many new academic and institutional "wistleblowers" coming forward, the 9/11 truth movement is gaining steam. While we must anticipate the mainstream response, we can also be confident knowing that they wouldn't be trying so hard to 'debunk' our assertions if they were entirely unfounded. The new NIST report is incredibly telling. Are we to assume that our tax dollars are being spent to support the offical story? I want my money back!!!

[TAM]

7. I appreciate positivity...but...

I appreciate the "internet" growth of the "truth" movement, but I think that the movement thinks a little too much of itself. The fact is that the majority of the world, and in particular, the majority of USA hasn't even heard of the "movement". The proof, will be how many of the "hundreds of thousands" that the "truth" faithful claim are going to show on 9/11 at the memorial, will actually show.

You are right, IMO, that if you do have legitimate whistleblowers, that do not have an axe to grind, and you have solid well documented evidence based on the EXPERT opinions of EXPERTS in the fields in question, than these people and their reasonable voices will go along way to settling the issue from the "truth" perspective.

Up until now I have seen little evidence that meets the criteria I just listed above, and I have not heard from any of these whistleblowers (one's without axes to grind).

I also think that if enough of this Legitimate evidence comes to the front of discussions on the matter, than another investigation is warranted.

That said, the leaders of the "Truth" movement will be sadly disappointed, if they think that any of their contingent will be part of the investigation, for they are as biased as the BUSH admin in this regard. Likewise, those "extremists" in the "truth" movement who think there is going to be some sort of 2nd american revolution with them on the frontlines, they are also living in a fantasy world. I'd say to those who want serious investigation and change, distance yourselves from these types.

[petgoat]

10. Give us a little credit

43% of Americans think it was LIHOP or MIHOP (and 30% don't know what
year 9/11 happened).

Given the hostility to 9/11 skepticism in the media, this is phenominal.

We've worked very hard, and we're winning.

[TAM]

12. Like to see poll breakdown

It would be interesting to see how the numbers break down in terms of those two Factions. For Instance, the Ohio State Poll, proved that the actual number who "Definitely Believe" the USG helped orchestrate 9/11 was about 6% of the 36% that thought it was "somewhat" likely or "very" likely that the USG either LIH or MIH. Se the 36% in that poll included all 4 options: 1. somewhat likely LIH, 2. Very likely LIH, 3. somewhat likely MIH, 4. Very likely MIH.

The reason I point this out, is that the difference is huge.

I personally, am neither, I am a LIHOS/LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Stupidity/Let It Happen Out of Incompetence). That said, it is one thing to say the government let it happen, versus made it happen.

Hence, the reason I would like to see the raw numbers, if it could be broken down that way.

And what does the results of the opinion poll have to do with "winning" anything. I though all sides were trying to find "The Truth".

[petgoat]

17. What does it have to do with winning?

Truth is winning over lies.

The actual number who "definitely believe" is irrelevant. I don't "definitely believe"
anything except that we need a new investigation. Definite Belief is for idiots.

I was a LIHOS/LIHOIer until I read about the warnings from 11 foreign countries and
3 FBI offices, the report from Le Figaro that Osama met with the CIA in 7/01,
the report from Der Spiegel that the Mossad warned about 19 terrorists in the US
and named names (the four of which that have been released are names of alleged
hijackers), and learned that al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to crash hijacked
airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon was known in 1995.

Bush's so-called incompetence always seems to benefit his cronies. Even New Orleans:
check out the map of the NAFTA superhighway. Which will be the Gulf terminal--Tampico
or Houston?

[John Q. Citizen]

11. I hadn't seen anyone predicting "hundreds of thousands" were expected

to show up on 9/11.

Do you have a link to who predicted that?

Thanks.

[TAM]

13. It was from a friend of mine...a truther

Based on a private conversation with a member of the "Truth" movement. If he is wrong, than how many do you think will show up? How many do you feel are part of the 9/11 Truth movement?

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I haven't the foggiest on how many will attend the events. I also

don't even know how many people are dues paying members of the Democratic party, let alone how many call themselves part of the 9/11 truth movement.

I do know a lot of people who don't think the 9/11 commission report is worth the paper it was writen on. And that's just from chatting with people where I live in Montana.

I remember reading a Zogby poll taken in NY, NY a while back and about 50% responded that they thought the bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks.

Wow, I hope your friend is right.

[TAM]

16. Thank you for your reply...

JQC:

Thank you for the civil response. I noticed in another thread you mentioned "teach-ins" and "presentations". That is all good, no argument with it at all. Why at GZ on 9/8 to 9/11 then. If the purpose is to teach, and present, couldn't it be done in NYC at some other venue on the same day(s). I am sure NYC will be so abuzz re: 9/11 that having such a "conference" anywhere in NYC will still collect a huge crowd of the curious, without potentially sending the wrong message to those you want to reach?

[truthmover]

15. Last year...

Last year, the NY911Truth folks and us TruthMovers got about 250 people out on the streets protesting media and U.N. complicity in avoiding the truth. There were also more at GZ that day. This year I expect at least 300, but there may be more. There may be fewer people, but recent progress in the movement would suggest otherwise. There may be a 'free speech zone' due to Bush's plans to attend GZ. It will probably be too small. Either way, we are bound to get some media attention.

[petgoat]

18. I'd like to see 30,000 people in the street preventing Bush

from getting to Ground Zero (while remaining respectful to the families),
but I don't think it's going to happen. New Yorkers are famously blasé.
"Sure, Bush did 9/11, shot down flight 93, and dynamited the towers to
usher in a Fourth Reich. Everybody knows that. So what else is new?"

[FoxOnTheRun]

19. They are trained (you've certainly seen Alex's Martial Law during RNC )

I've seen a poll on WOR710 an AM Station in New York

It was 95% don't believe the official and media story (not scientific and nationwide)

Lionel talks sometimes about 9/11
http://wor710.com/pages/48796.php



I'm wondering if there is enough outrage about the EPA asbestos/mercury cover-up.
Aren't many first responders and residents affected?

If they could get the antiwar movement behind them, they could easily get the numbers 10 or 100 fold