Pat Curley Insinuates That Anthony J. Hall and Joshua Blakeney are Anti-Semites

Update:

After listening to this interview on Australian TruthNews radio where it is noted that Blakeney is promoting very bad 9/11 info and categorically blaming Israel for 9/11, I went back and revisited this post. In my original blog below, I express how I thought the case against Blakeney was being overstated, as admitted by ScottSummers, who first raised the issue at the JREF forum, and I thought Pat Curley from the Screw Loose Change blog should have followed suit in adapting this more reserved approach. It's easy to accidentally align ones self with individuals possessing such views through social networking sites and as Blakeney said, "the fact that an article of" his "is on a website next to the wife of a Holocaust revisionist" does not equal "having lots of connections to...Holocaust Deniers." That said, ScottSummers makes several good points about Blakeney's failure to distance himself from his anti-Semitic associations in posts published on the JREF thread after this blog was published.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7245668#post7245668 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7250247#post7250247

Pat Curley Insinuates That Anthony J. Hall and Joshua Blakeney are Anti-Semites

As summarized by Blakeney, "According to [Pat Curley at] Screw Loose Change the fact that an article of mine is on a website next to the wife of a Holocaust revisionist equates to me 'having lots of connections to...Holocaust Deniers'"
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/up-canada-way.html

The article Blakeney posted was a review of National Post columnist Jonathan Kay's new book Among the Truthers written by his professor at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada, Anthony J. Hall.

Pat's blog was inspired by a post by Scott Sommers at the JREF forum who initially wrote:

Another Connection between 9/11 Truth and Holocaust Denial

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it's widely know that 9/11 Truth personalities and groups are well-connected with Holocaust Denial. Here's another one for you.

As I have posted many times before, I watch the Facebook accounts of people who say they are advocates for a 9/11 Truth-sort-of-thing. Joshua Blackeney, a well-known Canadian 9/11 nut case, is connected through Facebook to Bradley Smith, the 'founder' of the Committee for Open Debate and the Holocaust. Yes, it is a Holocaust Denial kind of thing. Here's its webpage http://www.codoh.com/

God, these guys are disgusting.

However, another poster calling himself Walter Ego stated that he has "seen no evidence that Blakeney is a Holocaust denier" and asked Sommers if he had "a quote where Blakeney specifically denies there was a Holocaust?"

Sommers replies, "No I don't. I doubt he is one. You're right that I have overstated the case and if Mr. Blakeney reads this, I apologize to him for my carelessness."

Pat, however, did not follow suit and say that he overstated his case, but rather moved along to quote from another of Hall's articles where he states that "many intelligence services had prior knowledge that something very drastic was about to happen in the days and weeks leading up to 911. One of those intelligence services was indeed that of Israel."

As Pat notes "Hall's review is extremely long." Jonathan Kay commented on this as well at his website for the book stating:

Dear lord: An *11-thousand*-word review... I doubt anyone will read the whole thing — though I do recommend fast-forwarding to the part where the author describes “Kay’s preference for Wendy’s bacon cheeseburgers over the [9/11 Truth] food for thought that the author could have ingested had he opened his mind and come out of his self-imposed isolation.”

Well, I finally got around to reading the whole thing and I'm going to hazard a guess and say that Pat did as Kay predicted and did not, or else he would have caught the following from Hall, "...It cannot be denied that there are some wild and unsupported and even anti-Jewish, anti-Jesuit, or anti-UN theories about who did 9/11..."

As George Washington's Blog has also pointed out:

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."

Hall further writes:

Kay diagnoses the mental ailment he claims to have discovered to be so menacing that the malady must be combated through the deployment of a universal regime of public education to take effect before the so-called conspiracists “have a chance to [further] infect our thinking.”

Kay proposes that the basis of this new initiative in mass education should be “a Protocols-centered curriculum.”... The Protocols to which Kay refers are, of course, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. This notorious forgery was distributed by its disgruntled and soon-to-be-dethroned czarist disseminators with the aim of stimulating anti-Jewish hatred among its readers. Kay rightfully sees the Protocols as a toxic stimulant for many surges of anti-Jewish thought and action over the years. But Kay does not leave it there. He goes further, much further.

The author advances the view of Daniel Pipes in characterizing the Protocols as the primary archetypal source informing the thinking of virtually every individual and group, including Marx and Marxists, that has put forward any theory whatsoever concerning the alleged abuse of power by any elite minority said to dominate any allegedly subjugated majority. As Kay sees it, “the Protocols would remain ensconced as a sort of universal blueprint for all successor conspiracist ideologies that would come to infect Western societies over the next nine decades,– right up to the modern-day Truther and Birther fantasies of the twenty-first century.”

There are huge leaps of illogic in Kay’s identification of one of the primary texts used to incite Nazi hatred of Jews as a “universal blueprint” extending even to those who study, say, the science of how World Trade Center 7 was downed through controlled demolition. The extremism entailed in such outrageous overreach of the evidence surely confirms the extremity of Jonathan Kay’s zeal to nail the so-called Truthers to the cross of so-called “Trutherdom.”

Huge leaps of illogic, indeed. It is clear that Hall is not an anti-semite or holocaust denier.

As 911review.com notes, "The association of challenges to the official myth of 9/11 with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of Jews is one of the more potent weapons in the arsenal of the apologists for the official myth." Of course the potency is diminshed when "debunkers" pull this card so tenuously.

On a final note, Pat states that "Hall's review... largely boils down to griping that Kay doesn't engage in a point-by-point debunking of 9-11 nuttery. Of course, point-by-point debunking doesn't impress the Truthers anyway, as can be seen by their reaction to the Popular Mechanics book."

Reaction to? How about debunking of! You really oughta know better, Pat

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition & the Debate about this Story at 911Blogger !

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition.html

After reading this post I was surprised to find a disagreement over the story running in a 911Blogger comments thread. Fellow "truthers" appeared to be at each other over nothing.

The ARGUMENT:
1.) John Bursill posts the story (above) from Kevin Barrett's blog where: the BBC journalist Alan Hart points to his knowledge of a big construction company's conclusions that the WTC buildings were subjected to Controlled Demolition. He further stated that it was his opinion that 911 was largely the work of a CIA-Mossad operation.

2.) Highly respected Victronix in the comments thread attacks Bursill's post because the story he put up, according to her, delves too far into unsubstantiated evidence territory (it's not dealing with verified reports or physical evidence). She claims it's borderline anti-semitic.

Analysis:

Kevin Barrett:
Barrett has a very poor reputation: he has associated with Jim Fetzer for a long time, has supported unfounded claims that Michael Wolsey is an "enemy" agent, makes many other mistakes when dealing with 911 issues leaving himself open to general ridicule and debunking attacks.

Could he be a mole to make 911 truth look bad? Victronix has warned us about such subversive tactics in her analysis of people like Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

CONCLUSION on Barrett: Generally, not to be trusted due to his history -- although he could be hawking good material on occasion.

OVERALL conclusion regarding Barrett's interview: The BBC journalist was offering an honest opinion. He provided a new lead, albeit unsubstantiated, on a big construction company that, with all the expertise at its disposal, concluded 911 was an inside job. His comments, reflecting a CIA-Mossad connection in relation to the overall crime, were valid ones. There seemed to be no obvious anti-semitic agenda in terms of the BBC journalist's story.

In my humble opinion, the interview was newsworthy, despite Barrett's reputation. This is because the information put forward was not Barrett's but that of the BBC journalist. The view offered was not anti-semitic either. It dealt with valid suspects and a credible CIA-Mossad scenario.

Readers should also note that a police investigation into 911, the next step in the story, would need to consider suspects as was raised in the interview. Other suspects from other countries would also be on the list.

There is more to the 911 crime than just an examination of the physical evidence. Questions about who dun it will arise. In this case the speculation did not seem too far fetched considering the record. However, having said that, a note of caution should always be pinned to all information presented by Barrett. Each claim of his must be considered on a case by case basis because of his past record.

SUMMARY:
There was nothing controversial with Bursill's decision to post the story on 911Blogger despite questions surrounding the interviewer Barrett. Obviously, more work would be welcome in order to establish the identity of the big construction company that remained unidentified in the interview.

15 Answers: An open response to Joseph Welch

I had recently been directed to this new posting by Joseph Welch who poses 15 questions to the 9/11 Truth Movement that he feels will point out logical gaps in our arguments. Because he does not have an available e-mail address that I can respond to, I will post my answers here for all to either criticize or agree with depending on their view, and hopefully will make its way back to Mr. Welch. ( Be sure to click on the links embedded in the text. )

Joseph Welch)-Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.

Stewart Bradley)- After looking over your 15 questions I have found most of them to be irrelevant to the main concerns of the 9/11 Truth movement and the LIHOP case which I focus on in particular. But I will answer these fifteen questions to the best of my abilities provided I get a civil and intelligent response to my four short questions posted below. Lets begin:

(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

SB)- Your question asserts as fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Ahmed Shah Massoud's assassination. How do you know that some other involved faction did not commit the crime and use Al Qaeda as the scapegoat? The only people who know for sure are conveniently dead.

(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?

SB)- Here you assume that the CIA wanted the involvement of the Northern Alliance before the invasion. If the true motive of the war was the construction of the Trans-Afghani pipeline, along with occupational forces to guard the project, would Massoud and the NA have supported the invasion? Especially when the US already had Harmid Karzai, who was directly involved with the pipeline deal, to install as Afghanistan's new leader.

(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

SB)- Despite the Bush administrations outrageous claim that there were no warnings of the 9/11 attack, there are dozens of documented reports of an imminent attack on America, many of which Osama bin Laden had access to. ( Many claiming to be from Al Qaeda. )

The real question is why our military allowed bin Laden to escape into Pakistan when we had him boxed in at Tora Bora?

(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?

SB)- Congratulations on telling your first bold faced deception. It has been well publicized that according to Condi Rice on September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan.

(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?

SB)- While we could speculate for years, as to the true identities of the hijackers, or if there is any hard evidence that these men were really on board the doomed flights, it is clear that the attack was meant to incriminate Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. Your guess may be as good as mine here, but considering this was the opening of the "War on Terror" the enemy "Boogymen" had to be portrayed as part of a world wide network and not linked specifically to one nation if they hoped to extend and expand the war as wide as possible.

To play devils advocate, it seems odd to me that these hijackers, who cleverly evaded detection for years, would on 9/11 suddenly leave such an obvious paper trail to their supposed identities, some of which are still in dispute.

(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?

SB)- Indeed, how do bullies on the playground coerce the lunch money from smaller children? With threats of military action. I'm not sure if you recall our president telling the world, "If you are not with us you are against us", and how quickly all aforementioned countries joined the US led effort against terrorism, despite the US being instrumental in the creation of these very terror organizations.

(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

SB)- Again your question is based on false information. First, if Pakistan was such a Taliban ally then why was the head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmed meeting with Bush administration officials in Washington during the time of the attack, while approving funding to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta?

Secondly, at the end of the Cold War several major American energy companies began buying up oil supplies in the Caspian Sea region, including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan which border Afghanistan. There were already US troops based in Uzbekistan before 9/11 to protect these oil supplies, which then became a staging area for the Afghanistan invasion.

(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?

SB)- Israel has obviously benefitted from the invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq, who were two known enemies of Israel, and certainly enjoys having US troops nearby to help protect it from it's other enemies in the region. Although I have personally seen no empirical evidence to suggest that the Mossad were involved in 9/11, it's always useful to debunkers to try to associate the 9/11 Truth Movement to anti-semitism and other hate based groups.

(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?

SB)- I don't personally believe that the story of the "dancing Israelis" is either true or relevant to the 9/11 case.

(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

SB)- While this question is purely speculative and ignores the WTC anomalies that are in question, the tactic of using hijacked commercial aircraft in Kamikaze style attacks had been know about and planned for by our air defenses before 9/11.

If 9/11 was a false flag attack then using commercial planes is much more sinister because of the helpless people aboard the aircraft. And the timing of the second aircraft crash almost insured live coverage of the attack, providing the maximum psychological impact on the viewing public. And considering the technology available at the time, faking an attack like this would not be so difficult to carry out, providing one can explain why our air defenses did not intercept the flights, and can direct any resulting investigations into the attack.

(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

SB)- While it is impossible to know whether Niaz Naik's story is legitimate the agreement for the pipeline deal was signed in December of 2002, while the construction of the pipeline (now called TAPI) has been hindered by the ongoing war.

(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

SB)- Both of these scenarios assume incorrectly that a "stand down" scenario would require complicity with all NORAD personnel. These men follow orders in a chain of command and are informed of situations on a "need to know" basis. The person in charge and giving the orders is the only one who is responsible for their actions, or inactions. On the morning of 9/11 that person was Dick Cheney.

(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?

SB)- You do not need to convince me that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack, rather you need to convince the FBI. To this day the FBI claims it has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11 and the 9/11 attack is conspicuously absent from his list of crimes on their website. While it only took three months to obtain a Federal indictment against bin Laden for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings, there has been no indictment issued for 9/11 after 7 years of searching. The justice department isn't even trying to get an indictment. What do they know that you can't seem to accept as reality?

Now let's assume there was no direct history between Osama and the CIA and that Al Qaeda is not being sponsored to justify the War on Terror, do you mean to tell me you Did Al Qaeda have a grudge against old, asbestos laden buildings?

(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?

SB)- The obvious reason is that if popular and outspoken Truthers would start dying in mysterious accidents it would only serve to raise suspicions about what they are saying. Why go to all the trouble of assassinating the Truthers when the guilty parties have the media power to assassinate their character by publicly denouncing them as "loony moonbats" while preventing any serious debate about their claims on any mainstream media source. Small radio shows and internet videos aren't considered a threat when they know most Americans only get their information from major network news broadcasts.

There, I answered your questions. Now will you answer my four short and simple questions?:

1. Why did the Bush administration ignore 9/11 warnings and obstruct FBI investigations?

2. Who scheduled the multiple military war games for the morning of 9/11?

3. Why did the Bush administration try to block the 9/11 investigation?

4. The FEMA funded study by WPI documented WTC steel melting. How did this steel melt?

I look forward to your answers but I won't hold my breath.
With all due respect..... Stewart Bradley

Related Info:

Beyond 15 Questions; Historical Context of 9/11

Conflicting Sources: Another Final Note to Joseph Welch

Master Debaters: A tribute to Joseph Welch

Interview With ts911t.org Founder Matthew Naus

Original post location and date:

John-Michael P. Talboo
http://truthawaits.com
Sunday, March 2, 2008

Take A Stand For 9/11 Truth is asking patriotic civilians and veterans to submit your real name, the city or town and the state that you live in on the sign up page. This information will then be published on the website under the state you live in. Listing real people by their real names that live throughout the 50 states and other places is just one of the ways we can show the strength of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

John-Michael Talboo (JMT)-Q:

First and foremost Matt I just want to thank you for the good works you are doing in the fight for truth and justice. It takes a brave soul to act against tyranny in a public forum such as your website. Many kudos as well to all who have put themselves out there in the line of fire by becoming signatories on the site. I love the fact that you are encouraging former and current military personnel to include their Branch/Rank/Service when adding their name to your lists. I think gaining verifiable support for the 9/11 truth movement by former and current members of the military is an important step in this fight we are in; the military industrial complex is at the heart of the issue after all.

Could you first tell the readers how the conception of your site came about and then explain why you felt it was important to put emphasis on the military backgrounds of 9/11 truth advocates.

Matthew Naus-A:

Before I decided to start my own 9/11 Truth site I was a co-founder of Veterans For 9/11 Truth. Being a co-founder and living in a different city from the actual owner of this site was hard for me. I wanted to become an independent owner of my own site and make more of an impact in my own community in regards to spreading 9/11 Truth information to the American public. I also had my own ideas about what I wanted to accomplish with owning my own site so having complete control of the content and when I could get the content published on the site was an important factor for me becoming a founder of a 9/11 Truth site.

Taking a stand for truth is something all human beings should strive for as part of the global community. I think it's vitally important for truthful people to not be fearful of taking a stand for truth. Naming my site Take A Stand For 9/11 Truth felt right when I thought about it so I used it.

On the website Veterans For 9/11 Truth we had a webpage that listed veteran members who signed up. We asked them for their military backgrounds and if they gave that information to us we gave them a free Veterans for 9/11 Truth bumper sticker. One of the tasks I took as the co-founder of Veterans for 9/11 Truth was to have these bumper stickers made and mail them out to members that signed up on this list we called the "Honorary Members List". We also had a Veterans for 9/11 TruthYahoogroups blog forum that kept track of the number of people who signed up for our Yahoogroups. I started to notice that the number of people who signed up for the Yahoogroups blog forum was way ahead of those that signed up on our "Honorary Members List" on the website. On this list they had to give real information about them and not just a username used on the blog. I tried to get more people to sign up on the website by posting messages asking them to sign up, but it didn't produce a lot of results. We even had a list for civilians that could sign up because Veterans For 9/11 Truth didn't exclude civilians from joining. I was disappointed that more people didn't want to be forthcoming with real information about themselves, and from this realization came one of the ideas for my site, Take A Stand For 9/11 Truth. I decided to ask people to sign up for their state and as a condition for signing up they had to give me their real name and the city/state they live in. I decided to have some extra information for soldiers/veterans that signed up because most Americans respect and support our troops. They realize that soldiers follow orders and even though many Americans are anti-war they support the troops. I now have over 500 people that signed up in the 18 months my site has been on the internet and a number of them are veterans. Again, I want to emphasize that if we're going to take a stand for truth we shouldn't be afraid of our government they should be afraid of us. I hope a lot more people are willing to Take A Stand For 9/11 Truth in the future as this 9/11 Truth Movement grows. I'm just doing my little part to help it grow by founding this website and with our group’s street activism in my community, which I think is just as important as, if not more, as we fight for truth in government and peace in this world.

JMT-Q:

Well I just think what you are doing is great, and I think it's a modest understatement to say that your doing your little part to help the 9/11 truth movement grow. It's people like yourself that are the lifeblood of this thing. I've felt a part of the 9/11 truth movement since back in 2004 and the ways I've seen it grow are just astounding. The internet has been a blessing beyond words in exposing the hidden agendas of false flag terrorism. The more good sites the merrier I say.

As I've stated in commentary before, I had questions about 9/11 from day one, but they were quickly silenced by propaganda and the wave of American patriotism that ensued. I was wondering if you were convinced by the official story for a period of time as many were.

Also, what was the tipping point for you when it came to evidence, what fact pushed you over the edge so to speak. When were you convinced the official story was a deliberate fraud?

Matthew Naus-A:

Thanks for the kind words John-Michael, I was totally blinded by their propaganda and didn't even realize there was a 9/11 Truth movement until I heard James Fetzer on the Coasttocoast radio program with George Noory as host that comes on in the late evenings here in Milwaukee. I have been listening to this program since 1995 and they get into a lot of government deception stuff. This was back in late 2005 when I heard James Fetzer who was a guest on this radio show. Fetzer lives in my state and we have done some events together with Kevin Barrett. It's a small world. I had heard about some other buildings getting damaged and then falling down but I didn't make much of it. When Fetzer started to give the details about Bldg. 7 my interest went from 0 to 10 instantly. I heard him talking about his Scholars For 9/11 Truth site and I joined the next day.

It's funny because I always thought of myself as being a little more aware of government deception and corruption than the average person, but 9/11 got by me for 4 years. Back in 1975 I went to jail for 7 weeks for a civil disobedience activist protest (it wasn't a violent protest and I didn't hurt anyone) I did because of our governments deceptions with the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. I knew at the age of 24 that my government was corrupt and lied to the American public about the assassinations of these great leaders and the Vietnam War which I'm a veteran of.

They did a super job of deception in those first years after 9/11. As the war in Iraq began I started to pay closer attention and I started to see the deceptions in the Bush administration. I was always against the Iraq war and I never liked Bush from day one.

In answering question 2 it was Bldg. 7 that hooked me like it has many people. Within a few weeks of joining Scholars For 9/11 Truth I became convinced that the official account of 9/11 was another government deception. This was in late 2005 or early 2006. It felt good to get back to my activist ways at the age of 55. Now that I've been doing it for over 2 years I know I won't stop until these evil doers are all locked up or I'm either locked up in a FEMA camp or 6 feet under. This time they pushed us to far killing some 3000 innocent American citizens’ right in their own community.

JMT-Q:

That is so interesting Matthew, our paths to this are very similar. In light of what you just told me I think I'll share the commentary I was speaking of, it's somewhat lengthy, but I think appropriate...

"I had questions about 9/11 from day one, such as, box cutters?! Are you kidding me?! Box cutters?!

I also wondered how the terrorists were able to calculate that the plane impacts would take the towers down as they did. This "fact" did not seem inherently apparent to me whatsoever. Something just didn't feel right.

I also thought it was strange how fast we splashed bin-Ladens face on the TV screen. Granted, he was a likely suspect due to the fact that he was a known terrorist, but the focus seemed almost single mindedly obsessed with him and him only.

And why the hell didn't we shoot down those planes anyway?!

But these questions were quickly silenced by propaganda and the wave of American patriotism that ensued. This coupled with the fact that I did not believe my government, for all its shortcomings, to be capable of that type of treason. Not any agency or rogue group within for that matter. That type of thought never crossed my mind. However, I was not the student of history then, that I am now. I have since learned such treason is certainly not unprecedented.

In 2004 I again started to question the events of September 11th, this time to even higher degree. This was aided first by Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, and then by an even more powerful film entitled Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear, and the Selling of American Empire, which I handed out many flyers for.

While very intriguing these films are also very partisan and only scratch the surface. I was very soon led well beyond the surface by the likes of 9/11 researchers Alex Jones and David Icke who I heard on my favorite radio show Coast to Coast AM.

I found them to be interesting guests, but a bit nutty I thought, I still wasn't convinced. I looked into the two men further and found David Icke's unrelated talk of reptilian aliens a bit much, but Jones was ever more intriguing.

I started to watch as many of his documentary films, and others, as I could get my hands on. I also found some interesting short films on the internet, as well as many great websites. I was damn near convinced the official 9/11 story was a complete fraud by this time.

The final straw that killed any lingering doubts I think is when I started to read books on the subject, and this I suggest whole heartedly. I started off by reading The New Pearl Harbour and The 9/11 Commission Report-Ommissions and Distortions by Professor David Ray Griffin. I liked these books so much I even wrote a crappy online review on them! :)

I have read many others books since, with some favorites being 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out and The Terror Conspiracy.

However, after all my other research Griffin's books were all I needed.

Ever since then I have been a bona fide 9/11 activist. I have no plans on stopping now and as this article demonstrates I am NOT alone! A peaceful revolution of information is upon us and the questions will not stop."

So Matthew we are in agreement that they will get away with this over our dead bodies! And for the record folks... WE ARE NOT SUICIDAL! :)

Which leads me to my next question. What street actions have you been involved in, or promoted, and what results have you seen? Also, where do you see the 9/11 truth movement going? As I pointed out in my last interview...

"Do you actually think we will get a new investigation? Things like the recent questions raised in Japanese parliament are encouraging, but as George Carlin said late last year ...

"They don't investigate themselves in this country - it would be a whitewash, it would be like the Kennedy thing, it would be like everything."

If he's right the question is whether the court of public opinion is going to be enough to stop the agenda. Like another old adage says knowledge is power. The other thing that comes to my mind when I hear that quote is that the second government investigation into JFK; the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that "John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." So there is more hope than Carlin lets on.

What say you Matt?

Matthew Naus-Q:

I started doing street actions in the spring/summer of 2006. I went to the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference in June of 2006 and we demonstrated in downtown Chicago. That was one of the first big conferences in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Back then I didn't have my own site and I came as a co-founder of Veterans For 9/11 Truth with the site owner Alfons Oslewski. We had a table exhibit at the conference and we displayed the distress flag (US flag upside down) and passed out flyers and bumper stickers. We introduced our site and organization to the 9/11 Truth Movement and did some interviews (audio and video) with some of its key members which we broadcast on the site.

On the 5th anniversary of 9/11 I drove to New York City a couple of days before 9/11 and attended some events and we did some street action on the 10th of September in NYC. I then drove to Washington DC arriving very late into the night. With only a few hours sleep we went to the September 11th, 2006 (5th anniversary) event that was right in front of the White House. We had a permit for this event and there was a speaker podium. Bob Bowman, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds were some of the key speakers at this event. I read a poem that day which I wrote and had published on the Veterans For 9/11 Truth site here: http://v911t.org/A%20Veterans%20Stand.php

A Veteran's Stand, by Matthew Naus:

We're United States veterans and we're taking a stand
We're asking our patriotic citizens for a helping hand
We're displaying our flag with the union down
We hope to see this in every city and town
When we display it this way it's a signal of distress
For our government leaders put us in an awful mess
We're telling you now we're in extreme danger
So get ready to march like a military ranger
Our life and property is already being lost
We must act now or we'll pay the cost
We hope you'll research the events of 9/11
Please do this as if it's an order from heaven
Someday we'll display our flag the right way
When the truth is told and it's here to stay

We also displayed a huge distress flag and we had a "9/11 Was An Inside Job" banner along with a lot of other 9/11 Truth signs displayed. We passed out hundreds of DVD's and flyers that day to many of the sightseers that were taking pictures of the White House. Having that kind of event and demonstration in the front yard of this executive administration, who I believe is guilty of treason and murdering of our own citizens will always be my favorite 9/11 Truth demonstration. My next favorite public demonstration will be the day I go out into the streets to shout to the public that those responsible for 9/11 were found guilty and are now in prison for their crimes against the people of this nation and those of other nations that we went to war with because of 9/11.

You can find a lot of pics from these events here under my username 'nausea7543 or matthew_naus' http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/v911t/photos on the Veterans For 9/11 Truth blog forum.

I then started my own site on Oct. 8th, 2006 which you're familiar with as Take A Stand For 9/11 Truth. I started doing street actions in the Milwaukee area that fall and I organized the Milwaukee/Lake Michigan Tea Party For 9/11 Truth which took place on Dec. 16th, 2006. This event was in solidarity with the first Boston Tea Party For 9/11 Truth. You can find a video of this event near the bottom of my homepage on my website here: http://www.ts911t.org/html

We had some success with that event because we made it on the nightly news. I April of 2007 I organized a 9/11 Truth conference and we had Kevin Barrett, James Fetzer, and Gary Franchi (founder of http://lonelantern.org/) as the main speakers.

We had close to 100 people that showed up and we spent some money advertising our event in 2 of our newspapers here in Milwaukee. Here's a webpage with some pics of that event: http://www.ts911t.org/SerbHall911TruthEvent042507.html

Before we had this event we went door to door passing out about over 3000 flyers for the event. I also sent out mailed letters containing a transcript of a David Ray Griffin speech he did in Madison, WI. in 2005 to over 900 churches hoping to get more religious clergy. We gave them info to come to the conference and learn more about 9/11 truth. It saddens me to say that I only know of 2 clergy people that showed up for that conference. Police Departments, Fire Departments, politicians and local media were also notified of the event but none showed up that I know of. Being a 9/11 truth activist is hard work and you need a lot of patience and fortitude to keep believing your making a difference.

The small group of activists that work with me here in Milwaukee SE Wisconsin area have demonstated on the 11th of every month since May of 2007. Here's a webpage of those demonstrations: http://www.ts911t.org/TakeAStandNews7.html

Here are some other demonstrations we have done:
http://www.ts911t.org/TakeAStandNews8.html

We held our second annual Milwaukee Lake/Michigan Tea Party For 9/11 Truth on Dec. 16th, 2007 in mountains of snow here: http://www.ts911t.org/2ndAnnualMilwaukeeLakeMichiganTeaPartyFor911Truth.html
Recently I did a civil disobedience display disrupting Bill Clinton's campaign speech for Hillary in Milwaukee on Feb. 14th. Listen to audio here:
http://www.ts911t.org/CivilDisobedienceForBillClintonOn911Truth.html

I also confronted Russ Feingold, Senator of Wisconsin during one of his listening sessions in Grafton, WI. Here's the YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AdgyRJD__E

The results I'm seeing are, to be honest, are minimal in my mind. I might be producing some results around here but I'm not seeing it in my responses from my email. I know there are people in this town in high places that have heard about my activism and probably have seen or visited my site. I don't feel enough people around here are making the effort to be seen and heard on the streets of America. If they know in their minds that 9/11 was probably an inside job or there was at least a cover-up they should be making more noise. We need more people on the streets demonstrating more often. I just started a Meetip site here: http://9-11.meetup.com/390/

Which currently has 18 members signed up. I hope having this Meetup site will increase our activism for 9/11 Truth in the Milwaukee and SE Wisconsin area.

I think the movement is growing and making progress but it is going to take some time. I see more and more sites starting on the internet. I hope we get that time before it gets worse and we have another false flag operation and then Martial Law could become a reality.

The movement also has some divisions that are keeping Truthers apart and at odds with each other. I have noticed that more and more 9/11 Truthers are bringing up the role of Israel. They bring up how the Zionists are behind the crimes of 9/11. We have the fingerprints of an Israel connection as documented in The Complete 9/11 Timeline managed by Paul Thompson.

For example the 5 dancing Israelites caught with the Urban Moving Van. They were then released back to Israel a few months later by Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Chief and dual Israel citizen, and when they got back to Israel they told a news station they were there to document the events. They bring up the dual citizenship of some of the neo-cons who wrote the PNAC and those who are the owners of the mainstream media. They also bring up some of the crimes of the past like the USS Liberty that was attacked by Israel back in 1967. I believe there are some reservations from some of the 9/11 truth leaders to include these facts about the Israel/Jewish/Zionist connection, in regards to 9/11, in their speeches, radio broadcasts, flyers and websites. They probably have concerns that they will be labeled as an anti-Semite or fear retaliation in some way by Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Words such as '9/11 shill' are also being thrown around by these types of truthers at some leaders in the movement. I think it's important to get out all the truth, but I also think that some of these truths need to come out when their time is right. Our first task is to get an independent investigation, with full subpoena powers, using the solid evidence that contradicts the official government account.

The other big division is the NO-Planers with regards to the twin towers. This idea has been around for awhile and I believe we should keep an open mind to these things, but again I also believe we should use solid evidence that we have that can convince others, more easily, that there was a 9/11 cover-up and that we need an independent investigation.

American citizens need to know that the 9/11 Commission was compromised right from the beginning to favor the executive administration and its intelligence sources account of 9/11. They need to learn about all the omissions and all the contradictory statements that were made to cover-up this crime of the century.

One thing we have going for us is the internet and our ability to get access, almost immediately, to what everyone else is doing in the movement. The Youtubes, blogs, DVD's and alternative internet radio shows are giving us an advantage that we never had before. We are getting the truth out faster than the Kennedy assassination truth took to reach the masses. In just 7 years we have accomplished a lot. The internet might just be our ace in the hole and only time will tell if we get that time.

JMT-Q:

You bring up many interesting points Matt. I know all to well your frustration in this fight. As you stated though we have accomplished a whole hell of a lot more than the JFK truth movement did in the same amount of time, thanks in large part to the net. Although as you may well know "they" would like to shut us down with the internet 2.

As to your statements about 9/11 activists (or leaders) being afraid to tackle the Israeli connection, all I can say is that I more than understand why it is a touchy subject. There are definitely some in the movement who have tackled this issue in an anti-Semitic way. But as you pointed out there is information in Paul Thompson's timeline that warrants investigation for sure. Here is a great article on 911blogger.com that touches on the subject...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3785

I admire your street actions and pray all those reading this will have the fortitude to follow in your footsteps. I know where I live not too much of this type of thing takes place, so while I'm trying to look for outlets to engage in such actions I don't just stand idly by. I made this site for instance! I think the wherewithal to finish this fight lies in in the will of the people to face their fear, but mostly to be creative, be leaders in this thing, not followers. If you have a good idea, act on it, share it! Expand on the ideas of others, do something, anything!

Hopeful ranting aside I was wondering your thoughts on some specific 9/11 issues such as Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comments and the pentagon no plane theories. Do you think these issues are honey pots for us to wallow in, or are they valid? Secondly, what are your thoughts as to how 9/11 activists, or potential 9/11 activists can spot and weed out disinfo?

Matthew Naus-A:

I think Larry Silverstein’s comment "pull it" is valid because if we ever do get an independent investigation with subpoena power we can get to some of the fire department bosses and connect the statement that Larry made.

We have to find the people that have the guts & power to get this independent investigation moving. Until then we are wallowing with these facts. The No-planes theories are difficult and that has to come from the media and the films they have if they aren't already destroyed. If our independent investigation gets moving we have to make the government prove its ridiculous account. If they can't provide any proof of their official account then we need to start throwing them in jail with whatever charges we can drum up on them and wait until they start talking about what really happened. I believe there's a turning point smoking gun hidden somewhere that's going to blow this thing wide open. When it does come out we will need the media on our side and probably some military intervention so the American public has no doubt that this was a false flag operation and a huge conspiracy by some people in top places in the government, military and private sector.

Weeding out disinfo agents is hard unless you have the capability to uncover facts that connect the disinfo agents. You have to look for certain signs and make an educated assumption that this person doesn't have the right moral character to be a bona fide 9/11 Truther. When your blogging you run into those that want to discredit you or find and argument to make with you over something that really isn't worth it. They might be disinfo but they might be less informed and not at all disinfo. I would say it’s wise to watch and have some suspicion of those that seem to have it all with their connections to media and money. As they say follow the money. If you’re suspecting someone who you have to deal with personally then ask them a lot of questions and see if you get a feeling that the person is trying to hide something. I had one guy call be a disinfo agent and I splattered him with all kinds of information about my past and asked him to do likewise. I got no response and he quit bothering me.

JMT-Q:

Yes I agree being an open book is a good way to avoid such attacks, not only that, but contrary to popular belief I think the shadows is potentially a very unsafe place to be when it comes to this subject.

Now shifting gears somewhat Matt to wrap up, I was wondering your opinions on the 2008 presidential race. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and my candidate Orion Karl Daley have all called for a new 9/11 investigation. However, Kucinich has dropped out. Ron Paul pretty much has, and will not be making an independent run. And Orion Daley has an uphill battle, although he will be running again in 2012! What I'm getting at is that a while a new investigation might come from lower branches of government, it would be very nice to have a president on board and I think the longer this thing sits the harder it will be. If Obama wins the presidency do you think he can be pushed in that direction in light of him recently addressing the issue? Which even though he stopped short of calling for an investigation he did say in a roundabout way that "the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11" and at least he is engaging in some intelligent discourse. So I was wondering you specific thoughts on Obama when it comes to this. I also was wondering what you thought of Zbigniew Brzezinski being his foreign policy adviser.

Finally, the broader "truth movement" we belong to has also been trying to wake people up to the false left-right paradigm. So I have a sneaking suspicion that you believe we need verified voting to cut the strings of the puppets.

Other than that Matt I'll give you the last word, thanks a ton for doing the interview and all you do.

Matthew Naus-A:

We can't forget Cynthia McKinney who confronted power as a congresswoman with her hearing involving Donald Rumsfeld. She also conducted hearings on 9/11 in 2005 which are on the record and recorded on Youtube. She even called for impeachment of Bush/Cheney as one of her last acts as congressional member.

I looked at your candidate and found his platform to be very detailed. I like his 5 principles and I especially like the transparent and accountable principle. I know I've heard his name before because of the last name Daley I was thinking about the Chicago mayor family and if he was related. I never looked him up though so thanks for the link. Reading some of his pages on the war, Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 tells me he has awareness of what’s going on. His wife stated he believes in the concept of the United Nations and this bothered me somewhat because if you look into the history of that organization it has been compromised from its inception and should be dismantled in my opinion. The concept of it is good on its face, but it's a tool for the ruling elite of the world which means the NWO. I wonder if Orion Daley has done his research of its history.

If Obama wins the presidency and calls for a new investigation he will be history in my mind. He's already compromised due to his support of AIPAC (Israel Lobby). His message of change is just that a message. Your guy has a more detailed platform of change than anything I've seen from the Obama camp. He was given the media spotlight because he will tow the line if he becomes president. They had him in there back pocket before he entered the race. They were hoping for Hillary, she has a past that's more corrupt than Obama. They have Obama in there so the Democratic Party looks more legit to the people, especially the people that suspect the system stinks but aren't fully aware of how much it stinks.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is definably one of them in my opinion. His past proves it and just because he's now coming out attacking the system doesn't work in my book. This is a tactic they use to get their people in high places so they can come back and do more damage in the future. Look at Robert Gates history and you can see how the revolving door works well for these treasonous criminals. They are very good at deceiving the public.

The whole federal election system is set up to get their person to win, especially if it's a close election. Their system failed them in 1960 with Kennedy because he had money and connections that were comparable to what they had. Nixon didn't even come close to the charisma of a John F. Kennedy, but look how close that election was. That election shows you how hard it is to beat them. They had to eliminate him before he could take them down starting with the CIA which he wanted to close down. Now they have another tool, Diebold Voting Machines. You know me pretty well. All votes should be paper ballot for the presidential election and the votes should stay in the small district that they were cast in with only the numbers being sent to a central location. The vote count should be transparent so if we need to go back for a recount we have the paper ballots with a number that identifies the voter to prove it. The electoral count is a joke and should be abolished. Bush got the job illegally (cheated) both times because of our voting system. Notice I didn't call him president. All the states should vote for the president in exactly the same way and we should have a few more parties each having a candidate for the final election. The mainstream media has to give equal coverage to the candidates for each party. Campaign contributions can only come from individual voters and the amount should be fixed so even a poor person can contribute. Whoever wins the popular vote (who got the most votes from the people) is our president. In my opinion, that's the only way it should be. I will say no more about our electoral process because my blood is boiling.

My last words will be about us "we the people" and what we have to do to get the attention of the masses to the evils of 9/11/01 and the false flags of the past. Our nation and its constitution are now in danger of total collapse. Just as the towers and Bldg. 7 came down so will this nation unless "we the people" take it upon ourselves to right the wrongs of our past. I just received this e-mail from someone and part of the e-mail said, "marching doesn't cut it as they don't give a FUCK how many of us march unless we march with guns and they don't give a shit how many march nor how often!"

I disagree with this person and say we need to march and we don't need guns when we march. The elite powers are watching us and they don't want to see us create large mass protests because large mass protests should be covered by the media. If the mainstream media doesn't cover it then the people become angry, their passion grows, they get others to join the protests and the protests become larger. Look at the history of mass protests and you will see that many changes, for the better, have occurred because of them. Some of the ways that wake some of the sheeple up is when they see 9/11 Truthers start confronting congressmen, ex-presidents, public/political officials and media outlets in the public arena. When they see 9/11 truthers on the streets with there signs and banners. When they're given flyers and DVD's packed with information that contradicts the official government account. The more they see this and the more we pass out information the better the chances are that some of them are going to start thinking what's all this 9/11 protesting about. It sinks into their sub-conscious whether they like it or not. For some sheeple they may need to see or hear about these protests, demonstrations or civil disobedience displays a dozen times before their individual mind wakes up and starts investigating and researching the real contradictions to the official government account of 9/11. As they get into their research they start connecting the dots. That's how the mind works. When they really get into it they start seeing the bigger picture. They see the military industrial complex, world-wide corporations, mainstream media; elite banking families, secret societies, government leaders and intelligence operatives from a number of countries are all connected to the evils of war and false flag operations throughout the world. Then they start to get it when they hear "watch out for the New World Order" (NWO). Once they get it it's up to them how they want to react to it. We're all individuals that think and react differently to our surroundings. How we react usually depends on how much information and the kind of experiences we have. The street actions 9/11 Truthers do are so important because these street actions can send a message of courage to others to do the same thing once they get it. So 9/11 Truthers let's keep giving them information and new protest experiences and see if our movement grows, I bet it will.

JMT:

Of course we can’t forget Cynthia McKinney! Shame on me!

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#McKinney

Related Info:

9/11 Missing Links

I recently rejected a comment promoting the film 9/11 Missing Links. In my opinion this film is nothing but insulting racist propaganda that provides "debunkers" of 9/11 truth with ammunition. I will not publish comments that promote this film as the "real truth" of 9/11. - SOURCE - http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/911-missing-links.html

Interview With the Staff of GateCreepers.com

JMT-Q:

Switching gears a bit, what are your thoughts on those in this movement that focus most of their attention on a perceived Zionist connection to 9/11? Of course, pointing out evidence of Israel intelligence foreknowledge and possible involvement is one thing, but this in no way automatically translates to Zionism. That being said, religious ideology of any stripe can be a dangerous thing when people take it too far. The point can also be made that George Bush's interpretation of Christianity helped shape his deplorable foreign policy, and in all the speculation that perhaps he was involved in 9/11, I have never seen anyone say that the Christians carried out 9/11.

This issue also seems to be used against prominent truth activists like Alex Jones, who all in one breath are accused of being both anti-Jewish and pro-Zionist. What do you make of things like this, and how can we deal with and debate these sensitive issues?

GateCreepers-A:

Zionism is a nationalistic ideology that has little to do with religion, other than its founders having cynically used the Jewish religion to justify their agenda. There is a damning article about this, unfortunately in French, by a Jewish peace movement, which explains how the Zionist founders actually wanted to kill the Jewish diaspora and its culture to replace it by an artificial Israeli culture. They explained in detail how they created myths and taught them as historical facts until they were recently questioned (the Exodus for example), and how they suppressed Yiddish and other languages and recreated Hebrew, which was a dead language like Latin, to replace it.

That said, although evidence shows Israeli involvement in the false flag operation, it doesn't point to 9/11 having been commissioned by Israel. We acknowledge that Israel stood to gain from 9/11, (Netanyahu was quoted to that effect), and that many of the suspects such as Zelikow are avowed Zionists. But that doesn't automatically translate to 9/11 being a Jewish, or even a Zionist conspiracy. Simply acknowledging this from currently available evidence doesn't make one an Israeli apologist, anymore than suggesting an Israeli connection to 9/11 is anti-semitic.

Those attempts to portray Alex Jones as a CIA disinfo agent, or a Jesuit, or a covert Zionist, or a white supremacist are based on connections that are at best tenuous, such as his wife being Jewish or his show being on GCN, which in turn uses ABC's airwaves, or a rant made by William Cooper almost 10 years ago, or even just the fact that Alex Jones is allowed to speak on air. The role of COINTELPRO is not just to feed disinformation or only revealing part of it, but also to sow doubt within the movement to divide it. Perhaps the ones who are deserving of suspicion are the ones who are the most eager to denounce fellow patriots rather than the actual criminals.

One of the core issues that makes our movement easy to divide is that it's a broad coalition, and as a result many tend to bring their own agendas into it. Many Christians for example want to bring religion into the debate, so they denounce 'secularism' and call for 'going back to Christianity'. Others see multuralism as an evil, so they promote white nationalism or forcible assimilation. We're not saying that the elites aren't trying to suppress religion or to use immigration to divide and conquer, but those agendas dilute our goals as well as our credibility.

Others want a particular group to be the central focus and claim that they are the 'top' elites, be it Zionists, Freemasons, Jesuits, Socialists, and so on. All of those have a role to play and should be investigated, The problem is when one can be accused of being disinfo simply for not accepting any of those groups as the 'main' evil. And of course, simply being Jewish or a Catholic does not make one a Zionist or an elitist.

Realistically, no one can investigate every group of the NWO. Like us they are a broad coalition, the main difference being that they are a pyramidal hierarchy and we are a grassroots movement. We need both 'bigger picture' researchers as well as focussed researchers.

Alex Jones partly addresses this by interviewing other people and encouraging his listeners to do their own investigations and look at other sources. Once in a while he denounces Israel, but that is still not enough for his detractors.