9/11 Marketing - How do I get others to question 9/11?

[mikelewis]

Other than the Internet sites I have found, what other media sources are making this information available?

Is there a movement or organization that is actively working to get this inormation out to the public?

How successful have you been in convincing others that there are some serious questions that remain to be answered about 9/11 and everything since?


What topics or issues do you raise that seem to have the most influence?

Are there any flyers available that have proven to be successful?

Obviously, you'd the best scenario would be to get them to the Internet but what do you do for people who do not use the Internet? Are there any subscription based newspapers or newsletters in existence? An important factor should be the quality and believablity of these newsletters.

And any other thoughts you may have about how to effectivley Market the Doubt, would be appreciated as well.

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. First, please list the media sites

I have to leave for a while now so can't write more than a few words, but I'll check back.

I think the first step is to make a list of information sources, and that would include the web sites you have found. I know of a couple too, and other people reading your post may have found helpful ones neither of us know of. So please give links and names for the web sites you know of.

I'll check back in later and give it some more thought.

I do think, and I have thought for some time, that the 9/11 investigation issue should have its own forum.

Must go for now --

[Old and In the Way]

2. For such a red letter day in our country's history,

I find the lack of major documentaries and broadcast TV specials about the details of what happened that day illuminating to say the least. It's almost like there is a concerted effort to sweep the public information clean of everything that happened that day.

Given all the fiiming done on 9/11 and the fact that we are an information society, this event seems to be off limits for any serious attempt at a comprehensive analysis of what went on that day.

[Abe Linkman]

3. I'd say it was more like a "Bad Day At Black Rock" kind of day.

Obviously, "we" aren't the only ones who know that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a lie. If the corporate media won't even educate the public about Commander Bunnypants going AWOL, it shouldn't be surprising that they aren't about to inform the public about what really happened on 9/11. If anything, what the public gets is active DISinformation about 9/11. We even get some of that here, as you know.

[Wilms]

4. Unanswered Questions

Rather than hitting them over the head with my take on what happened, I do the following.

I remind them that a "conspiracy" means more than one person is involved and that the Kean Commission "findings" are a theory.

I tell them that it is among a lot of theories that can be researched on the web, and that it is among the more specious arguments offered.

I encourage them to not fall in love with any of the theories, many are a bit 'out there', and some may have been planted to help discredit doubters of the "official conspiracy theory".

I explain who the 911 Family Steering Committee is and I point to their web-site, asking people to consider how so many questions can remain unanswered.

<http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

Then I step back.

On edit: I also recommend they do a quick study of the Reichstag Fire, and "Operation Northwoods"

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Couple of 9/11 attacks research/news web sites

If you know of more, I'd like to add them to my own list.

http://www.911truth.org

http://911research.com

http://911Review.com

[spooked911]

6. Good question-- check out my website-- I have a lot of good 9/11 sites

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/

the mainstream media won't go near this stuff.

You could start your own blog and talk about 9/11 like I do on mine.

Or make some good 9/11 pamphlets and pass them around.

I assume you've read some of the key books like "welcome to terrorland" and "crossing the rubicon" and "the new pearl harbor".

[RedSock]

8. nice looking blog

i will have to check it out this weekend at work.

you should list paul thompson's "the terror timeline" as recommended reading.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[meppie-meppie not]

29. to get that book I had to have a friend buy it for me and ship it to

me because they won't sell it outside of the US! That's one of a stack I'm going through trying to piece things that just don't sit well in my head.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Tell 'em how DD proved that FL 77 never took off on 9/11, so it couldn't

have crashed at the Pentagon. Dulce Decorum debunked the notion of a 757 crash at the Pentagon by showing that FL 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11 and the records show that it DIDN'T. Therefore, the Official Conspiracy Theory about what happened at the Pentagon has been proven to be untrue.

That ought to get their attention.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. DD proved no such thing, Abe

DD misinterpreted several databases, and we've long ago called DD's bluff on that.

Flight 77 took off that day. People took their children to that plane and sent them off on a National Geographic field trip. They recieved what was left of their children's corpses to bury. Yet you continue to hawk this blatently offensive theory while other people are making DVDs about it and fattening their pocket off the slander. How can you sleep?

Did I get your attention?

[Wilms]

10. I'm open to what may or may not have happened with Flt 77.

But being handed ashes doesn't tell to whom they belonged, where they were really found, or how the person died.

I don't know what DD offered, but on it's own, the idea that Flt 77 wasn't a regularly scheduled flight--while raising additional questions--doesn't prove that it didn't fly.

[Abe Linkman]

12. DD proved FL 77 wasn't scheduled for 9/11 & all you can do is obfuscate.

Non-denial denials and recitation of propaganda points smacks of desperation and bushleague debate tactics.

First, the atc person tried and failed. Now, you.

Two down and three to go.

Next.

[MercutioATC]

13. How is DD's information more accurate than the DNA recoveries?

Only one of them can be right...they're mutually exclusive positions.

[Abe Linkman]

14. The issue is FL 77, m-atc, not DNA.

Of all people here on DU, as an atc employee, with all of the resources you have ready access to, you would have long ago provided BTS records showing FL 77 was indeed scheduled for 9/11 and records showing that it took off from Dulles if it had done so, just as the Official Conspiracy Theory which you support, says it did.

The truth is making your "viewpoints" about what happened on 9/11 less and less supportable.

[MercutioATC]

15. Abe, you seem to have an innacurate view of how things work.

Because I'm ATC I have any knowledge of BTS records? Hardly.

The issue IS "FL 77". I just want to see you post that you're taking the BTS database as gospel (because you believe the BTS database, a government entity) because you disbelieve that the actual scheduled planes took of and crashed (as was claimed by a government agency).

[Abe Linkman]

17. m-atc, if YOU can't prove FL 77 was scheduled & flew on 9/11, who could?

If there was proof that FL 77 was scheduled to fly on 9/11, of all people here, surely an ATC employee would know where to find it...and to avoid the embarassment of being exposed as someone who believes (or, at least claims to believe) in ghost flights, you'd have already provided it.

Just because you are an ATC employee, that's no reason to believe you know what you're talking about, when it comes to flight data for commercial airlines.

[MercutioATC]

18. I know that all four of the 9/11 planes flew.

How? Because ATC worked them. They recieved taxi clearances, departure clearances and enroute clearances. Each plane was worked by several controllers.

Since you're pushing the "planes didn't take off" theory, answer this:

1) What planes did the passengers and crew board?

2) What planes took off? What planes were worked by ATC?

Since ATC definitely worked those four planes (including from the gate to takeoff) how can you claim that they never departed?

[Abe Linkman]

19. Did you ask your alter ego ("Ooude Van Patooty") if he can help you?

If FL 77 HAD been a scheduled flight for 9/11, and if it had taken off as scheduled, why aren't there any records of it, m-atc...or "oude"?

[MercutioATC]

20. Sorry, I don't have an "alter ego". I can answer without one.

There ARE records of it, silly. Start with Paul Thompson's timeline. It'll show exactly when the planes departed and what actions they took after that.

Don't like Paul's work? There are thousands of articles describing every minute of each plane's flight. If they didn't take off, where did all of this data come from?

...and that's just what we have access to. There are plenty of radar and frequency tapes of the planes taking off, too.

You are repeating a ridiculous claim made by another CTist. Have you thought it through at ALL?

[DulceDecorum]

22. And ATCs work disaster DRILLS

just as if they were actually real.

MercutioATC asks:
1) What planes did the passengers and crew board?
2) What planes took off? What planes were worked by ATC?

MercutioATC,
it is nice to see that
you too have joined the chorus of voices that sing out
WHERDY GO?

And now MercutioATC,
Let's talk about paint, baby
Let's talk 'bout primers n low VOC
Let's talk about all the good things
And the bad things that may be
Let's talk about paint
Let's talk about paint
Let's talk about paint
Let's talk about paint

The yellow-green paint,
Dexter Aerospace's 10P20-44
was qualified as a low-VOC primer system by
Boeing Materials Technology
in JULY 2000.
N644AA (the Pentagon plane) was built in 1991
which is NINE WHOLE YEARS
BEFORE
that lime-green exterior paint entered general usage as a primer at Boeing.
HOW IS IT
that a Boeing 757 plane built in 1991 using dark-green primer
is reduced to a few small pieces of metal coated with yellow green primer?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=20583&mesg_id=20583

[MercutioATC]

36. What does that have to do with the planes taking off?

I'm just asking how you could possibly believe that the planes didn't physically leave the ground when plenty of people saw them.

This whole BTS thing is your creation, DD. Perhaps you'd like to answer.

[Abe Linkman]

39. Do you have access to information about scheduled ARRIVALS @ LAX?

Was AA FL 77 scheduled to ARRIVE at LAX, on 9/11? If so, where did you find that info?

[MercutioATC]

40. That's airline scheduling info. I have nothing to do with that.

[Abe Linkman]

43. You can't prove they were scheduled to FLY, or ARRIVE. & you don't even..

know whether any such data exists. I can understand a Disinfo agent promoting and defending the OCT; but a (sincere?) ATC? Something's rotten. I'm sure you can understand why people have a hard time with your position -- AND the predictable response we'll get.

[MercutioATC]

44. I see...

I can prove that they took off, but that's irrelevant because some database says they weren't scheduled? That's ridiculous.

Look, Abe. Just explain how all four of the 9/11 planes got taxi and takeoff clearances if they didn't exist.

[Abe Linkman]

46. Another non-denial denial, but no mention of phantom flights.

Of course, you don't have any way of knowing whether or not there was duplicate flights of the 9/11-invovled airplanes, do you? You can't say that there weren't duplicate flights, but you don't deny it, either, because you know that sooner or later, you're going to have to at least admit the limited, modified hang-out position of "oh, well, if there were scheduled exercises, we wouldn't have necessarily known about it".

So, you know that FLs 77 and 11 were not scheduled to DEPART on 9/11, and you know that indeed, they didn't depart. Similarly, you know there's no data showing when they were expected to ARRIVE.

What you DO know is that there were phantom flights on 9/11 that were part of the self-attacks and that you can continue to pretend that Osama is the perp, but to cover yourself, you fuzz over the issue of FLs 77 and 11. That's why you can "honestly" claim that "people" saw them taxi and take off. It's your plausible way of NOT denying the truth, while not admitting a lie.

[MercutioATC]

51. That's not what I'm saying at all.

We know that the BTS gets its data from the airlines on a monthly basis. We also know that both of the flights that show they were not scheduled were American Airlines flights.

Which is the more plausible scenario:

1) American didn't forward the AAL11 and AAL77 data for 9/11/01 to the BTS, or

2) AAL11 and AAL77 never left the ground on 9/11/01?

This is yet another silly interpretation of data. Why were only the American flights "phantom" planes, not the United flights as well? Why would American go along with this hoax and put itself at such risk? American Airlines claims that these flights took off. Since American also provides data to the BTS, why would they lie to the world but tell the "truth" to the BTS?

Abe, it just makes no sense.

[Abe Linkman]

56. It's what you can't deny.

There simply isn't any data to back up your claims that AA FLs 11 & 77
were scheduled to DEPART on 9/11, nor any data showing that they DID depart, nor any data showing that they were scheduled to ARRIVE.

Your non-denial denials are laughable. You're busted, m-atc.

[MercutioATC]

57. No data? You're joking, right? Look here:

http://911review.org/Wget/0911.site.voila.fr/transcript.htm

That's a transcript of AAL77's radio communications as obtained by the New York Times. It clearly shows the plane taxiing and taking off.

As far as them being scheduled, American Airlines itself reports that both AAL11 and AAL77 were scheduled that day. People boarded the planes, so they apparently believed they were scheduled flights.

To claim that, because American omitted data when it submitted its monthly report to the BTS, all other proof of those planes being scheduled and flying is invalid is ridiculous.

[Abe Linkman]

59. You'd have to do a whole lot better than THAT. But, you can't.

Because FLs 77 & 11 weren't scheduled to DEPART or ARRIVE anywhere on 9/11.

Have you ever heard of Ted Olson & his wife (aka Barbara)? I think some of the others in your profession have backed off from the Olson lies.
Have YOU?

[MercutioATC]

63. Better than an official transcript of communications?

To counter a database who's data is submitted by the airlines?

Sorry, official transcripts are the best proof I can think of (other than the passengers and crew who boarded those planes because THEY were under the assumption that they would be flying somewhere that day).


:eyes:

[John Doe II]

65. ATC

MercutioATC,
is there any standard procedure that obliges an ATC to identify a plane before take off? Or in other words is there any way for the ATC to definitely know the identity of a plane he's handling? And if so how can he and is this obligatory?
It would very helpful if you could clarify this for me.
If the ATC definitely knows the idenity of the plane then I'd agree that the transcript is in important proof. If he can't and simply has to assume the identity of the plane then I think it's rather hard to see why this should be a more valid proof than the BTS.
And btw if I remember correctly Dulce pointed out that the information of a plane are directly transferred to BTS via ACRAS (see thread: Looking for the definite AA 11 flight manifest).
This implies that we also have to consider the BTS as a very important proof about the identities of the planes taking off (as far as I can see).

[MercutioATC]

66. At an airport, definitely.

The controllers actually see the planes (from the boarding gate to takeoff).

As far as ACARS data being used, that's a possibility, but the airlines submit the data to the BTS themselves on a monthly basis (it's not automatically transmitted by ACARS, the airlines are just taking that data and forwarding it to the BTS).

"Airlines submit the flight data to the bureau by mail, fax, e-mail, diskettes or cartridge tapes."

http://www.gcn.com/21_8/news/18413-1.html

[John Doe II]

67. Besides visibility

Is there any standard procedure to assure the identity of the plane?
I mean I understand if till 911 there was no necessity to do so.
It's logical for an ATC to assume if he sees the plane taking off at an airport to assume it's eg AA 77. Only theoretically speaking: If the ATC sees a Boeing 767 of American Airlines at the runway he will suppose it's AA 77. But this wouldn't be a 100% proof.

[MercutioATC]

68. No...except the plane can be watched from the time it leaves

the terminal until after takeoff (it would HAVE to be the same plane that people boarded).

There is also ground radar at major airports that keeps planes identified while taxiing.

[John Doe II]

69. Thanks a lot!

Thanks a lot for the clarification.
If you don't mind could you please explaini me what the ground radar is.
I would very much appreciate that!

[MercutioATC]

70. Sure. Here's an example:

http://www.rgb.com/en/News/ViewNews.asp?page=News%2FApplicationStories%2FDfwlaxarticlefinal

(you can even see the ground scope)

[John Doe II]

71. Cheers,

:)

[MercutioATC]

72. My pleasure

:)

[DulceDecorum]

41. Who saw them?

And WHY should we give a rat's behind?

We have photos of pieces of metal with lime green paint on them.
Those we can see for ourselves.
But you won't talk about paint.
Or the time machine
that deposited a miserable few pieces of Boeing(?) scrap
that was made AFTER July 2000
upon the Incredible Pentalawn.

You are asking us to believe that people died in the WTC on the strength of a piece of paper.
Yet you REFUSE to accept the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
when it says point blank that no data whatsoever was generated/submitted to it concerning American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Donald Rumsfeld has told us
"The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence"

Yeah, sure.

[MercutioATC]

45. Well, gate agents, caterers, mechanics, ATC...etc.

...and you should "give a rat's behind" because all of those people, by way of seeing the planes, refute what's in the BTS database.

C'mon...you honestly believe those four planes didn't take off?

[Abe Linkman]

47. Yes, there were people who saw what they may have been led to...

believe were those flights, but WE know, and I believe that you do too, that what the PUBLIC believes were FLs 77 and 11...weren't scheduled to DEPART or ARRIVE anywhere on 9/11, and THAT is the issue here. NOT phantom flights, but the fact that the public has been lied to and doesn't have a clue about the use of phantom flights as "cover" for the
9/11 self-attacks.

[MercutioATC]

52. Don't put words in my mouth.

The idea that the BTS data proves that AAL11 and AAL77 weren't real flights is laughable.

[DulceDecorum]

50. How many here have personally seen

Santa Claus?

Come on,
Show of Hands.

How many of you can pick him out of a line up?
how many of you PERSONALLY KNOW people who have sat in his lap?
How many of you have photographs of yourself and St. Nick?

MercutioATC,
I would sooner accept the testimony of these honest people,
WHO CAN BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS
than I would the alleged fairy tales
supposedly emanating from a tiny group of people
who are under a gag order.

There are so many discrepancies in the Official Story
that NO-ONE who is paying attention
can possibly believe it - try as they might.

[MercutioATC]

53. You seem to be confused, Dulce...

ATCs are not under a gag order. If we were, I doubt Tom Brokaw would have been able to interview so many ATCs.


Who are these "honest people" you speak of? American Airlines? The BTS? Somebody else? Please clarify.

[MercutioATC]

21. We've established that the BTS records are in error.

I know ATC worked those planes (all the way from the gate). It's simply not possible that they didn't leave the ground.

[DulceDecorum]

23. Have those ATCs tell Amelia Earhart to land already.

[DulceDecorum]

28. MercutioATC v the BTS

and we are supposed to believe MercutioATC????

The BTS collected data and the BTS has caught so much flack over those missing records that they have put in a "do not call" message on the pages that are supposed to house those particular records.

This is the manner in which the BTS has chosen to account for the fact that no generated by those apparently non-existent flights.

Meanwhile, MercutioATC,
a poster who routinely exhibits disdain for US federal law,
tells us
"We've established that the BTS records are in error."

When did that happen MercutioATC,
and WHO the heck is "we?"

[MercutioATC]

37. No, BTS data v Reality

The BTS database doesn't show any of the 9/11 flights scheduled that day.

However, people boarded those planes and ATC worked those planes.


Which is more likely:

1) The BTS data is in error.

2) The passengers, crew, baggage handlers, caterers, mechanics and ATC personnel were all mistaken.

[DulceDecorum]

42. ATC is lying -- wouldn't be the first time.

They are the same people who told us that
Hani handled that plane like it was a jet fighter.
Hani, the guy who flunked out of Cessna school and left no trace of ever boarding Flight 77.

(Walking past a camera doesn't cut it.
We want a ticket, a boarding pass and stuff like that.)

[MercutioATC]

54. Riiiiiight...

:eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

55. Paint

[MercutioATC]

58. Why is it that some people have such a hard time staying on-topic?

If you want to discuss paint, do it in your paint thread that you recently kicked off the 3rd or 4th page...

sheesh

[Abe Linkman]

60. If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck.

Did they send you to some kind of special school to learn your tactics,
or was it just on-the-job training? Doesn't matter, because somebody is getting ripped off, besides the taxpayers.

[MercutioATC]

64. They did, actually. It's called the FAA Academy.

It's in Oklahoma City.

Any other questions?

[DulceDecorum]

73. Did you study under Art Bell?

MercutioATC appears to hold the same viewpoint.

"I'm not going to tell you the name of former guests of this show, who sell videos of 9-11. Everyone who thinks George Bush was involved in the 9-11 attacks is insane. Any video that says that is full of crap."
-- Art Bell.

Oh, and one other question.
How come the FAA allows airmen to change
THE DATE OF BIRTH
on their FAA documents?

[MercutioATC]

74. Was that an attempt at humor?

How's that "humor" thing working for you?

As far as your question, I'm not familiar with the specific provision you're speaking of. Could you elaborate?

[DulceDecorum]

75. When it comes to the lime-green painted Penta-scrap

that was photographed on the Incredible Pentalawn,
MercutioATC says:
sheesh

[MercutioATC]

76. No, I said some people have trouble staying on-topic.

Again, I see you kicked your own "Lime-Green Lies" thread off the third or fourth page. Wanna discuss paint? It seems you've created the perfect place to do it.

[Abe Linkman]

77. TWO Ducks! Just what you'd expect from a NON-apologist for buscho.

FAA? Duck

Lime-Green Duck

Why are these people here? NO. Don't say it. They'll try to get you banned.

[MercutioATC]

78. I answered the FAA question.

...and I advised Dulce to take her "paint" question to the appropriate thread.

1 question, 1 answer.



Do you have anything substantive to add or are you just playing hall monitor?

[Abe Linkman]

79. Pointing out the Ducks. Some people here may not know about 'em.

You're just doing this because you're genuninely interested in finding what really happened on 9/11, I know. However, there may be some new people here who might not realize that.

[MercutioATC]

80. Good luck with your duck hunting...

...the rest of us will be discussing 9/11 stuff...

[tngledwebb]

31. Bs bs bs bs bs. Or may as well be.

You SAY YOU know an ATC who, etc?

I've got a confession too- I know Rummy and Cheney and Shrub personally, and they told me you are NOT an ATC.

[MercutioATC]

38. The offer's open to you, too tngledwebb.

I'll try to get you a tour of the facility if you make it out this way.

If you don't want to believe I'm an ATC, that's fine. The FAA still sends me paychecks.

[DulceDecorum]

24. It is a HAIRY problem all right,

DNA plus 1000 degree temps for over half an hour.....

A reference library with 3.7 million sealed "bloodstain cards" exists to match DNA from unidentified military personnel killed in war or a calamity. But heat reduces human tissue to ash or destroys
DNA, so it could not be matched to Pentagon file cards or other reference samples for these five persons.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pentagon-unidentified03.htm

[demodewd]

33. DNA Collection Site

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/images/Daryl%20Donley-Sipa-small.

[DulceDecorum]

49. Dead link

[demodewd]

61. DNA Collection Site...Try this...sorry...

DNA Collection Site
see Sipa Press photo of Pentagon inferno

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv4.html

[demodewd]

62. refer to Official DNA Collection Site

DNA Collection Site
see Sipa Press photo of Pentagon inferno

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv4.html

[DulceDecorum]

25. The 911 planes are every bit as real

as the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Bush just found in Iraq.

Without Bush and Tony Blair,
we would be facing the evil of Saddam,
aided by a corrupt UN and the threat of a possible terrorist-WMD alliance.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11957865%255E28737,00.html

[meppie-meppie not]

30. there is so many questions I have with respect to 9/11 but I tell you

the idea that it wasn't flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon isn't one of them. I had heard about this theory and in tandem with it the idea that the planes that hit the towers weren't the passenger planes we SAW. I listened to it all, did a bit of reading and then actually got the DVD "In Plane Sight" and that DVD did nothing to convince me to buy into that theory. They say they don't have to answer for the question of "well if those weren't the passenger planes then where are they and what happened to them"?. But to have any credibility I think they do have to answer that and with some kind of documented evidence. They are playing with peoples emotions here, i.e., the victims families and so I think they should have some circumspection before they spin out these "theories". JMO

[tngledwebb]

32. Check the photos, google Killtown. I've been reading for 3 years,

and I started out like you, accepting the 'official' story, more or less. At this point, most of the skeptics alternate 9/11 theories are bolstered by much investigation, debate and even circumspection.

The 'victims of 9/11' are now legion, after an unjustified and ongoing bloodbath in the ME, and the bankrupting of the US economy, all on the back of the day of 9/11 and in the name of fighting 'terrorism'.
What should we do, if that cause seems to be founded on a outrageous lie?

The memories of thousands of victims from three years ago, and now thousands of American soldiers, plus untold hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be served best by getting to the truth, however unpalatable or incredible.

[meppie-meppie not]

34. While you have been reading for 3 yrs I had been sitting on my duff

taking in the little snippets doled out by the media whores and with each passing day and with each new tidbit of information wondering "jesus, something just doesn't fit, somethings not right with this picture being painted". It's only in the past 6 wks that I've purchased books specific to 9/11. I think what really started me thinking was a few detailed discrepancies I found in Sen. Bob Grahams book, Richard Clark's, Woodwards etc. Just little things that stuck out in my mind which could be nothing but "indigested food" (Scrooge) but I have to explore all avenues for my own piece of mind. It's the same thing that happened to me following your 2000 election, except that time I started my questioning and searching immediately. I've purchased countless DVDs pertaining to 9/11, the Patriot Act, Rove, Bush, etc which have helped me try and wade through some of the reading material (The Terror Timeline, Crossing the Rubicon, Cover Up, A War Against Truth, A Pretext for War etc).

I agree that the memories of those who have died either on 9/11 or as a result of 9/11 is not honoured by the existing cover up. I guess what I fear is that some of the outrageous theories being purported will only over shadow or out right discredit valid investigation. Sorry for the rambling, hope you get my drift.

[tngledwebb]

48. Problem is- the most outrageous theory of all is the 'Official Story',

as you may find after you've done some more research.

And don't forget the folks who mocked Christopher Columbus, Copernicus, and Galileo for their outrageous theories.

[graphixtech]

11. online videos about the 9/11 Omission Report

Online video (in four video format choices) of Kyle Hence,
Paul Thompson, John Judge, Michael Ruppert,:
http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html
(there are about 20 speakers from NYC event)


"9/11 Truth: The Key to Systemic Change"

www.911truth.org/

[spooked911]

16. Yes, I also like 911busters-- they have many excellent videos

(free to download)

http://911busters.com/

[meppie-meppie not]

35. in the process of watching them right now...they are helping to put

some clarity on things for me. Much is their books but there was so much it gets a wee bit daunting so these video clips are really helping! Thanks for the links one and all :-)

[fujiyama]

26. Many are distrutful out there,

understandably of kooky "conspiracy theorists". Over the years, theorists of various events have given those that question the official story a bad name.

As is mentioned on the cooperative research site, 9/11 is likely one of the most pivotal events in recent history and will affect the course of history for years to come. Therefore it is absolutely crucial that people question the government's official story. The events leading up to that date, of that date, and after, are extremely complex.

That's why I'd get these people started on

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

This site is great because for someone like me that isn't interested in hearing about outlandish stories about "remote controls", "missiles", and other idiotic "theories". The site is VERY balanced and Paul Thompson is able to present a time line, that not only contradicts the official story in many ways, but also remains non partisan atleast in its tone, if not its nature.

If you can't get them to check the website out, tell 'em about the same book by Thompson. It gives a link to all the stories - mainstream stories by the likes of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc... Those that only trust Fox News and the Washington Times are lost causes anyways and I wouldn't waste time with them.

I started my own "research" a few hours ago. I've been meaning to go through the site. It's invaluable and it's probably a million times more useful than anything the 9/11 commision has to say.

Also, Thompson makes no conclusion. It's simply a timeline and linking of stories. He asks the right questions, but allows the reader to make the conclusions.

Maybe after that, they'd be more willing to read someone like Michael Rupert (I haven't yet but might in time), who makes a conclusion.

Get the people to question a little at first. Soon it's a rabbit hole of lies and obfuscation. They'll want to see where the truth leads.

[tngledwebb]

27. Pentagate and The New Pearl Harbor are good starts,

the first book about the Pentagon crash with many key photographs is the tipping point for many skeptics, and TNPH covers that and other issues in well-reasoned prose,with links to related internet sites and other reports- but no photographs.