I began researching the mainstream media coverage of the controversy regarding the attacks of 9/11/2001, when reading an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Newspaper, dated June 29th, 2006. It was titled, "Sept. 11 claim stirs UW probe -- Instructor says U.S. planned the attacks to provoke war." This led to my discovery of some wild conspiracy theorists that endanger our government and media establishments, with quite frankly insane assertions. I'll address this in full in the final paragraph.

Then by using a "google video 9/11" search, I recently viewed a FOX News interview on Hannity and Colmes with an Arab Studies teacher from the University of Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett. I had earlier seen an interview with another, a professor named James Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth. A few weeks earlier I had seen an interview on MSNBC Scarborough country interviewing a Mike Berger representing 911Truth.org.

Some of these guests referred to an organization called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" with a website www.st911.org, which offered a physics research paper questioning the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001. While visiting this site, I read that they pointed to the temperatures of the fires in the WTC buildings, and construction of the buildings, and the speed they fell, as evidence they claimed proved that what we saw on 9/11/2001 when the towers fell had to have been the result of a controlled demolition. Like the ones we've seen with Las Vegas hotels being brought down. Their claim was that the WTC buildings could not have been caused solely by the aircraft hitting the WTC buildings that day.

Then, I contacted the office of a Wisconsin State Legislator, Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), and asked to speak to someone in the office who could speak on this issue. I asked if he was familiar with the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, and he replied they had learned of it this week. I asked him if he and the Representative could comment on the charge that the fires on 9/11/2001 in the WTC buildings did not burn hot enough to bring down the buildings, and if he'd read the scholars organization's charge that thermate traces had been found on debris from the fallen towers (thermate indicating demolition type explosives were involved). The gentleman responded that no, they had not looked at this information, and this would not be something they would look at, further indicating that anyone who made such charges was blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

Which leads back to the interviews of guests on the three television news programs. The main theme of all three of the guests on these programs appeared to be concern of the physical evidence of 9/11/2001, mentioned above and particularly regarding the collapse of three of the World Trade Center buildings on that day.

The main themes of the interviewers on these programs appeared to be two-fold:

1) The guests were representing a fringe movement, and most Americans do not dispute the official 9/11 explanation of the 19 hijackers defeating US military and intelligence forces on 9/11/2001.

2) The guests and those they speak for, who question the official 9/11/2001 account, are of questionable sanity

This motivated me to do some research. First I looked at the fringe movement issue that the majority of Americans disagreed with the programs guests and accept the official explanation, and secondly, the sanity and expertise of people like their guests who question the official story of 9/11/2001.

First, regarding the fringe issue, asserting that the guests questioning the events of 9/11 reflected a small minority of American opinion. I looked at the only polls I could find on these questions, and the results were surprising. A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific, held Wednesday, November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they did believe there was a cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), while only 12% felt there was no cover-up. In a national Zogby poll, of May 2006, found that 45%, of the American public felt a new 9/11 investigation should be launched because "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." An earlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of 2004, found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66% of New Yorkers called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General.



Now to the second issue the television media interviewers were most concerned with, which was the expertise and sanity of the people demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and some even suggesting possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001. Again, a simple google "video 9/11" search, provided a wealth of information. This too yielded some surprising results.

One of the loudest advocates of the most damning charge that "members of the U.S. government actually orchestrated the events of 9/11 to fool the nation into unpopular wars", was not a tree-hugging Green Party activist, but rather a prominent Republican, in fact a Former Chief Economist under George Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Google research of the growing list of other 9/11 skeptics of the official story, some "convinced of U.S. government involvement," while others not going that far, but pointing out that"the official story is highly questionable and demands further investigation," yielded surprising results. Including a host of high level Republican administration officials, defense experts, intelligence experts, and respected scholars, as well as well known celebrities who are now adding the spotlight of their names to the issue of 9/11. Among them were:

Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S.

Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering). http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and

founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research

Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute,

and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer

http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) Michael Meacher

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the

department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General

Leonid Ivashov

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788

Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20

books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, James Fetzer

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of

Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont

Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder

of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col.

(Ret) Don de Grand-Pre

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Actor Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Wall Street, etc.)

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm

Actor, Ed Asner

http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov

Actor, Ed Begley, Jr

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752

So, now that we've examined the two main issues of concern for the television news interviewers, which was the "fringe" aspect of the questioners, and the "sanity/expertise" issue, it appears those arguments are very weak arguments, really with no merit at all. Obviously tens of millions of Americans, according to polls, want a new investigation into 9/11/2001 and have a strong suspicion of U.S. government involvement at some level. Obviously not all of the national defense, intelligence, aeronautics, physics and engineering experts questioning the official story of 9/11 are insane or unqualified to comment.

This begs the question, in the face of such obvious facts, why do our media personalities continue to attempt to throw out accusations that are patently untrue regarding those who question the official story? When a television news interviewer continues to ask questions and make assertions that he or she knows to be untrue, this would challenge the expertise and sanity, not of their guests, but of the television news interviewer.

The 9/11 truth movement appears to be growing rapidly, and involving people of substantial credentials and expertise. As television and some radio personalities continue to behave in what obviously is an insane behavior, what do we do? Can we get our national media any psychological help? If not, it would be wise to relieve them of their positions at least. I feel increasingly uneasy about millions of young minds being exposed night after night to comments and opinions by people who increasingly appear to be insane, yet in positions of authority.

Of course the concern here is larger. If there is any possibility or doubt about whether the events of 9/11/2001 were participated in by members of our own government, then our entire democracy and world peace would be strengthened by getting to the bottom of the true facts of this pinnacle event of our time. It would be unhealthy to leave a cloud of doubt hanging over such assertions. There should be a full fledged national debate, experts from all sides should be interviewed on national media to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Our Congress should launch investigations into the physics questions that are causing so many to doubt the official story. No matter where anyone stands on this issue, this is obviously the only path to national healing and trust.

However, this debate on national media cannot occur if the interviewers hired by national media continue to behave in an insane irrational behavior, like "conspiracy theory wing-nuts." You see, too many of our media spokespersons on television and radio adhere to a wild conspiracy theory. Their theory is that anyone who looks into the facts of the events of one of the most important issues in history is alone, and insane, but yet somehow organized in some united conspiratorial effort. Of course, the facts fly in the face of this conspiracy theory, but these media personalities appear unable to grasp reality even when it is pointed out to them.

For media reading this article, time will tell whether you are an insane conspiracy theorist or not. If you too, are among the insane in our media, the public will likely eventually demand your resignation. As one who writes sometimes on parental issues, I believe it is unhealthy to have insane people in charge of the national information highways our children are taught to watch. We need sane media people who look at facts regarding issues, not ones who launch into insane screeds of paranoia to avoid reality.

Also, you may recall that when I contacted State Representative, Stephen Nass' office, his aid stated that they were aware of but not interested in and would not look at the physics facts provided by the website Scholars for 9/11 Truth, www.st911.org. However, they did want to fire a university teacher for presenting facts, many of which were available on that site. To fire someone for presenting facts, facts that you dispute, yet have no idea what those facts are, and are unwilling to look at them to find out what they are . . . is also insane. Again, as someone who writes on parenting issues, as a concerned parent as well, America should also consider retiring our insane government officials who fire people for facts they aren't aware of and are unwilling to look at. These politicians apparently assert some wild conspiracy theory that millions of Americans are questioning the events of 9/11 because they are "Bush haters" according to the aid at Nass' office. This kind of delusional paranoia by our elected officials is of particular concern. Such wild eyed conspiratorialists should not be allowed in government.



Bill Douglas, author of "The Amateur Parent - A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe"

findtruth40@hotmail.com

July, 11, 2006

American Scholars Symposium

9/11 Convention in Lost Angeles June 2006

VIDEO DOWNLOADS:

http://www.americanscholarssymposium.org/info/video.htm

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5004704309041471296

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294&q=William+Rodriguez

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7721834068111445869

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=63420012&blogID=143243815

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3936605380104958387&q=Press+for+Truth

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/270606charliesheen.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thm-Kusrmcw&search=American%20Scholars%20Symposium

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947&q=alex+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1375208054676470714

http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/piratenews-org-anthonyhilder-jimmywalter-911con.wmv

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/dr-james-fetzer-on-hannity-and-colmes.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7772696530684663669&q=9+11



=========================================



SEPTEMBER 911 SURPRISE

The shockumentary TV miniseries

Episode 1

http://september911surprise.com

http://piratenews.org

http://myspace.com/piratenewsctv



=========================================



Bush Gang perped 9/11massacres says Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair: Click Here for Conspiracy

By Nancy Jo Sales

August 2006

With $6,000 and a laptop computer, three kids from upstate New York made a documentary about 9/11 that spread across the Internet and threw millions for a loop.

READ THE 4 PAGE FEATURE ARTICLE:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=13037

http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/vanity_fair_loose_change_click_for_conspiracy.htm



View the video:

http://www.loosechange911.com/

http://www.myspace.com/loosechange911

==========================================



9/11 On Trial

London Daily Mirror

6 Aug 2006

Towers that fell 'like a controlled demolition'. Planes that vanished then mysteriously reappeared, and crucial evidence that has been lost for ever.

In the Pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby.

The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names.

The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft.

Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret. Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane's designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters.

The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro's Communists - and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime.

This Top Secret 'agent provocateur' plan - code named Operation Northwoods and revealed in official archives - dates from 1962 when the Cold War was at its height and was declassified in 2000.

http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm

========================================



Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

ABC News

May 1, 2001

Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba." —James Bamford

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation NORTHWOODS, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. "The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1



VIDEO - Operation Northwoods - James Bamford from ABC News

http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.php

=======================================



Operation Northwoods

"We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew.

Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.

Use of MIG-type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type palnes would be useful. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce that fact. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. It is possible to create an incident which would demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner from the United States.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.

The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rondevous. From the rondevous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly to an auxiliary airfield at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

Meanwhile the drone aircraft will continue to fly the filed flight plan. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

It is possible to create an incident that will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly Tail-end Charlie. While near the Cuban island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. This pilot would then fly at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary.

The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who performed the mission under an alias would resume his proper identity. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

A submarine or small craft would distribute F-101 parts, parachute, etc. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found." — Jewish Zionist General L.L. Lemnitzer, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon, Memo to Secretary of War Robert McNamara - Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba - Operation NORTHWOODS, March 13, 1962

(declassifed in 2000)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

i'm sorry, are you saying that the 9.11 conspiracy folk are crazy or those who deny them are crazy? there were A LOT of words in your article but your style of writing (sorta stream-of-consiousness, detailing every action you took) is really hard to follow.

i think what you're trying to say is that the people who deny the 9.11 conspiracy are the wingnuts. which i agree with. perhaps if you first wrote your article in an outline format then filled in the details under topic headings with the first 2 sentences of each topic giving the synopsis of the following paragraph it would be more coherent.

your list of videos is the best i've seen yet.