RESURRECT DEAD ON PLANET JUPiTER

The Debate

Since conspiracy weekend is not quite over, I’d like to talk about the most interesting thing I heard during last nights “9-11 truth” broadcast on CSPAN. A lot of airtime was given to the absolute terror the left has in coming anywhere close to the subject of a (non al-qaeda) 9-11 conspiracy. Speakers continually pushed the fact that the gatekeepers of the liberal intelligentsia would rather lick Rupert Murdoch’s Italian wingtips than discuss the subject in an on-the-record forum.

(Just for the record, the liberal intelligentsia = The Nation magazine, Air America radio, the biggest blogs, i.e. Kos and of course, Noam Chomsky)

Much of this can be easily dismissed. Most of these ‘gatekeepers’ don’t actually believe there was a (non-al qaeda based) conspiracy. This is fair. This would also explain the lack of discussion. But it doesn’t explain the total silence. In the last year, I’ve been surprised at the number of people who after a long conversation and maybe a few drinks, slowly and carefully bring up their suspicions about the official 9-11 myth. This conversation is happening with surprising frequency. Unfortunately, most people don’t say what they’re thinking except among friends and behind closed doors.

As I said before, I don’t know the truth and I don’t pretend to, but I most definitely have questions… the biggest one being the same that BYU physics professor Steven Jones. It’s also the same question that’s conspicuously been left unanswered by 2 very expensive/extensive government funded (and in the NIST case, independently investigated) reports. Why did World Trade Center building 7 collapse - and especially - how did it collapse the way it did? At this point, after FEMA, NIST and academic investigations, the only theory left standing is Jones’s. That theory is both disturbingly reasonable and has serious implications.

To read Jones’s paper, click here.

I know the left is trying to show solidarity from blog to Alan Colmes. I know that there’s a plan and a frame that drives the agenda and that talking all crazy about the nations new purpose (war on terror) is no way to win elections, but to consciously shut subjects out of the debate - especially on the internet - is a bunch of bullshit. People aren’t thinking within the predominant frame… but they are censoring themselves into it. That’s pretty shameful.

You can always comment anonymously.