Why people like Clinton become gatekeepers....

Clinton, in his quick tempered defense reaction probably shot from the hip because he was totally surprised and unprepared to deal with any question about 9/11....as legitimately asked of him by the questioner.. BUT.... the experience we at TvNewsLIES have had with those who have become the gatekeepers is a bit different than what seems to be the prevailing conclusion.

We have found that, even in the most erudite circles....including people who are very aware of much that has taken place in this administration....MOST Americans are TOTALLY unaware of the 9/11 Truth Movement or the evidence that has been unearthed disproving the 9/11 Commission Report and the official version of what happened.

This is not being said in defense of Clinton or otheres, but the result of our extensive contact with tens of thousands of people who constantly challenge any questions as 'ridiculous' and the work of 'conspiracy theories.'

An editorial written by Jesse, the editor of http://TvNewsLIES.org explains the reasons behind this conclusion on our part. In essence he states that:

"We firmly believe that those people who fully believe the conclusions of the Kean Commission have never seen or heard any of the compelling evidence to the contrary. - These people never permit the complete picture to be painted for them. - They never allow themselves a chance to look at any of the information about 9/11 that has been revealed. They simply do not want to know that it exists."


Full article about this can be found here:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/david_ray_griffin__almost_perf.html

and flew them into buildings that day.

Maybe you could get away with a "Oh, he's shooting from the hip" the first time it happened. But isn't this the third? Isn't he involved in his wife's campaign for President?

You don't think maybe he's had a chance to look into it by now?

You guys have to get imaginative. He's been getting flack for speaking off the cuff, right? Well, what better way to offset that than the proven technique of mowing down the fish-in-a-barrel 9/11 Truth Movement? You think that heckler got in by accident?

(Note, I don't think this at all. But come on! Can't you guys come up with something that doesn't look so much like wound-licking?)

... but he has no desire to end up like him.

but that the bipartisan complicity at this point is too deep to admit it. Too much upheaval, risk of revolution, etc.

the "DC insiders" see how goofy both theories are.

consider the testimonies that many congressional committees and the 9/11 committee have heard: from-- Sibel Edmonds, Bush/Cheney, multiple FBI & CIA, Rice, Clarke, etc. and about-- Able Danger, CIA tape destruction, Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings, 9/11, etc.

If everything is so goofy, why is it classified?

Or rather, in an open society, why should this information be kept from the citizen's ears?

Perhaps I'm goofy that it makes me suspicious. Not one person in my personal life or my workplace considers me anything but a fair minded, reasonably intelligent, non-kooky person. Given the little evidence we have access to, the load of coincidence/inconsistencies, the obfuscation -- why is it so hard for a fellow Democrat such as yourself not to ridicule valid lines of thought.

My first question is, if something is classified, how do you know what's in it?Since you don't know, does that prove something? This is "begging the question" at its worst, i.e., "we must be on to something, otherwise why would they classify it?" I have no idea where you're going with this inchoate thought.

Look up Able Danger and you'll find that this was "thumped" by Curt Weldon, the former GOP congressman from Pennsylvania, who once undertook his own mission to Iraq to "find the WMD". I saw one of the claimants of Able Danger interviewed on TV. It was clear he had no firsthand knowledge of the allegations and actually had to respond to questions posed to him by referring to notes. Not really convincing.

"Given the little evidence we have access to, the load of coincidence/inconsistencies, the obfuscation -- why is it so hard for a fellow Democrat such as yourself not to ridicule valid lines of thought."

You just answered your own question. Did you notice that? If you have little evidence, exactly how are you drawing conclusions?

"if something is classified, how do you know what's in it? Since you don't know, does that prove something?"

You are misstating my argument. I'm not claiming proof. Call me mightily suspicious. For example, Sibel Edmonds has given us enough broad strokes to raise justifiably suspicions that some pretty serious criminal and treasonous activity has gone down. I know that multiple bipartisan committees have heard her testimony. I am basing my suspicions not on the fact that it is classified, but because what has leaked out says to me that some of this is being classified for the wrong reasons.


"Given the little evidence we have access to"... "exactly how are you drawing conclusions?"

My point was that we should have access to much more evidence than we do. Why do I suspect my government is hiding things from me? The 9/11 investigation should have been an open investigation. Bush and Cheney's testimony should have been under oath and open. Consider the implications of the outing of Brewster Jennings/Valerie Plame regarding Middle East intelligence and the clear involvement of this administration in this mess, the recently documented lies/misstatements by the administration leading up to the Iraq war, the state department's reluctance to follow up on the CIA tape destruction, and on and on and on...

If "the DC insiders see how goofy both theories (LIHOP/MIHOP)are", why not have everything out in the open to shut us all up once and for all?

You know, there was Willie Brown, who practically ran the state of California for so many years, was quite open about the fact that he was told by a Bush administration official not to fly on September 11th. And Condi Rice came out and said that she was the one that told him that.

Brown's warning: In the five years since 9/11, the question of how then-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown got a warning about flying that day continues to live on in the blogosphere -- and conspiracy theories abound.

"The latest version is that Condoleezza Rice alerted me personally,'' Brown said this week. "It's all part of the ongoing myth."

The "myth" has its origins in the night before the attacks, when Brown called "my security people at the airport'' to check on his flight to New York the next morning.

What the mayor got from his source was a warning that Americans should be concerned about traveling.

Willie being Willie, he paid no attention -- and was actually waiting for his ride to the airport when he turned on the TV and, like millions of other Americans, watched as the World Trade Center crumbled.

Exactly how the warning popped up remains a mystery to this day.

It might have had something to do with a little-noticed State Department memo issued a week before that went out in a routine press briefing -- and that former Secretary of State George Shultz himself received -- warning that Americans may be the target of an attack from extremist groups "with links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization."

The warning, however, dealt primarily with U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea -- clearly the wrong targets.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/BAGG9L4KI81.DTL

So I thought mysource was pretty good.

And Condi was filmed on CNN saying that she was the one who told him that.

Brown says she didn't...I think he would know, no?

not only involving the corruption of government, but also military ---

Those demolitions were carried out with military knowledge and access ---

Kinda reminds you of the Anthrax attacks on the liberal Congress --- !!!

My initial interest in 9/11 truth and the war on terror was because I thought it really was a war on Islam. After looking into it for years I've found that Bush policies have actually benefitted most of the muslim oil countries due to record oil profits etc. So in fact Islamic culture is now much stronger and also much richer financially. They don't need me to look out for them anymore.

What's ironic though is that many anti-muslim people support Bush-Cheney because they think he is against Islamic fundamentalism. He doesn't care one way or the other, in fact he benefits by increasing religious fundamentalism on both sides. Bush was basically the petrodollar candidate.

what do you mean "become"?

what makes you think he was something else and then changed?

Nothing to add.