Not bad, but the 'actor' endorsements don't hold much weight in my opinion. Plenty of intellectuals have voiced a need to have a -real- 9/11 investigation. Far more than actors. While historically actors and musicians have their place in political discourse, their purpose is best served as voice box to express discontent and spread word. The intellectuals are what lend strong credibility to questioning the official 'story' on 9/11.

Moving this video to Aum123's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by EndAll.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
The intellectuals are what lend strong credibility to questioning the official 'story' on 9/11.


Not necessarily true.

Celebrities have a much further reach and penetration than do intellectuals, and those celebrities aren't dumb.

The truth is the truth, regardless of who says it.

I've yet to hear anyone convincingly point out WHY the government would fake 9/11. If you weigh the risk benefit analysis, it doesn't pan out. It's like the Kennedy Assassination, Why kill Kennedy, there was no reason to do it. Conspiracy theorists really ignore those important points I think.

Why? To go to war.

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")

Those same insiders had Bush in Florida, and at a photo-op with second graders while they went to work on that fateful day. When Bush heard the news and frantically tried to get back to the White house, he was warned (falsely) that Air Force One would be a target, so they never took off in time. It was only later in the evening that he was able to return to Washington - after all the decisions had been made by those same neo-conservative vultures behind the scenes.