What a wonderful example of the creative use of anger.

Thank you for taking the time to reflect, write and post this.

My experience with "debunkers" generally falls into three categories. The first group, and the group that I consider the most honest, fall silent after they realize that they know virtually nothing about the events of 9/11/01. I gently steer them to web sites, books, dvds and other resources so they can investigate for themselves. I also give them my contact information to continue the dialogue, most have yet to do so, including my high school physics teacher who I ran into a few weeks back (he did suggest that I write a book, though).

The second group, who I define as the casual deniers, become increasingly agitated as I recite the overwhelming evidence against the OCT and their cognitive dissonance manifests itself physically. If they don't just turn and run away (no joke, this has happened to me more than once), then I try to find an issue that we have in common and work from there. My hope here is that if they have enough exposure over a period of time, they will fight through their fear and actually look for the truth. I also encourage them to stay in touch with me. One of my soccer buddies, while continuing to email me about the team we play on, has yet to respond to the information I've given him, but it has only been a few weeks.

The last group, who I define as the deep deniers, rarely admit to being wrong even when it is clear that they are. Instead, they use a variety of rhetorical tactics to evade the facts, physics or logic that they cannot counter rationally. This group is made up of two sub-groups, those who have deep emotional blocks and those who obviously know that what they are saying is false, and take the position they do for reasons known only to them. I will take some time with the former, the latter I try to disconnect with as civilly as possible as they are a complete waste of time unless you need to counter their "arguments" in front of an audience.

Fortunately, I am blessed with very thick skin and can smile in the face of ignorant and abusive people (I've had decades of practice). Most of these people just cannot accept that something so far outside their conception of reality could have taken place. As other pillars of their reality collapse, like the failing false economy, the shocks may make them more open to 911 truth if we have engaged them in a friendly, respectful way. On the other hand, if they feel that they have been castigated by a member of the truth movement, they are likely to crawl deeper into their bunker of denial when confronted by this issue.

Thanks again for your years of hard work.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

The purpose of your article was loud and clear Gold.

You could also answer it this way.

Question: "Would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “well, OK, we were wrong?"

Why? Isn't it obvious? Because we'd all sleep much better at night knowing that our own government WASN'T in the business of plotting the murder of its own citizens. It's not some sort of mental defense mechanism to believe what we believe because it's actually a very disturbing reality if you believe it to be true. This isn't the fantasy of some cult which has dreamt up the scenario that space aliens are going to swoop in on anti-gravity machines and rescue them from impending disaster. It's not comforting to believe what we believe. The better question might be, why wouldn't we want to be proven wrong?

I'm sure that the cynics would reply that guys like Alex Jones would be out of business. That all depends on his true motives. Alex says he doesn't care about the money, he just wants to save the country. His detractors would argue that he's a huckster looking to capitalize on others naivety. The problem is that the vast majority of us stand nothing to gain from joining the patriot movement. I've never made a dollar off of it. The only thing that I've probably earned is ending up on some pointless government watch list labeled as a "subversive" of some sort. The point being that most us didn't choose this path because it's fun or something to do. We're assuming this risk for the sake of our country and our preserving our most cherished liberties. That's payment enough for me. Though it's terribly sad that we must now fight to regain what was once rightfully ours to begin with.

Also, one might argue that it's the debunkers who have so willingly accepted the official version of 9/11 while denying all alternatives because it is they who cannot handle the notion that they're government could harm them for political gains. Why would any debunker ever want to believe otherwise? Now there's a perfect question.

I wrote this.

LIHOP? Why LIHOP when MIHOP is safer? Do you really think the sociopaths would allow real terrorists fly over Indian Point Nuclear Facility? Do you really think the sociopaths would allow a commercial airliner get any where near the Pentagon unless they knew it wouldn't crash into the side of the Pentagon that housed the offices of Donald Rumsfeld and the JCS? By the way, the Pentagon missile batteries (all six of them on 9/11) would automatically lock on targets and fire. Institutional failure is not a variable in this instance.

By the way, under the official 9/11 narrative institutional failure doesn't even apply to NORAD because NORAD wasn't supposed to have been monitoring and controling American skies on 9/11. Of course, thanks to The NORAD Papers (go to www.DNotice.org and read the five articles on NORAD), we now know that not only did NORAD monitor and control American (and Canadian) airspace on 9/11, but that NORAD was also tasked with identifying aircraft flying through American airspace that filed flight plans with the FAA (any aircraft flying above 18,000 feet).

The sociopaths had to say that NORAD didn't monitor American airspace because no one would believe that a military organization could be so incompetent in its failure to monitor four obviously errant aircraft. Well, now we know that NORAD did indeed monitor and control American airspace, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a MIHOP operation.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I want an investigation of who placed the explosives in the towers, because the towers were blown to pieces (according to New Mexico Tech's building explosives expert Van Romero on September 12, 2001, and USA Today reporter Jack Kelley on the morning of 9/11);

I want to know who made NORAD stand down on 9/11, because on September 10, 2001 NORAD did monitor and control American and Canadian airspace (see The NORAD Papers at www.DNotice.org);

I want to know who deactivated the Pentagon's six missile batteries on 9/11 (five batteries hidden in fake air conditioning covers on the roof, one battery hidden on the ground);

I want to know what happened to Flight 175 that is said to have hit the south tower, because that aircraft isn't a commercial Boeing airliner as proven by digital analysis conducted by the University School, Barcelona, in 2003. See: http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

put their efforts into supporting a new investigation which could prove that we are wrong?!!

There is no such thing as institutional failure, nor Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

LIHOP? Why LIHOP when MIHOP is safer? Do you really think the sociopaths would allow real terrorists fly over Indian Point Nuclear Facility? Do you really think the sociopaths would allow a commercial airliner get any where near the Pentagon unless they knew it wouldn't crash into the side of the Pentagon that housed the offices of Donald Rumsfeld and the JCS? By the way, the Pentagon missile batteries (all six of them on 9/11) would automatically lock on targets and fire. Institutional failure is not a variable in this instance.

By the way, under the official 9/11 narrative institutional failure doesn't even apply to NORAD because NORAD wasn't supposed to have been monitoring and controling American skies on 9/11. Of course, thanks to The NORAD Papers (go to www.DNotice.org and read the five articles on NORAD), we now know that not only did NORAD monitor and control American (and Canadian) airspace on 9/11, but that NORAD was also tasked with identifying aircraft flying through American airspace that filed flight plans with the FAA (any aircraft flying above 18,000 feet).

The sociopaths had to say that NORAD didn't monitor American airspace because no one would believe that a military organization could be so incompetent in its failure to monitor four obviously errant aircraft. Well, now we know that NORAD did indeed monitor and control American airspace, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a MIHOP operation.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC