feet. Here's what he said on his Thursday show, talking about James von Brunn:

"Who did he hate? He hated both Bushes. He hated neo-cons. He hated John McCain. He hated Republicans. He hated Jews, as well. He believed in an inside job conspiracy of 9/11.

"This guy is a leftist, if anything. This guy's belief's, this guy's hate, stems from influence that you find on the left, not on the right."

I find this particularly insane because for the past 2+ years I've been arguing the case for 9/11 truth at Alternet where the resident denialists try to frame 9/11 truth as a right-wing conspiracy issue.

During my time in the 9/11 truth movement, I have worked with people from across the political spectrum, from all different ethnicities and who practice a variety of religions (and no religion). Generally speaking, 9/11 truth is the most non-partisan truly democratic issue I have ever been involved with or even heard of.

The best way to counter this hateful insanity is with loving rationality and compassion.

We need to get as many people, young, old and every size, shape and color out into the public eye, standing peaceful and proud with our signs and banners.

We need to show the media and our country who the real patriots are.

I think it's time we take the gloves off and hold a press conference in NYC in support of the NYC CAN, get some big names like Daniel Sunjata, Jesse Ventura, William Rodriguez, Ed Asner, the Jersey Girls, Sheri Belafonte, Willie Nelson and whoever else we can get to come and call this nonsense the BS that it is.

We need to look the media in the eye, smile and tell them just who we are and what we are about.

Dagnabbit, this ticks me off!

We need to work harder AND smarter, brothers and sisters, the clock is running!

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

Watch this refinery fire. The fire has clearly engulf structural steel pipes.

Here's a video of the same refinery fire the next day.

The fire burn until the next day. Do you see any steel pipes that have melted away? Nope. On fire a whole day, and there's only burnt paint.

If structural steel could be possibly be affected by a petrochemical fire, buildings would not be allowed to be built from structural steel.

...and I'll do it again here.

I've studied CIT and PfT extensively, including the counterarguments put forth by Arabesque and one or two others. My conclusion after having seen all sides is that the work of CIT/PfT has NOT been debunked and still stands.

I'm not posting this to derail and start a debate. But I feel the need to take a very clear stand. CIT and PfT are NOT deliberate disinfo like Fetzer, Wood, and Reynolds.

Ben Veniste's arrogance is such that the doesn't care if his arguments make any sense about 9/11. He has total disdain for the public and is willing to string together things that don't carry any logic. Remember, he heard Rodriguez behind closed doors, so it's well to ask him, "Why did you make William Rodriguez testify behind closed doors? He claims there were explosions in the sub-basements before the planes hit - did you hear that in his 9/11 commish testimony? - and so on......"

Agreed!--but could I please urge that we not employ terms like 'conspiracists' unless we put quotation marks around them? Otherwise, we effectively let THEM define the terms of debate. It's easy to forget this point sometimes in the midst of debate, but is important to remember at all times even so--that when it comes to 9/11, we're ALL 'conspiracists'. Those who accept the conspiracy theory peddled by the government and media should understand that this term fully applies to them as well as those who have quite a different take on those events.

I know, you may well have had tongue in cheek when you typed '9/11 conspiracists,' but quotation marks would be much appreciated all the same.

Excellent analogy.

They are between a rock and a hard place. During the major movement explosion around the 5th anniversary, they decided to stop ignoring us and take us on in the form of PM, SLC and JREF. For awhile, these pseudo-debunking resources did impress through appearance.

For example: to the uninitiated, JREF might look impressive. Someone who hasn't truly studied the movement's claims might stumble onto JREF and think "ah, a forum of self-described critical thinkers. A place where baseless speculation is ignored and all claims and sources are checked. Architects and scientists post here, and there seems to be this unanimous agreement that the truth movement's claims hold no water, so they must be right."

However, for those willing to do more than just skim or speed read either side of the argument, it becomes so painfully obvious how transparent JREF is. Their 15 minutes came and went in 2006. Same with SLC.

At first, Popular Mechanics' book received positive reviews and ratings on Amazon. Because, to the truly uninitiated, and to those who ONLY looked at PM's book for their entire truth research, the book did *look* impressive.

But, as with the 9/11 Commission Report, as time went on, the customer reviews on Amazon became increasingly negative, one-star reviews. With both the 911CR and PM, the negative reviews especially started piling on after DRG had released "Omissions and Distortions" and "Debunking 911 Debunking," respectively.

It all goes to show how when free and open inquiry are not verboten, and the "cold light of reason" is cast upon them, the defenders of the OCT have nothing but faulty bats.

I like your illustration using baseball. Our big bat is that we have the truth on our side, and we have great minds like yours and many others' who see things clearly and communicate what they see effectively.

Thanks stewball.

I like the analogy--and love the 'Joe Slickhair anchor at WLIE News'!--but in this case, it's more like the Truthers have their players on the field, ready to play ball, while the Defenders think they can win without ever actually taking the field--staying in the dugout, going up to the broadcaster's booth, heck, maybe even just hanging out in the parking lot outside the stadium. In their version of baseball, knowing they have these 'play-by-play announcers' all on their side, they think they can win just by convincing the listening audience just how bad the Truthers are, so that there's no need to play an actual game. And knowing that if they were to actually play, then their defective abilities and equipment would be exposed for all to see.

Imagine if competitive sports were played in this way, and you have a stark picture of the state of the news media in this 'free' society.

in the first inning or the audience buys the announcers take on the game and switches to basketball.

(Or at least get a hit or two in the first inning to keep them watching)

Our solution is to get out on the field as often as possible and keep playing, so even if they only catch an inning here and and inning there, they will begin to realize that the other team doesn't really have any game at all (and the announcers are paid off).

So get out there and bunt (put options), hit solid singles (NORAD stand down) or hit a lead off home run (WTC 7), just keep playing...

[Sorry, I love analogies]

Cheers!

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