reminds me of the chart from the "Who Killed John O'Neill" film

PDF: http://wkjo.com/media/WKJO_Map.pdf
JPG: http://wkjo.com/media/WKJO_Map.jpg

Let's dominate.

that outlawing all forms of resistance, making it all but impossible to resist the will of the government, is just inviting government abuse? Why do people want a government that is invincible? In the history of human civilization, has there ever been a benevolent empire, or a benevolent dictatorship? No, I venture there has never been.

The slideshow makes even less sense when you consider he is including so-called insurgents in Iraq. Um, so, America wages an imperial war of aggression against a non-aggressive state, and yet the people in that state who resist are terrorists and should not be allowed to have websites? WTF?

The public discourse in the War on Terror is so wildly out of control at this point, I'm not sure how anything but 9/11 Truth will restore sanity.

Weitzman knew what he was doing. The shots of the AE911truth site aren't as visible. ae4.jpg is probably the best one.

Weitzman refered to conspiracy theories as "outside job" illusions. Obviously, he had heard the phrase "inside job" and twisted it. He refered to "outside job" theories that the government did 9/11. A transcript of the Youtube video of the presentation would be good to have.

Of the offending section.

I would if I could.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

It doesn't matter what people are saying, as long as they are talking about you. — Denny Crane

Bring back the 80's! — Nuke the Gay Iranian Whales!

We should ask for an official apology from the SWC. Be POLITE but firm. Here is my exchange with Mark Weitzman:

Sent: Wed 11/28/2007 8:55 PM
To: mweitzman@swcny.com
Subject: Re: Your Presentation in Congress

Mark,

Do you believe that AE911Truth.org is a terrorist website?

Richard Gage, the founder of AE911Truth.org, is an outstanding architect and US citizen. Do your defamations of him and his website represent the official opinions of the Simon Wiesenthal Center?

If not, it would be wise to make an immediate PUBLIC apology, and notify Rep. Jane Harman of your retraction.

Sincerely,
Kevin O

-------------------- His reply -------------------------------
Dear Kevin O,

Over the past few days I have received a number of emails regarding my testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security. Much of those emails appear to have been based on misapprehensions of my testimony. My testimony was about “the Internet as a tool for violent radicalization”, and not about 9/11. My reference to 9/11 consisted of 1 sentence out of 6 pages of testimony, and in that sentence (with 2 out of 38 accompanying PowerPoint slides) I referenced “how 9/11 is viewed in some eyes, including those who applauded it as well as some conspiracy sites.” I then continue by illustrating the types of conspiracy theories often found online, such as those based upon of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous antisemitic text, or that generally blame the US government in a pernicious manner (i.e. for intentionally spreading the AIDS virus), or that have the “entire Western World engaged in a conspiracy against Islam” Nowhere in there is there any mention of 9/11! In this regard our only concern with 9/11 is when the inquiries slide into incubators for hate (i.e. “This fake Hamas soldier wearing a "Star of David" is as much a Zionist as the 9-11 terrorists Chertoff covers for. Chertoff is the son of a terrorist himself. Don't let him off the hook!”).

Finally, in my recommendations, I never urged any type of censorship. In fact, I specifically state that (#5) that any steps taken in regard to the Internet must be done legally, and over the course of a decade in dealing with this issue I have consistently stressed that the First Amendment must be maintained in the virtual as well as the real world. I have even argued that in conferences in Europe when attempts were being made to impose international controls on the Internet, saying, as I did last year in Berlin that we should “avoid getting bogged down in a useless debate on the First Amendment” because we (in the US) are not going to erase it, nor should we.

Please feel free to share this with any interested parties.

Sincerely,

Mark Weitzman

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993

He voted "aye" as did the other congressman from a nearby district.

I'll call tomorrow to ask why I was misinformed.

Thanks.

EDIT: 11/30/2007

I called.

This time another polite individual, a young man, answered. I was nice throughout the course of the conversation, but with a more confident tone of voice than yesterday. For example, I started by giving my name, Eloy Gonzalez II, saying that I didn't the day before.

Basically, I first provided a quick run down of my previous request and asked why I was misinformed about the way my congressman, Ruben Hinojosa, voted for the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (which was essentially in the affirmative, or rather "aye").

The young man said he didn't know who I spoke to the day before but that he would look into who she was. Not wanting to get bogged down in the pursuit of who "she" was exactly, I simply asked if I could have the email address of the congressman so that I could send him a letter.

But, after telling the young man that I was the one who asked the congressman a 9/11 question ("Are you in favor of a new 9/11 investigation") at last year's Congressional Candidate debate, I felt that I really couldn't hold back my opinion on the issue in question, and I told him flat out what I think about the H.R. 1955 bill.

I said that I was personally offended as a 9/11 truth activist by the infusion of 9/11 truth symbolism into Mr. Weitzman's presentation, which not only caused it on the whole to be horrifically inaccurate and misleading, but was actually manipulating of Congress. I explained that although there is likely some kind of Jihadists online threat in one shape or another, 9/11 truth has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. I then particularly brought up the slide wherein ae911truth.org was grouped in with all the other alleged terrorism promotional websites, and said that the very fact that the congressman voted in favor of H.R. 1955 is proof positive that he did not effectively conduct a background check on any of the examples of websites given, because if he HAD, he would have discovered rather quickly that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a peaceful organization and not in any way inclined towards violence. In short, I made it clear that voting for this piece of legislation was irresponsible, poorly thought-out (well, maybe not, right?), and defamatory towards peaceful 9/11 truth activists.

I wanted to say that the reason ae911truth.org was likely included in the PowerPoint presentation was to make people disinclined to join what Homeland Security is now labeling as a website promoting home-grown terrorism (which speaks volumes about their concern about 9/11 truth, IMHO). I also wanted to elaborate further on the manipulation of Congress factor, particularly to point out that since many members of Congress have been, to their chagrin, confronted by 9/11 truth activists, they were more likely -- perhaps for the majority on a subconscious level -- to vote in favor of H.R. 1955 as they had a stake in the benefits it would provide many of them (namely, to silence we pesky 9/11 truthers! so that Congress can avoid the topic of 9/11 truth once and for all). Unfortunately, I did not smoothly think of these things at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.

I did, however, make a few more points that no doubt were a bit helpful but I just can't remember it all right now. But, after getting the email address I requested, I made it clear that I would not be sending any hate mail to Congressman Ruben Hinojosa. Just a nice and particularly informative letter explaining my position on 9/11 truth. :)

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

Here's one that has the above and more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSilk9mXbpE

----------
The person who sees absolutes and exhibits certitude, where a thoughtful person sees nuanced shades of meaning
and exhibits open-minded objectivity, should be questioned as to agenda and state of mind.