I'm giving out gift subscriptions to all my "on the fence" friends.

>>9/11 and the Precautionary Principle by George Nelson (USAF Ret.)

WHY?

George Nelson -- openly questions not just FL77, but any* of the 4 planes that crashed that day, suggesting Boeings did not crash in NYC or Penn. He isn't just asking the question rhetorically, but literally claims that the real jets never hit anywhere. Huge red flag there. Has advocated pods on letsroll forums . . .

See: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/01/old-military-fraudsters-wit...

Here's a quote from his "Letter to Paul Watson" --

"Now, back to your 12 September article, and I quote---

"The dam on proving the destruction of the trade towers was an inside job
has broken and the only thing that can stop it now is infiltration and
misdirection towards unproven and discrediting theories about pods,
missiles, ghost planes and other outlandish distractions."

Just who the hell do you think you are, Mr. Watson?? Who appointed you as
judge and jury on what is or what isn't an "outlandish distraction"? Of
all the disinformation agents floating around, you are, in my opinion, the
most presumptuous egomaniac who has yet dared to float a trial balloon for
your truth movement's consideration. On April 20, 2004, you went to great
lengths to describe to your readers that there appeared to be a "pod"
firing missiles to the left and to the right, from "pods" of both flight
11 and flight 175. You even pushed your book, Order Out of Chaos, wherein
you said, "features a discussion on the use of missiles in the 911
attacks."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2004/042004podmissile.htm

So what's happened to change your mind since April 2004? Have the "pods
and missiles" since disappeared from all the DVDs and postings since you
wrote that article and your book?

I spoke to a crowd of about 200 people last December in a Tampa, Florida
theatre, which was a stop on the Jimmy Walter's Reopen 9/11 Tour. On
stage, a large theatre screen displayed a still photo of the airplane that
was supposed to be flight 175, with a "pod", and the flash, and I asked
the audience; "Is there anyone here who has trouble seeing the unusual
piece of equipment attached to the underside of this aircraft"? The silent
response from the audience was unanimous. I said to them, "At the present
time, it matters very little, what the purpose of that large object is---
what really matters is that by regulation, one would never see such
equipment that does not belong on a FAA Part 121, scheduled airliner,
therefore, that aircraft has been switched enroute with the authentic
Flight 175.""
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/nelson_watson.htm

Please do not spread the mess that Nelson is advocating by uncritically promoting him to the public.