..determined the cause of death of Dan Wallace yet?

I will soon, in all probability, be unable to talk about any of this. I may not even be able to release my film. NOT because I am scared - but because it is now all part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Its all very sad in my opinion.

My concern is that there are others in a similar position who are too scared to step forward. No one should ever feel threatened to seek answers or voice opinions in America.

I've heard from Dylan Avery that Dan Wallace wasn’t murdered, he wouldn’t say how he died but he's been in contact with people and he was getting pissed at individuals who were speculating on the Loose Change boards.

I wouldn’t worry about it, I honestly don't mean to disrespect Dan's memory but he could have died of a drug overdose or something who knows, I don't know enough about the guy. That dude Luke from NY911Truth apparently knows what happened, so you should try and get in contact with him John if you want to find out.

Also I think you should try and release your film no matter what, if people are trying to intimated you in an attempt to stop it being released, the best thing you can do is release it, there's nothing that can be done once it's out there. But there is something that can be done the longer you leave it e.g. harassment and all this other shit. I'd say try your hardest not to tangle the film with legal stuff because releasing it will probably go further to combat this than drawn out legal action etc. Drawn out legal action which you should still do, but not at the expense of what I’m sure is going to turn out to be a critical piece of media.

It was wrong.

I am not afraid to release my film. But you do understand I have to follow the directions of my lawyers - choose effective strategies - and execute them. I do not want to undercut my own efforts.

We'll see.

I totally understand dude, but I would have thought you'd be too smart to put some shit in there that THEY can actually legally object to, especially if you’re having a lawyer comb through it.

It is very suspicious how a 23-year-old truther, the son of a 9/11 firefighter, just passed away in bed. I want foul play totally ruled out (if there was none), and of course I'll still respect him no matter what the cause of death was.

I've heard that Dan's dad was a firefighter who was trapped in a stalled elevator cab, in radio contact and working to hack his way out when the sound of the detonations reached his ears. He probably had only a few seconds of terror before he was pulverized. Such an awful mental burden Dan had to carry once he learned the truth.

to speculate on his death in the total absence of facts.

Depends. Speculation in the informal sense of the word is the first step in researching something odd--that is pointing out the obvious dodginess of an apparently healthy 23 year old activist dying suddenly. I don't know what word you'd prefer to use, but homicide investigators have to be able to "speculate" that much to note a death may be suspicious and investigate accordingly.

However, speculation being passed off as confirmed fact is not legitimate--I agree with you there.

Speculation is fine in its place if not done to excess--that is, one is making it clear one is speculating.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I will be very disappointed if you can't release your film. Any chance of private screenings?

You know, one might actually want to read what this meathead had to say for himself. Most likely he exposes himself, but he's been pointed down to below -3 and so I can't read it. (NO THE "HIDE/SHOW THREAD FUNCTION DOES NOT WORK FOR ME.) This shows how counterproductive the minus function can be.

PLEASE:

1) Can someone summarize what "Comrade Shusterman" has to say? Preferably leaving out any scatology. THANK YOU.

2) How about we all recommend to dz and co. a different system. I think it would be great if he were to limit posting size (so that people can stop cutting and pasting 10-page articles) and allow an individual hide/ignore for every post, instead of the plus-minus popularity contest, as though that proves anything. (Not that I don't find it reassuring that Comrade Shusterman isn't getting a "plus.")

Nicholas,

Please use firefox if at all possible.

Let me know what browser you are using via email if you don't mind, thanks.

I was going to say, "sorry Nickey--live with it--you're not missing anything", but your post is so much more contructive.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

but slander is not protected free speech. its actually a crime.

the only way to DETERMINE slander is to determine the TRUTHFULNESS of the statements in question. TRUTH actually matters in legal matters of free speech.

so - in order to protect yourself against a slander and harassment charge you would have to PROVE Frank Morales the PRIEST at St Marks Church is in fact a drug trafficer.

Sgood luck with that. i am sure everyone understands what a sensible guy you are based on your choice of words.

Well, fred, thank you for your input. That was...um...lovely. So, anything constructive to add? Or can we just fast forward to the down arrows?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.