Agents Provocateur?

How the hell can you really tell valid criticism from clever deception?

By John Kaminski, Rense.com - First Published June 7, 2005

Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective? What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites you on the butt?

Well, first you examine your long term objectives. What is your ultimate purpose? What is it you are trying to do? And finally, what the heck are we here for, anyway?

Then you review the short term goal. What is it I was trying to accomplish? And does that immediate achievement justify sitting on facts you suspect to be true, but don't dare say? And ultimately, will aspiring toward the short term goal actually work against your long term objective?

I could at this point veer into the murky territory that both links and repels men and women, but in the dull interests of decorous propriety, I will not, except to say the classic male example of this conundrum typically is a confession of undying love in pursuit of minimally sincere sexual activity, producing a result where one's long term objectives are inevitably polluted by the short term goal. (Ooh, I can just hear those speculative wheels spinning crazily in the minds of voyeuristic cybergossipers, but let me stress this I am only using this as a hypothetical for-instance.)

More to the point - and in fact exactly on it - is my perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed. Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."

I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.

I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.

I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"

I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it.

Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only reinforced my conviction.

The highest, most important leaders in our land, and other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11, and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.

So, I began to write about it, firing thought cannons into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed my initial emotional impressions.

I always thought the government's lies were the best piece of evidence, what with Cheney, Rice, and Myers all saying "we had no idea something like this could happen" and then the FBI announcing the names of ALL the hijackers later in the day. When Bush announced the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, it soon became evident that this demonic target-shoot has been planned years before the towers had been hit.

But more tangible evidence quickly followed: Why did the FBI quickly confiscate that videotape from that gas station across the street from the Pentagon that would have clearly shown exactly what hit the Pentagon? Because it would not have verified their story - that is the only reason it could be.

And that is legitimate probable cause for a thousand prosecutions, if we had a law enforcement apparatus that actually tried to enforce the law.

Why is there no evidence of the so-called hijackers actually being on the supposedly hijacked airliners? Or even if they were, of having no snowball's chance in hell of executing the impossible aerobatic maneuvers necessary to do what the government said they did? There were no hijackers. And no reason to invade foreign countries.

The time the towers took to fall is what I consider the smoking gun. There is no way structures of that mass and complexity could have free-fallen the way they did without the 47 core columns of each twin tower being expertly severed by explosives. The minimal fires supposedly caused by the plane crashes were neither hot nor widespread enough to cause the buildings to fall at all, never mind the way they did, conveniently and neatly into their own footprints.

No way! No freaking way!

However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as to what actually happened.

And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.

And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all - 9/11 - the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives of many of its participants.

I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read, titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11." Read it here: http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51

Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist, has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger lists are riddled with inconsistencies).

He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for, the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement - the assertion that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners - used in the attacks.

Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought we saw.

Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall 9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.

So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public, which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people, that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory. It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell, it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted wounds to justify aggression).

But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet, reality began to intrude.

First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed - a 270-degree diving turn at 600 mph - that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour, who from all reports had trouble driving a car.

So, you begin to suspect there's something wrong with the Pentagon story (to say the least).

OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage, or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around the area.

My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight 93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.

Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called 911 (the number, not the day) and said she'd just received a cell phone call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: "They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane."

Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett called Deena again. She says he said: "The guy they knifed is dead."

Greg Gordon's riveting account in the Sacramento Bee of the Burnetts' tragic morning http://tinyurl.com/dzh7h, with Tom furnishing inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government's story, will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.

And then you remember that this was a cellphone call, and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000). And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?

OK, then you begin to think back about the events in New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming a documentary that day about firefighters.

If you've done any research into these matters, you've watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over, and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular to the fuselage - not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder - what kind of plane was that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the tower.

So you begin to think to there's something wrong with this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.

When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported. If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire life, and should never.

But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the ground.

Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size. They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.

Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has been identified in this manner. See http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that day has ever been found.

Nelson's conclusion? "The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government." (And this guy's a retired colonel.)

At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because I just could not believe it).

But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We've seen it over and over. It is etched into our dreams.

Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole "no-plane" movement, continue to insist it was done electronically - that there were no planes - because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the event.

I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren's version of events, except for one thing - how do you explain so many different camera angles on that crash all recording essentially the same event, and how could eyewitnesses see it if it were all done with exotic film techniques?

This was the question that had always hung me up in this debate. Sure, most of us had only seen it on TV, but what about all those people who were running from the raining rubble - what had they seen? And what about the people in Queens who watched it on the Von Kleist video. And what were the suspicious Israelis filming from the New Jersey shore - only a video deception?

How could a hologram of jet crash been seen by so many people from so many different angles? I am no technical expert on these matters, but for all the reading I've done on the Internet these past three years, you'd think I would have run across the subject - since I've been looking for it.

Rosalee told me that Gerard and her friends no longer believe it was a hologram, and that they now believe it was all done in the ersatz movie studio of a flight simulator, and then that footage was somehow transmitted to the TV networks.

Holmgren responded forthrightly. "I can't give a definite answer. As with the Pentagon, all I can say for sure is what it was not. That is, it was not the "plane" which we see in the video. The illusory plane masks whatever it was."

So there it was again - the difficulty of the story. In all four events on 9/11, we can't figure out what happened, but the evidence that can be assembled indicates the official story is not true.

The dilemma of a difficult story that cannot be easily conveyed to the public is what made me reject it in the first place, but in the same way that people's attitudes ultimately have no bearing on the veracity of what they're saying, so the difficulties in comprehending a story have no relevance as to whether or not it's true.

Where I began this reconsideration of a contentious dispute was by remembering that you can't determine the veracity of information on the basis of someone's reputation. And the reputation of the no-planers is horrible. They have savaged everyone who dared question their version of events, and left a trail of bad feelings wherever they've gone.

They have intimidated many into frustrated silence with a constant barrage of cantankerous contentions, and a result have attracted all manner of derogatory adjectives, including from me. And yet, we continue to use their information - that two of the flights may never existed, that the passenger list info is very suspicious - in our pursuit of the truth. So perhaps some of us have been too harsh in dismissing them as disruptive. After all, this is a very emotional debate, and the future of the world DOES depend on its outcome.

This emotionalism has spilled over into other principle schisms within the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my clumsy attempts to try and deduce the real story, I've received some of it myself, with the controversial Phil Jayhan (who lately has been saying he is receiving messages from God) accusing me of taking money from the government as well as not caring about the people who died on 9/11.

More recently, I have been swept into a public roasting by Holmgren and the no-plane gang of 9/11 personality Karl Schwarz in which neither side has exactly distinguished itself by polite debating tactics. The Holmgren gang has torched Schwarz for specific inaccuracies in his very public attempts to get New York state law enforcement officials to bring legal action against the government for wrongful deaths in the 9/11 attacks. But Schwarz has only feebly defended himself by using empty ad hominem threats against the no-planers, and his apparently inflated claims about himself and his "companies" have taken a major hit with the publication of his background on Portland Indymedia (Karl Schwarz: Unfortunate Son at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml).

Again, the upshot of this nagfest was to only drive more people away from the movement, disgusted with the level of personal insults obscuring the merits of the discussion.

The same kind of high-intensity emotion has been embarrassingly evident among Internet radio listeners of late, as they have watched, with increasing confusion and incredulity, the continuing attacks of WING-TV against several of the best radio hosts on the web: Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, and Fintan Dunne.

Miffed that they have been snubbed by their more experienced and more accomplished broadcasting competitors, WING-TV operators Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani have engaged an embarrassing juvenile tirade against three people who have perhaps brought more people to realistic political consciousness via Web radio than anybody else, especially with regard to 9/11.

It's very difficult for me to write these words, especially since Thorn has published two of my books. More importantly, over the past year he had conducted a string of timely and valuable interviews with some of the most respected voices in the 9/11 skeptics movement, and at great personal sacrifice attempted to shed some light on the decade-old Oklahoma City coverup.

But since that attempt, Thorn and Guliani have ceased interviewing relevant guests and gone on a deceptive and underhanded campaign to ridicule Rense, Jones, and Dunne that culminated in them throwing underwear around their makeshift TV set and holding up a Barbie-doll to the camera in a pathetic attempt to besmirch the sexual proclivities of one of these radio competitors.

Whatever credibility they may have had among many in the alternative news community disappeared forever at that very moment.

A quick scan of their WING-TV website reveals that they made whatever reputation they had by castigating the competition. They started out with easy targets like braindead radio host Mike Gallagher, then graduated to easy target Mike Ruppert, whose blatant oil company propaganda and mutation from top 9/11 critic into just another leftie gatekeeper news outlet has been noted with disappointment by most facets of the genuine 9/11 skeptics movement.

But most people get the feeling that if Rense or Jones or Dunne had merely had them on their shows and let them pitch their own products, none of this would have happened. So their so-called revealing exposés of Rense, Jones, and the Genesis Communications Network, are little more than sour grapes at not being able to crack the big time.

That some of their criticisms are valid are beside the point. That Jones is a bombastic and aggressive Texan with a keen sense of his own profitability doesn't diminish his many achievements in exposing many current events that need to be exposed. That Rense dabbles in arcane topics like UFOs doesn't negate the formidable political guests he's had on his show, nor does his continuing efforts to make clear the evils of Zionism are not perpetrated by all Jews nor all Christians.

That the owner of the Genesis network, Ted Anderson, makes money by selling gold doesn't make him an agent of the Illuminati. Fact is, Genesis, with Rense, Jones and Jack Blood leading the way, provides a news service to the American people that is unmatched for relevance across the media spectrum.

Which brings us to another point about Thorn. His little booklet titled "Christ Killers."

Thorn's decision to align himself with the hardcore Christian right opens him up to legitimate charges of anti-Semitism.

Now I know some of you must be laughing about me using that term, since I have been branded with it myself. Let me make this clear. Jews are human beings, just like everybody else. The fact that many - or even most - of them have chosen to believe the lies told in the Talmud that they are the Chosen are better than everybody is certainly despicable and ridiculous, but no worse than the way Catholics feel about themselves as the only true church, or Muslims as the only true religion, or Hindus being the fathers of us all. It's all hateful BS, and a movement among the Jews is growing that Zionism hurts them as much as it hurts everybody else.

So when I say somebody is anti-Semitic, you can count on it as being true, and not the same attempt at political intimidation as it is when used by fascist bozos like Abe Foxman, Jerry Falwell, or Richard Perle.

After all, I'm the guy who doesn't believe the Germans gassed anyone during World War II (because Eisenhower never mentioned it) and that Israel is an illegal state that should not be allowed to exist because it is simply a mechanism for crime engineered by the Illuminati. Does that mean I hate Jews? No it doesn't. Because I don't. Though I believe that rich Zionist Jews were right at the center of the 9/11 scam and are guilty of treason and mass murder, I believe that Jews hold the key to both the destabilization of the Middle East by Israel and the great 9/11 coverup, because they have the insights and the connections to get to the bottom of both deceptions in the name of honesty and humanity.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen. But the key to accomplishing this incredible feat which is so essential to the continued survival of human society depends both on Jews rejecting the notion that they are superior to other tribes of homo sapiens on the basis of how they have been misled by their evil holy men, and also on non-Jews abandoning the perception by that Jews are out to enslave them because that is what is written in the Talmud.

Both of these things must happen. Both of these things will happen, when people finally realize the real hate crimes are written in the world's holy books for the purpose of pitting one neighbor against another in the name of profit.

This needless arguments are typical of what has happened to the 9/11 skeptics movement. It has been betrayed by people more interested in their own financial fortunes than in unearthing the truth.

The truth is that we all make mistakes, we all believe things that with further study we eventually learn are lies, and we all like to condescend to people who don't share our particular ideas about what is happening.

This is what I meant when I said at the beginning of this screed that honesty is a tricky business. By revealing all these petty grievances, I have probably retarded the search for 9/11 truth more than illuminated it, simply because of the number of people who have not read this story to this point, and abandoned it for some other activity they think is more rewarding.

But you don't solve a problem by skirting its most contentious aspects. We must muddle through them, no matter how complicated or enigmatic they become.

In the case with honesty and the truth, if you don't persevere, and seek it without involving your ego in its discovery, you'll never find it. So those who didn't stick around for the end of this story have missed the best part.

Among the thousands of e-mails I try to comprehend came this gem the other day from someone I seldom hear from, Christopher Brown.

Dissatisfied with what was available in the way of 9/11 sites, Chris constructed his own site, and while it isn't quite accurate throughout (everybody gets bogged down in the debate about the temperature necessary to melt or buckle steel), it nevertheless contains two of the most pertinent modules available on the subject of the massacre at the World Trade Center.

The site is located at http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html, but let me synopsize the two parts I consider the most evocative. If you can read these two little stories and still believe the government's story about what happened on 9/11, than you are either learning disabled or on the payroll of the oinks orchestrating the coverup.

Although there is no supporting link in his narrative, Brown theorizes in the section titled "How the WTC Was Secretly Demolished on 9-11-01" that the thick coatings on the rebar used on the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of the plastic explosive C4.

"This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate," Brown writes.

"This was technology invented in the Cold War to make self-destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times."

On to the second story, which Brown clipped from the Danish website: http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/ READ THIS WHOLE STORY.

Here's the excerpt:

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.
...............
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.
........
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. 'There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything' he said

No walls, NO WALLS!!! Those were steel reinforced concrete walls, the centralized rebar of the walls coated with C4 removed the walls completely. The surviving engineers were protected by the efficiency of the blast which pulverized the concrete and filled the air with dust and high heat, floating the particles at the top of the room.

Gives you a new perspective on the comment by WTC landlord Larry Silverstein to "pull it," doesn't it? And it takes the planes/no planes brouhaha right out of the equation. Who cares what flew into the towers, or what radio show has what guest on his show, when the towers were built to be demolished, and blown up at their bases?

We can figure out the plane thing, if we like, during the treason and mass murder trials of Bush, Cheney, and thousands of others.

Agents provocateur? We can easily identify the shams posted by establishment shills such as Chertoff in Popular Mechanics, Jasper in the New American, and Shermer in Scientific American, or by other Zionist gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky who refuse to address central questions about 9/11, the Iraq war, and Israel's extermination of the Palestinians and infiltration of the U.S. government.

But inside the 9/11 skeptics movement itself I cannot tell if anyone is deliberately trying to deceive or obfuscate (except for Michael Elliott of 911review.org, who has suddenly disappeared, leaving a trail of debts and broken promises).

What I do see is people pursuing their objectives so ardently (and I myself am not immune from this) that they castigate competing theories as government subterfuge. When combined with the frustration of trying to defog government smokescreens, and competing theories that disagree with their own, fireworks follow. And they don't help the movement. In fact, they play right into the hands of those who engineered the coverup.

The object of the 9/11 skeptics movement is not to gain personal fame and fortune, nor to disparage those who are not as expert as others in knowing all the trivial details of every aspect of the event.

It is perhaps a legitimate exercise to point out those who are deliberately trying to impede or distort a gathering of the facts. But identifying this activity must be weighed against the higher goal of inspiring a majority of Americans to recognize the capital crimes of their leaders. After all, even Mike Ruppert, before he revealed himself as an oil company shill, was of great value to the movement.

The object, ultimately, is to identify the true perpetrators of the greatest crime in American history, and perhaps on an even higher level, to prevent the world from being destroyed by rich and cunning white men who seek to profit from fomenting wars all over the world.

We need to stop the bickering, and press on in pursuit of the evidence, wherever it leads. Only then can we truly say we have led and are leading honest lives.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. His essays have been posted on hundreds of websites around the world and have been collected into two anthologies, both of which are available on his website, http://www.johnkaminski.com/ Also available is the booklet, "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," which is still selling well. Don't you wonder why?