There was a pretty good crowd for that sort of thing, about 100 people. Most were the usual lefty suspects (no doubt accompanied by a couple of Bush spies keeping tabs on terrorist sympathizers). But judging from the inflated crowd, there was likely a handful of the uninitiated as well, people who don't believe the government's Sept. 11 theory and were looking for one that contains a little more common sense.
In Loose Change, I'm sure they found it. It is a level-headed, clear-minded analysis of Sept. 11, synthesizing reliable, publicly available sources to reconstruct the reality of that day and the circumstances surrounding it.
It provides a chilling example of how the government, in the words of Karl Rove, was able to "construct (its) own reality" over time. What was reported in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 so differs from the eventual legend constructed by the Bush administration that you would think we live in two parallel but quite different realities.
Why anyone would believe this administration's explanation of Sept. 11 is beyond me. These people have lied about pretty much everything else. Every single pretense for their invasion of Iraq has been shown to be false, amounting to another painstakingly constructed alternate reality. In fact, we are rapidly approaching a day of particularly twisted irony--later this year, the American death toll in Bush's irrelevant (to Sept. 11, anyway) and morally indefensible war will surpass that of Sept. 11 itself.
But, thankfully, Bush's reality dam is breaking. Loose Change is just one wave of a flood of Sept. 11 research that has moved out of the realm of "wing-nut" voices in the wilderness and into the realm of scholarly analysis that relies on documented fact and common sense. I make fun of science in this space on occasion, mostly for leaving common sense out of the equation and relying a little too slavishly on narrow interpretations of data--not seeing the forest for the trees. Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, is one scientist who saw the forest, realized it was not purple as the Bushies claimed and decided to examine the trees for himself.
He started with questions like: "How did three skyscrapers, one of which was not hit by a plane and did not experience a catastrophic fire, symmetrically collapse at nearly free-fall speed straight down into their own footprints, when in the history of modern construction, no other such building has ever collapsed due to jet impacts or fire?" It begged common sense. When Jones began to examine the available evidence and compared it to the government's fanciful theories (more than one was put forth), he realized that they simply defied the laws of physics. It was absolutely impossible for the jets to have brought down the Twin Towers, let alone the nonsense of the third building collapsing eight hours later for no reason at all.
To me, such cold scientific analysis is a dealbreaker. If the buildings could not possibly have fallen due to the impact of the jets, then they must have been brought down by something else--a "second shooter," if you will. Dr. Jones and a growing list of other scholars have concluded that the most likely explanation is controlled demolition. The inescapable conclusion in Loose Change is even more compelling: The people with the opportunity, the means and the motive--the ones who stood to gain the most from this crime--were the Bushies themselves.
A 2004 Zogby poll showed that half of New Yorkers believe our government was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. Apparently, they know a bit more about what went on in their city that day than the rest of us. In Canada, where their media provides them with something more closely approximating news, the number rises to 63 percent.
Go to Dr. Jones' Scholars for 9/11 Truth Web site at www.st911.org and read his paper and look at the photos. Or get a copy of Loose Change at www.loosechange911.com, and then tell me if you still believe Bush. It's time to start keeping tabs on the most criminal administration in the history of our republic. Our freedom may depend on it.
