I first started to investigate 9/11 after seeing, and being totally shocked by, Fahrenheit 9/11 in the summer of 2004. I went to see Dr. Philip Zelikow speak at Stanford that fall, and couple of crazy ladies stood up and hollered at him about inside job and CIA funding of the mujahideen, and I was puzzled that the Stanford cops were so deferential to the crazies when they hustled them out. Then at the end there was Q/A read from audience-submitted cards. The last question noted that the 9/11 Commission report read like a thriller, and that Zelikow had been credited with writing it, and asked if Dr. Zelikow had ever considered writing thriller fiction. And Zelikow took the bait and allowed as has he had ideas for many potentially blockbusting thrillers, but he was just oh so busy, yadda yadda. And someone stoodf up in the front row and hollered that his report was fiction just as the sponsor of the even said "Thank you, Dr. Zelikow" in very snide tones.
So I read the crazy literature and found that there was no effective air defense for 100 minutes on 9/11, and I found that Carol Brouillet had published a quite brilliant op-ed in the student newspaper The Stanford Daily that morning about why they were protesting Zelikow.
So I started researching, and I read Greg Palast's stuff, and I was new to the internet and didn't know what to trust. WhatReallyHappened seemed to be pretty prominent, and I found 911research, and soon I found OilEmpire's evaluation of who was credible and who was not, and that focused my research greatly. And I found HistoryCommons, and Press for Truth and the rest is history.
But there's no need to abandon the field to lunatics just because they can get the media and we can't. We did manage to chase away the plane pods, Stanley Hllton, Willie R, the Flyover theory, the no-planers.
The situation we have now is that unfortunately you guys are so demoralized that you can't muster any opposition to Gage and Abby Martin appearing with the likes of Barrett and Honegger and Deets. Why not?