9-11 and WikiLeaks

Michael, good to see you've joined the bandwagon in publicly questioning the
official story of 9/11.

Last time I brought up the topic with SF LP email group about two or three
years ago, the response from SF LP members was mostly either silence,
apathy, ad hominem attacks at me for bringing up questions, and/or complete
denial that 9/11 could possibly be anything other than what the government
said it was. I hope more LP members are starting to wake up to the
mountains of evidence refuting the official story of 9/11, and starting to
wake up to the significance of 9/11 if the actual "terrosists" are not who
the government says they are.

I have serious questions about the authenticity of Wikileaks, for many
reasons, one of which is that the leader has not questioned 9/11, and has
been quoted as saying:

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies
like 9/11."


You are right Eric...it could very well be that WikiLeaks, despite my feelings it should be vigorously supported when good comes from it, there is a strong possibility that it could very well be a cornerstone of the establishment's "controlled opposition" to cover for far greater evils it is meant to distract us from.


  I don't recall those reactions constituting the bulk of LPSF responses. I've clearly felt almost since day one that the official U.S. government story is dubious and should be questioned, and my sense is that most of our activists feel this way. I don't specifically recall Mike saying differently.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

I don't know what Eric is specifically referring to either regarding "joining the bandwagon".