the 9/11 reading list thread

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Ruppert might be a complete shill and maybe a spook but "Crossing the Rubicon" is a must read.

Ruppert ain't a shill. He's working it out best he can.
And 'Crossing the Rubicon' is a must. Even though it is based on ca. 2004 info and we got lots more evidence in 2005-2006.

BTW- Ruppert wrote a big apology for initially blowing off the physical evidence of the controlled demolition and instead encouraged us to definitely use it. I keep reading citations of his first position without his update.

[maninwarren]

I wrote 9/11/2010 because I knew that the people I was trying to convince about 9/11 -- friends and family, for the most part -- weren't going to take non-mainstream sources seriously. Using that as a fundamental assumption, I documented it as much as possible (with footnotes and links), and almost exclusively with mainstream sources.

Clearly it is not meant as a new resource for those posting here, but perhaps for the friends and family of those posting here, folks who think that CNN and the New York Times will connect the dots for them. Kind of a 9/11 for dummies. And I think there are still a lot of people out there that qualify as 9/11 dummies who could "see the light" if we don't ask them to digest too much too quickly.

In addition, Part III is intended to be both a logical extrapolation of what we do know, and a cautionary tale, in hopes that it will bring home why exposing the truth about 9/11 is still very important.

FWIW