A right-wing neocon organization called the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD)¹ -- which devotes itself to attacking religiously and socially progressive churches while supporting US imperial policies (going back to the Nicaraguan Contras funded illegally by the Reagan administration² ) -- has recently put out a press release attacking my next book, which is scheduled to be published this coming fall. Saying that I am "back with another outrageous book" in which I allege "new absurdities," the IRD claims that I am "this time alleging that the Obama administration is attempting to undermine 9/11 conspiracy theorists."³

False Assumptions about My Forthcoming Book

However, if members of the IRD staff could have waited until my book had been published, so they could have read it before attacking it, they could have seen that it does no such thing. They could have seen that it simply deals with an article, entitled "Conspiracy Theories," co-authored in 2008 by Cass Sunstein and another professor at Harvard Law School.⁴ Using the "9/11 conspiracy theory" as their primary example of conspiracy theories, Sunstein and his co-author argued that the government should try to undermine it and that the best way to do this would be through a method they called "cognitive infiltration." In 2009, President Obama appointed Sunstein as the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.⁵ My forthcoming book is entitled Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. Neither the title nor the book itself suggests that Obama will have Sunstein actually carry out this plan.

The IRD's premature criticism of my book is also wrong on another point. By speaking of what I will be "alleging," the IRD was supporting its press release's title, "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Dreaming Up New Absurdities." The IRD's suggestion, in other words, is that I simply "dreamed up" the "absurdity" that someone connected to the Obama administration had a proposal for undermining 9/11 conspiracy theorists. However, the proposal made by Sunstein has been extensively discussed on the Internet.⁶ With a little research, therefore, the IRD could have learned that I had not simply made something up.

There they are, the people who brought you every bit of the action in the WikiLeaks video and all of the other horrors flowing from invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright (far right, above), former Clinton Secretary of State, is a good place to start. From 60 Minutes:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the National Nuclear Day day in Tehran on April 9. Ahmadinejad has written to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, asking him to launch an investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, news reports said on Monday.

AFP - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, asking him to launch an investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, news reports said on Monday.

"The minimum expectation from your excellency is to set up an independent and trusted fact-finding group to comprehensively investigate the real factors behind September 11," Ahmadinejad said in the text of the letter carried by official news agencies.

They did not say when the letter was sent.

The hardliner, who in March dismissed 9/11 as a "big lie," said in the letter that the attacks "were the main pretext for attacks" by NATO on Afghanistan and Iraq.

On April 12th, 2010 ABC Radio National's "Counterpoint" host Michael Duffy decided to weigh in on the truth of the 9/11 events. In this clearly biased and ludicrous attack on those who would question the still unexplained events of September 11, 2001, Duffy demonstrated he has done little research into the matter. Seemingly, he has decided research is neither warranted nor required to make wild assumptions about and apply derogatory labels to 9/11 researchers and their questions.

In this short and emotive hit piece Duffy uses an excerpt from a recent lecture given by Clive Williams, Adjunct Professor at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University (ANU), to provide the spin. Professor Williams lays out an overview of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories as part of his lecture called "Terrorism Conspiracy Theories and the 1978 Sydney Hilton bombings, Lockerbie, 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombings". This lecture will be played in full on Radio National's "Big Ideas" on Sunday 18th April at 5pm and is available in podcast at the ABC. In this excerpt Williams skims over the evidence of an alternate "conspiracy", citing the predictable "straw man" arguments and loose journalistic attempts to look at the evidence, using the Discovery Channel's laughable documentary, "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" as a reference. Ironically, Williams uses these absurdities ignorantly in his attempt to debunk the experts who are actually qualified to comment on such matters, and -- surprise, surprise -- he also conveniently forgets to mention them. In a desperate attempt to make sense of his "reality", Williams rolls out the blind academics' favourite proof that 9/11 was just as we were told -- yes, it's the argument that the government is, without doubt, just too damn incompetent to pull off such a complicated plan! Unfortunately, this so-called educator misses the irony in the stark "official reality" that 19 poorly trained and ill-equipped Arab hijackers did pull it off!

Duffy introduces this crude attempt at journalism as follows:

"Just who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington? Was it Osama Bin Laden or are there other contenders? Perhaps it was rogue government agents operating with the tacit support of an equally shadowy group of industrialists. Or maybe it was revenge-seeking aliens who escaped from area 51."

David Ray Griffin comes to Drake University on April 23 to tell us why the official explanation for the 9/11 attack on the United States doesn't hold water.

A theologian, philosopher of religion and professor emeritus at California's Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Griffin has been at it for about seven years now and says he won't stop until the government conducts a new, impartial, independent investigation.

As opposed to the 9/11 Commission probe. He calls that exercise a charade.

Griffin has written eight books on the subject with another on the way: "Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory."

The appointee, a former Harvard professor named Cass Sunstein who now heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, co-wrote an academic paper saying government should undermine conspiracy theory groups by infiltrating their chat rooms, social networks and group meetings.

Griffin believes "cognitive infiltration" is the wrong term. "It's more like fascism," he says.

As yet another study is released documenting the damaging health effects of breathing in toxic Ground Zero dust, it's good to see corporate media outlets taking it seriously. (Most media outlets, anyway--the New York Post continues to give a platform to deniers.)

It's worth remembering, though--since they won't remind you--that for many months after 9/11, some outlets--the New York Times in particular--downplayed the fallout and mustered shockingly little journalistic skepticism of government reassurances about safety.

The attitude of Andrew Revkin, the Times' environmental reporter at the time, says it all. As I wrote in 2006:

343 brave New York City Firefighters died on 9/11. This episode of Visibility 9/11 is dedicated to them!

If you have not heard the name Erik Lawyer it is one to remember. Erik is a full time firefighter and is a new, shining light in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has been impressing all he meets with his simple message demanding a thorough criminal forensic investigation of the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe. He and his fire-fighting comrades want the authorities to do their job and carry out an investigation in accordance with fire scene investigation protocols, to which he and all US firefighters adhere religiously.

On 9/11 so many things happened for the first time and the one that is of greatest concern to Erik and his group, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, is the near complete destruction of evidence at this fire crime scene and the subsequent monumental cover up and obfuscation of the little remaining evidence. Independently gathered evidence clearly demonstrates that incendiaries and explosives were used to facilitate the three WTC buildings destruction. For more information, see the Visibility 9-11 Special Report, Thermite Fingerprint- The Loaded Gun of 9-11.

Interview with investigative reporters and authors, Kristina Borjesson, Charlotte Dennett and Peter Dale Scott.

Kristina Borjesson is editor of "Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose The Myth of a Free Press" and "Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11: Top Journalists Speak Out".

Lynne Stewart has for forty years defended the poor and the oppressed against arbitrary authority and false charges

Lynne Stewart, together with former Attorney-General Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabar defended Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was tried and convicted of plotting to blow up noted landmarks, including the George Washington Bridge, Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, Statue of Liberty, and to assassinate Senator Alphonse D'Amato and U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali

Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was innocent of these charges and had no part in the initiation, planning or execution of these presumptive plots.

Indisputable and massive evidence has demonstrated that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, through its operatives, including Emad Ali Salem, was, in fact, the author of these plots and planned, initiated and financed these and other acts of terror, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 in a "false flag" operation.

Attorney General John Ashcroft launched a cynical campaign to persecute and prosecute Lynne Stewart for "aiding and abetting terrorism" based upon her serving as defense attorney for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.

The Justice Department has undertaken the persecution and prosecution of Lynne Stewart because she defended her falsely accused client zealously and refused to be intimidated by the drumbeat of government propaganda arising from its false "war on terror".

More than seven years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, rescue workers still had trouble breathing after they inhaled from the cloud of dust that enveloped southern Manhattan, a new study concludes.

[See video available at source, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Asthma/firefighters-911-lung-problems-study-finds/story?id=10313156 , "Study shows no recovery for 9/11 rescue workers who suffered acute lung damage".

Doctors conducted a seven-year study of members of the New York City Fire Department who responded to the World Trade Center attacks between Sept. 11 and Sept. 24, 2001. The researchers were able to include 91 percent of the responding workers -- a total of 10,870 firefighters and 1,911 EMS workers.

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has dismissed more than 100 habeas corpus lawsuits filed by former Guantanamo captives, ruling that because the Bush and Obama administrations had transferred them elsewhere, the courts need not decide whether the Pentagon imprisoned them illegally.

The ruling dismayed attorneys for some of the detainees who'd hoped any favorable U.S. court findings would help clear their clients of the stigma, travel restrictions and, in some instances, perhaps more jail time that resulted from their stay at Guantanamo.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan wrote that he was "not unsympathetic" to the former detainees' plight. "Detention for any length of time can be injurious. And certainly associations with Guantanamo tend to be negative," he wrote.

But the detainees' transfer from Guantanamo made their cases moot. "The court finds that petitioners no longer present a live case or controversy since a federal court cannot remedy the alleged collateral consequences of their prior detention at Guantanamo," he wrote.