Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

It's interesting that the Sandy Hook case (about which I have never made any claims) has become a legal battleground, where pundits like Jim Fetzer and Alec Jones, have been sued for expressing their beliefs,  but about 9/11 (about which I have repeatedly rejected the official story and supported the Architects and Engineers who say that the buildings were imploded) there have been no civil lawsuits.   

Of the two, the stakes for 9/11 are much higher. Remember that 9/11 triggered the whole "War on Terror" (though it's really been a war of terror). And in the War on Terror, millions have been killed. 

The most recent study is out of Brown University in Rhode Island, their Watson School of International Relations, which said that as of November 2019, 801,000 people have been killed directly from war violence, the wars that we crossed the ocean to start. But, they said that "several times that many" have been killed indirectly from contaminated water, exposure, untreated wounds and illnesses, etc. It means that several million people have lost their lives because of the actions of the U.S. Government since 9/11 and in response to 9/11.  

But, why no civil lawsuits against 9/11 truthers? There are individuals who have been accused of lying and wrongdoing. Why haven't they done what Leonard Pozner did? 

We can look to the JFK world. There has only been one civil lawsuit concerning the JFK assassination: E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, the publisher of the Spotlight, now known as the American Free Press. Hunt won the fist time, but on appeal, with Mark Lane at the helm, it was overturned. Hunt went on to admit involvement in his death bed confession, and he put the blame on Lyndon Johnson. 

So, in the one and only JFK case, it proved to be bad publicity for the official story, and it may be a reason why there have been no 9/11 civil suits. 

But, when you look at government and media, you see that the whole matter of 9/11 truth has been completely sidelined. And even in the viciously competitive world of politics, no one ventures into 9/11 truth. You've got Tulsi Gabbard asking whether Saudi Arabia is hiding anything, but it's based entirelyo on accepting the official story. She's not questioning it. 

And even Ron Paul in 2008, he was put on the spot on national television for having a lot of support from 9/11 truthers, and he was asked to make a statement, and he balked. He was not going to say that he supported 9/11 truth because in politics, it's like touching the third rail. 

And it's all very surreal because tremendous progress has been made. Dr. Leroy Hulsey, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, completed his 2 year study of the collapse of Building 7, proving that it could not have happened because of fires, as NIST said. Question: Why wasn't Dr. Hulsey forced out the way Dr. Stephen Jones was at Brighma Young? I do not know. 

But, so much is at stake with 9/11 because of the 9/11 wars, the deadly, horrific, hellish 9/11 wars. At this moment, negotiations continue in Afghanistan between the U.S. and the Taliban after 18 and 1/2 years of war and 3 and 1/2 years of negotiations. And there is still a major disconnect, an ignoring of reality: the U.S. acts as though once a peace deal is signed, intra-Afghan negotiations will begin to seek a way to merge the Taliban with the current Afghan government. But, the Taliban has said all along that they will not do that; that the current government has to go. Although now the sticking point is whether a ceasefire can be reached before they sign the treaty, what do you think is going to happen when the Taliban insists that the current government dissolve? This whole thing has been based on false hopes and promises from the beginning, but just wait, because it's going to get worse. The Taliban wants a government run by Sharia law.

It has been such a disaster. Even the United Nations says that the U.S. and Afghan forces have killed more civilians than the Taliban has. But, when you consider that the entire, total, exclusive, and solitary reason for invading Afghanistan was the official story of 9/11, if that story is false (that Osama bin laden led it) then oh my God, it has just been genocide. 

Not long ago, Pompous Pompeo had  the nerve to say that the Afghan War has been a success. Huh? Well, there hasn't been another 9/11, right? No one else from Afghanistan has been able to wage a terror attack in the U.S., right? (Not that we haven't had terror attacks, but they've all been homegrown; Americans killing Americans) But, that wacko claim reminds me of the old joke about the guy riding the London train, sitting next to the open window, and as he sat there, he tore up pieces of paper, crumpled them up, and threw them out. He kept doing it, and another man noticed it and interrupted him.

"Say, why are you doing that?"

"I'm keeping the elephants away?

"But, there are no elephants." 

"I know. It really works, doesn't it?"

And I have no doubt that Pomphideous would make the same argument about the killing of Suleimani. 

"I told you he was planning an imminent attack. There hasn't been one, has there? You see.  I told you."

Idiot.