Is the United States currently the most heavily and effectively propagandized country on the face of the earth?

How would one measure such a thing?

Where in the world is The New York Times on the subject of the crime of the century, the mass murder of September 11, 2001, much of which took place in the newspaper’s front yard and the U.S. government’s explanations for which don’t begin to hold water yet go unchallenged by the Times?

Who calls the shots over there?

Can a nation be accurately deemed a democratic republic if it is so ill served by mainstream media utterly out to lunch on key events and practices?

Are the mainstream media of this country putting themselves out of business for sheer lack of credibility?

Why should Bruce Henry and I, two reasonably intelligent retirees who bother to pay attention, have found ourselves walking across Massachusetts from Provincetown to the New York State line this spring to raise awareness about the need for a real investigation into all aspects of the September 11, 2001, crimes, before, during and after that date?

Why do, almost without exception, educated and accomplished members of polite society demur to the point of muteness when given copies of the excellent booklet “Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7” put out by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

What do the questions above have to do with the mainstream media’s self-muzzling in the face of revelations concerning the murder of President Kennedy in 1963 and the murders of Martin Luther KIng Jr. and Sen. Robert Kennedy less than five years later?

Why does the United States place 45th in the current ranking of the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders?

How much did the current president’s 2016 election have to do with his campaign’s striking a chord with an electorate in agreement with his assessment of the news media’s credibility?

What popular-culture offerings of this and the last century can help shed light on these interrelated questions?

Can aroused and awakened citizens rise to the task, or has “mum’s the word” become the national motto in the “land of the brave and the home of the free”?

What happened to the child in “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who shouted what he saw as the naked monarch walked asininely by in a parade?

More than three months have passed since two of us took to the Commonwealth’s highways with our four “9/11 TRUTH” signs — to hearteningly positive response. This website is an extention of the walk. It’s one of dozens deemed unnewsworthy in by the managers of corrupt and compromised news media seemingly dedicated to coverup.

In the coming weeks we will try to give useful context and answers.

— Mark

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is urging citizens to contact their members of the U.S. House of Representatives this week to become co-sponsors of the Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act.

The Act would empanel a select committee in either chamber of Congress to re-investigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. It is named for a man killed by an explosion as he entered the North Tower that morning.

An email to Massachusetts recipients identifies three Boston-area U.S. Reps as possible sponsors — Stephen Lynch of District 8, Michael Capuano of District 7, and Katherine Clark of District 5. They were co-sponsors of House Resolution 14, which successfully called on President Obama to release 28 pages redacted from the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11. Lynch and Capuano later co-sponsored the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA.

The message adds that although U.S. Reps. Seth Moulton of District 6 and Joseph Kennedy III of District 4 “were not sponsors of H. Res. 14 or JASTA … that doesn’t mean we should pass them up. Please make the call!”

More information here.

— Mark

One commonly walks only limited distances. What is a long walk for you? A mile? Half-mile? Ten miles? Whatever it is, your body adapts to your foot-milage pattern; exceeding accustomed mileage activates the over-mile effect.

One can exceed one’s habitual or often-done mileage by the simple expedient of putting one foot ahead of the other. It works. However, it only works on the flat road. Even a curb can become a minor challenge to negotiate. Uneven ground more so, and downhill grades. One has to slow down. This is the over-mile effect.

— Bruce

In the absence of anything specifically concerning our walk across Massachusetts this spring to demand a new, honest and independent investigation into the crimes of 9/11, here’s the second recommendation this month of a website bearing the name of the state of Maine.

The site opens with:

“It’s not an easy thing to revisit the details of the day September 11, 2001. Yet our responsibility to justice and to posterity suggests that this effort is now needed.”

All of that introduction is at www.maine911truth.org. So are other informative sections including one titled “Fifty Reasons to Doubt the Official Account of 9/11.”

— Mark

Complacency about the USA Patriot Act and its successor laws

Many people think: “9/11 happened a long time ago. It’s over. It doesn’t affect us now.”

Except it does.

Follow-on versions of the Patriot Act have gotten more severe, not less, to the extent that now any U.S. citizen (never mind non-citizens) can be detained for any reason and held indefinitely without charge, deprived of outside contact. That it has not yet been widely applied is cold comfort; that can change at any time. Wait until the next “crisis.”

— Bruce

In place of something about 9/11 truth or our walk across Massachusetts, here’s a quote.

“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

— Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, U.S.M.C. (1881-1940)

Caitlin Johnstone chose it to lead off her post about a recent news item at https://steemit.com/politics/@caitlinjohnstone/nation-horrified-to-learn-child-killing-death-merchants-have-racist-employee

Thanks to Mark Crispin Miller (no relation), who recommended it today.

— Mark

Considerable activity in the United States and abroad focuses on getting a full and accurate account of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The names of nine organizations and their URLs are listed below.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: www.ae911truth.org/

9/11 Truth Action Project: www.911tap.org/

Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry: lcfor911.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth: pilotsfor911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth & Unity: www.ff911truthandunity.org/

9-11 Review: www.911review.com/

Imagine Peace and Plenty: imaginepeaceandplenty.com/

Maine 9/11 Truth: www.maine911truth.org/

Boston 9/11 Truth: www.boston911truth.org/

–   –   –

CORRECTION: The third bulleted item in yesterday’s entry should read, “To raise awareness about the complete nonsense of the U.S. government’s official narrative about the attacks, which the news and opinion media (outside of the Internet) have endorsed by their failure to challenge it.”

— Mark

Here’s re-introducing the website.

It got started as an extension of the trans-Massachusetts walk, which began from Provincetown at the eastern tip of Cape Cod on April 13 and ended at the New York State line at Hancock on May 14. We wore “9/11 TRUTH” signs on our backpacks and chests. Go to https://www.boston911truth.org/ and scroll down for some pictures.

Among other reasons, we walked:

• To call attention to widely unknown information about the attacks of September 11, 2001, known as “9/11.”
• To demand a new, honest and independent investigation of the crimes that resulted in the deaths that day of nearly 3,000 people in the United States.
• To raise awareness about the complete nonsense of the S. government’s official narrative about the attacks, which the news and opinion media (outside of the Internet) have endorsed by their failure to challenge it.*
• To gauge public opinion along the way.
• To talk with people we came across and hand them copies of a folder headed “Why 9/11 Truth Still Matters” put out by the 9/11 Truth Action Project.

Who are we? Two citizens. Bruce, nearly 79, is a former engineering analyst for GE Defense Systems and a retired member of the Worcester State College mathematics department faculty. Mark, 72, is a former newspaper co-owner and retired reporter and editor for several western New England newspapers and United Press International and Agence France-Presse.

Most of the thousands of motorists and hundreds of pedestrians we encountered along the way indicated neither approval nor disapproval about our signs — perhaps regarding the truth of “9/11” as a settled matter. Those indicating approval upon seeing or talking with us outnumbered those indicating disapproved by a ratio of 15 or 20 to 1.

The blog is intended as a “continuing presence” over time and space. Few people saw us and our black, white and orange signs more than once, but some could easily imagine our “demonstration” carrying over many days and miles along our Commonwealth-crossing corridor.

This is the blog’s 42nd entry. The first, headed “Hello Massachusetts, and the World!” was made on April 6, followed by several entries per week. Earlier ones have cycled off for readers.

That’s it for today, the Fourth of July. In future entries, beginning tomorrow, we’ll intersperse details of the walk, including its planning and followup, with information related to the crimes of September 11, 2001, and news of and by the growing 9/11 truth movement.

— Bruce Henry and Mark Miller of Pittsfield, MA

* There has been some excellent reporting in the mainstream media on the crimes of September 11, 2001, and much of it has been cited by researchers focusing on the evidence So far, however, mainstream media organizations capable of committing themselves to the investigation and analysis required to expose the truth have not done so.

If you can, go see “A Blanket of Dust” before the remaining four performances of its initial off-Broadway run are over Saturday. If you can’t, animate someone who can to go see it.

I finally did, and found last night’s show riveting. I know that’s a cliché and won’t go into the details because I’m not a professional theater reviewer (for reviews by people who meet that description, see the June 18, 22 and 25 entries below).

Mainstream reviewers have stayed away from “A Blanket of Dust.” It wouldn’t do to review it because their organizations are dedicated to ignoring researchers’ increasing evidence burying the U.S. government’s impossible narrative about the mass murders of September 11, 2001–and its first scenes take place on that day. So they’re not free to review it.

The character around whom everything revolves, 9/11 widow Diana Crane (Angela Pierce) has been likened to Sophocles’ Antigone. More pertinent, “A Blanket of Dust” concerns liberation, hers and her journalist brother’s, and what is required for America’s liberation.

A video of the discussion after last night’s show may find its way to the Internet. But the play may not.

Go.

— Mark

A full-page house ad in Sunday’s New York Times  proclaimed the following in a bold three-line headline:

“The truth / demands / our attention.”

Then, in wispy sans-serif type, a block of seven lines of this prose:

“New York Times journalists are committed to / reporting deeply, delivering definitive coverage / of the critical issues shaping our nation and the / world, investigative journalism, expert analysis, / an unwavering focus on the facts and multiformat / reporting provide a more complete, undistracted / view of the full story.”

Then:

“Read. Watch. Listen.”

Imagine the above 53 words set in a broadsheet page of white space.

What do they mean?

What does the word “our” mean in the headline: the New York Times’s,  or Times readers’?

If the newspaper’s journalists are committed to the best reporting, do they decide what “the critical issues shaping our nation and world” are and what “the full story” is, or are those decisions made by non-journalists in another department?

What are “the facts” that need to be laid out for Times readers?

When are readers and listeners and viewers of Times “multiformat reporting” worldwide going to get “a more complete” picture of what’s really going on? Or are they expected to be “undistracted” by other perspectives than the Times presents?

The ad could mean that “the newspaper of record” has been quietly investigating, possibly for years and possibly in sync with a consortium of other news organizations, what actually happened before, during, and after the mass murders of September 11, 2001, thousands of those murders in its own front yard, and is preparing to start publishing a series of comprehensive reports laying out what it came up with, for the consumption of a world that has been waiting for nearly 17 years.

Readers and listeners and viewers are waiting.

— Mark