Re: Personal Message to 9/11 Truth and Progressive Activists from New York Times Best Selling Author Steve Alten, author of “The Shell Game.”
I received this below message from New York Times best selling novelist, Steve Alten, author of the truth telling, “The Shell Game.” He asked that it be sent out to 9/11 truth and progressive activists today, on New Years day. But, first a comment from me on this book.
Since I previewed the book, and became excited about its potential to spread 9/11 truth, I've been stunned by a very few, but very vocal, activists who say they seek 9/11 truth, dismiss supporting a "novel," from a best selling author who's willing to put it all on the line to write a profound truth telling story.
My answer to them is "have you ever used the term Orwellian to describe what's happening in America today?"
I know the value of this is obvious to most of us. But to those who don't get it, here's a wake up call! The reason we all know what "Orwellian" means, is because a novelist, named George Orwell warned us of what is happening today in a little novel, novel as in fiction, called, "1984."
If Orwell hadn't written that work of fiction, many of us would have little clue of the crimes being perpetrated on Americans by our own government. That powerful work of fiction provided context to understand how governments manipulate their own people at times, in order to justify war and immoral policies.
I believe "The Shell Game" offers America and the world the same potential, except more immediately, as it is not about some nebulous intangible future as 1984 was, rather it’s about right here and right now, even though it is set in the next White House, after the 2012 election.
Bill Douglas, National 911Visibility Project Founder, and Co-Signer of the 9/11 truth coalition advocating vast readership of "The Shell Game." (see below coalition statement excerpt)
****************************************************************** 9/11 TRUTH COALITION STATEMENT EXCERPT:
We, the undersigned, urge everyone seeking truth, peace and justice, to not only purchase this new novel, "The Shell Game," but also to email out this appeal to all you know who seek truth, peace and justice in the form of 9/11 truth coming out. In turn, please urge them to do the same with all their contacts and urge them to do the same. We can break 9/11 truth open if we work together and focus on this project for the next 30 days.
Yours in 9/11 truth, peace and justice, Bill Douglas, 911 Visibility Project Co-Signatories: Dr. Steven Jones – (Physicist who discovered controlled demolition substances in WTC debris) Janice Matthews - 911Truth.org Executive Director David Ray Griffin - 9/11 Researcher and Author Kevin Ryan -former UL chemistry laboratory manager & NIST report whistle blower Dr. Robert Bowman - Rtd. Colonel US Air Force, 9/11 truth leader; thepatriots.us/ Rob Balsamo – Pilots for 9/11 Truth Carol Brouillet - Organizer of 1st National 9/11 Truth Conference in San Francisco Mike Berger - "Improbable Collapse" Documentary Producer - 911Truth Spokesman David Kubiak - 911Truth.org Board member Kevin Barrett – Muslim/Christian/Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth
THE SHELL GAME: A Personal Message from the Author to 9/11 TRUTH and all PROGRESSIVE GROUPS:
The SHELL GAME is neither standard fiction nor non-fiction, it was written as a cautionary tale, backed by disturbing facts and inconvenient truths that are used to project an all-too-real scenario down the path we have been lulled into taking. Two long years of research went into the project, key bits of information provided to me along the way by concerned fans of mine in the military, the oil industry, the political arena, and by individuals who simply have suffered far too much. Some of the things they told me have given me nightmares, and in fact, this entire project has taxed my nerves to the point of permanent damage. (Four months before the publication of the book, I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease.)
When the monsters in the story are our own elected officials who committed treason, then the horror becomes a little too real.
Upon reading the manuscript for The SHELL GAME, a trusted editor of mine who has guided me through seven novels, most of which dealt with monstrous creatures, told me that none of the major publishing houses would ever publish this book, despite the fact that I am a NY Times best-selling author and my work has been optioned as movies. “It’s not conventional fiction, the protagonist has to be more heroic and save the day...plus it’s way too controversial. I just can’t bring myself to believe the President of the United States would knowingly allow such a horrendous thing to happen?”
My response was simple: If I would have written a book about what happened on 9/11, before it happened, would you have believed that? My editor friend thought about that for a moment, then replied, “okay, but you wouldn’t have been able to sell that book either.”
By William E. Douglas, Jr., who is author of "The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts," "The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- US Media's Dirty Little Secret," "Good Night, and Good Luck - WMD, NIST, Popular Mechanics, 9/11 and Media Crimes" and also "Why the Jewish Community Should Demand 9/11 Truth."
You might as well slap - "Brought to you Cedar Fort Books, an LDS publisher exposing the "truth" one book at a time!" - http://www.cedarfort.com/index.html and http://www.cedarfort.com/author/Alten.html . Again, I'm sure Mr. Alten and the publisher thank you for the free advertising. This is becoming pathetic and that's a word I rarely use.
I recommend that if you're willing to waste $25+ on the fictional thriller "The Shell Game", you should also pick up a copy of the science-fictional thriller "Shell Game" in which CPT Kirk is accussed by a Romulan captain of betrayal most heinos regarding CPT Kirk's "convenient" presence at a Romulan space station that "happens" to be adrift within Federation territory. This one sounds like a conspiracy to me - http://www.amazon.ca/Shell-Game-Melissa-Crandall/dp/0671795724 .
And the Random Thought for Wednesday, January 2, 2008 is:
"Finally, black is the date that will appear on the calendars of all those who witness the blackest date in our history. . . when a nuclear device explodes in one of our cities, incinerating tens of thousands, radiating millions, and staining what remains of our civilization forever, and the increasing probability that that attack won’t come from so-called enemies abroad, but from within, to cow us into endless war."
And Mr. Alten preaches the Administration's use of fear to manipulate the masses?!? Why is his version of fear any different than the alleged fear employed by the Administration? Shame, shame, shame.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 7:56:08 AM
"And Mr. Alten preaches the Administration's use of fear to manipulate the masses?!? Why is his version of fear any different than the alleged fear employed by the Administration?"
ROTFLMAO! That you would pose such a ridiculous question implies profound ignorance, stupidity and moral incompetence, an insulting intellectual dishonesty, or a mix of all, on your behalf.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 9:34:14 AM
At least I have a thought that can be called pathetic
Okay, okay - wipe those tears out of your eyes from all that laughing, Harry. Apparently, I need to make it a li'l bit simpler for you - kind of like Julie Andrews as Maria teaching the Von Trapp children how to sing in the movie "The Sound of Music"...
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
The only exception is that two wrongs DO make a right - if you have a political agenda to push, right, Harry? Then again, I don't know if you think that's right because your best defense thusfar is derision (always a winner, though, eh, Harry?).
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 9:49:29 AM
Too bad the "thought" you "have" likely isn't your own.
"Okay, okay - wipe those tears out of your eyes from all that laughing, Harry. Apparently, I need to make it a li'l bit simpler for you - kind of like Julie Andrews as Maria teaching the Von Trapp children how to sing in the movie "The Sound of Music"..."
Now, if only you could make it simple enough for youself to understand, then maybe you'd have something.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
So according to you, then, the government is using "fear" illegitimately; i.e., the government is "wrong" in its usage of fear? (And apparently we're all in agreement on this...hey, maybe we're starting to get somewhere!)
"The only exception is that two wrongs DO make a right- if you have a political agenda to push, right, Harry?"
Well obviously you're the expert on that, chumpy.
But you're getting ahead of yourself. First, we have to determine what constitutes proper vis-a-vis improper use of fear. And this is where your moral incompetence, lack of critical thinking skills, statist brainwashing, etc. really handicaps you.
There's nothing inherently wrong with "fear". In fact, let's face it, fear plays a major role in our daily lives. For example, I brush my teeth not because I find it enjoyable, but because of my reasonable fear of cavities, and the unpleasant consequences thereof. I also try to eat healthy because I reasonably fear the health consequences of a poor diet, etc.
So according to you, if my dentist tells me, "you better come in for a check-up, so we can make sure you have no cavities", he is illegitimately using "fear" to "manipulate" me?
And if someone says to me, "you shouldn't smoke three packs of cigarettes, drink a case of beer, and eat at McDonalds every day, it's not good for you", they're using "fear" to try to "manipulate" me?
For the two examples given, please explain why or why not?
"Then again, I don't know if you think that's right because your best defense thusfar is derision (always a winner, though, eh, Harry?)."
LOL! As if anything you've said here so far merits being taken seriously!
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM
I agree, Harry, that there is nothing inherently wrong with fear and agree it's a big motivator. Not the only one, but certainly a powerful one.
My point in stating that two wrongs don't make a right (which was apparently too simple for you, my apologies and a promise to use elementary grade sentence structures with you going forward) is that Mr. Alten alleges that the government is using the fear of terrorism to manipulate Americans. As part of his response to this alleged governmental fear, Mr. Alten manipulates Americans further by using fear that said government is intending to use a "lost" nuke to perpetuate the same alleged fear. These two wrongs (i.e., using fear to counteract an alleged fear) don't result in a right (i.e., a fictional thriller based upon 9/11 will greatly aid in revealing the "truth").
Harry, the problem with your examples is that your are using the logical conclusions of two, agreed upon fears and not the illogical conclusions of linking two dissimilar fears together, as Mr. Alten did. A re-wording of your examples to align with Mr. Alten's approach would resemble the following:
If your dentist tells you, "You'd better come in for a check-up to make sure you have no cavities," then your reaction of, "I will because I don't want you, Mr. Dentist, to cause further cavities," does not justify the need to return to the dentist.
Additionally, if someone says to you, "You shouldn't smoke three packs of cigarettes, drink a case of beer, and eat at McDonalds every day, it's not good for you", then your reaction of "I won't because the military-industrial complex controls these activities," does not justify the health need to refrain from these activities.
In each re-wording, you have the two legitimate fears linked to an irrational fear. I know you'll disagree with this, Harry, and probably sling a "chumpy" or two my way with a "you're a myopic little debutant" thrown in for good measure, but it doesn't change your faulted twisting of the above examples.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 3:23:21 PM
That's not apples, that's more of your incoherent bullshit.
Harry, c'mon! Apples to apples - NOT oranges.
What, did we switch bodies? I hope not. I better go look in the mirror to make sure I don't look as stupid and ugly as you must be.
I agree, Harry, that there is nothing inherently wrong with fear and agree it's a big motivator. Not the only one, but certainly a powerful one. My point in stating that two wrongs don't make a right (which was apparently too simple for you, my apologies and a promise to use elementary grade sentence structures with you going forward)
Since you're obviously the one with the profound cognitive deficit, perhaps you could even make them simple enough for yourself to understand?
is that Mr. Alten alleges that the government is using the fear of terrorism to manipulate Americans." As part of his response to this alleged governmental fear, Mr. Alten manipulates Americans further by using fear that said government is intending to use a "lost" nuke to perpetuate the same alleged fear. These two wrongs (i.e., using fear to counteract an alleged fear) don't result in a right (i.e., a fictional thriller based upon 9/11 will greatly aid in revealing the "truth").
Alas, you can't even count, knucklehead? Regardless of "right or wrong", "using fear to counteract an alleged fear" is ONE act. Why not be a man, for once, and just admit that you slipped up? Accept it and move on.
No, not you, knucklehead. Rather than acknowledge that you originally agreed with the author that the government is wrongly using fear of terror to manipulate people, you're now actually trying to say that the first "wrong" is the author's opinion?
You're taking the position that a very well supported opinion, an opinion held by many reasonable people, bordering on generally accepted fact, is "wrong"? You're pathetic beyond words, chumpy.
Harry, the problem with your examples is that your are using the logical conclusions of two, agreed upon fears and not the illogical conclusions of linking two dissimilar fears together, as Mr. Alten did.
Actually, the more you ramble on, apparently willing to go to any depth of absurdity to avoid losing a point, the more obvious it is that the problem is your breathtaking mental and moral defectiveness. WTF are you talking about "agreed upon fears" and the "illogical conclusions of linking two dissimilar fears together"? Who appointed you general arbiter of "fear" in the first place? You may not agree with his belief/assertion that the government would engage in domestic terrorism, but there is certainly nothing "illogical" or in any sense "wrong" about the author's position.
A re-wording of your examples to align with Mr. Alten's approach would resemble the following:
If your dentist tells you, "You'd better come in for a check-up to make sure you have no cavities," then your reaction of, "I will because I don't want you, Mr. Dentist, to cause further cavities," does not justify the need to return to the dentist.
Sorry knucklehead, but you're not making any sense at all. Unfortunately I don't have any more time right now for your incoherent nonsense.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 6:48:34 PM
Who is Murph, and why does he waste his time attacking peopl
Who is Murph, and why does he waste his time attacking people trying to do some good in this world?
Murph. Where have you been man? Have you not heard of the Nukes that were illegally transported defying regulations and causing even the Army News to protest and demand an investigation?
If you think the neocons are incapable of setting off a nuke to cow America and the world into permanent war . . . then I've got a bridge or two I could sell you.
As far as your attack on fiction . . . how bizarre. Anyone heard this administration's policies called "Orwellian"?
Why do we all know what Orwellian means, and can use that reference to so easily understand what's being perpetrated on our people and the world by the neocons because of that knowing? IT'S BECAUSE OF A FICTION BOOK, CALLED "1984". HELLLOOOOO?
Folks, if you are new to 9/11 truth issues, let me give you a primer. You will find two kinds of posters on these blogs.
1) The ones tearing everyone else apart when the do something that can truly break 9/11 truth into the mainstream. You'll get to know them because they work full time on it.
2) Those who do everything they can to get more people demanding a 9/11 investigation.
"The Shell Game" and New York Times best selling author, Steve Alten, although dealing with Parkinson's disease cares about the world enough to be in the #2 catagory.
As far as Murph . . . I think you'll see where he and a few other regular posters fit. If the shoe fits . . .
Do the world and the truth movement a favor, encourage all you know to get "The Shell Game."
by
Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 9:55:26 AM
You conveniently left out the third category of people, Mr. Douglas:
(3) Those who are interested in the events of 9/11 but don't want a biased political agenda tainting an objective review of the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST reports on the collapses of the WTC structures. These people place an emphasis on logic and reason, as required by the scientific method, to explain the tragedy of September 11, 2001. As a unified people, they regard a fictional thriller as... fiction and, therefore, subjective (i.e., not objective).
If I can spread a little wisdom on what's "motivating" this advertising blitz behind "The Shell Game", then I feel my comments are useful.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 10:09:40 AM
You conveniently left out the third category of people, Mr. Douglas:
(3) Those who are interested in the events of 9/11 but don't want a biased political agenda tainting an objective review of the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST reports on the collapses of the WTC structures. These people place an emphasis on logic and reason, as required by the scientific method, to explain the tragedy of September 11, 2001."
LOL! Really? Since when does the "Scientific Method" allow or encourage lying by omission, for example?
Any "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", which the commission was chartered to accomplish, would've required a thorough, impartial investigation of all the relevant facts. Are you going to claim that's what happened?
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 1:01:56 PM
I can say with confidence that you seem to be a person who loves laughter, Harry. All these LOLs and ROFLMAOs makes me wonder if you have stock in the manufacturer of Depends.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 3:26:55 PM
This nonsense about 9/11 "truthers" being patriotic heros is what's really pathetic in my book. There's nothing patriotic about electronically infecting the country (and the world for that matter) with a reality-warping mental disease.
That the 9/11 "truth" movement must rely on works of fiction to "wake people up" to the "truth" is a powerful indication that there's no actual truth underlying the 9/11 "truth" movement.
Science and criminal investigations have never been properly decided by polls. O.J. is still guilty of murder, no matter that a large majority of the black population clings to the notion that he was framed and set up.
Facts is facts. 9/11 "truth" is extremely unpatriotic and destructive wishful thinking fiction.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 776 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 1:54:54 PM
This nonsense about 9/11 "truthers" being patriotic heros is what's really pathetic in my book. There's nothing patriotic about electronically infecting the country (and the world for that matter) with a reality-warping mental disease.
Good thing there's a supply of mindless statist automatons ready to respond!
That the 9/11 "truth" movement must rely on works of fiction to "wake people up" to the "truth" is a powerful indication that there's no actual truth underlying the 9/11 "truth" movement.
Not at all. Works of fiction have their established place as a useful tool in opening peoples' minds to new possibilities.
Science and criminal investigations have never been properly decided by polls.
What "science" and what "investigations" are you referring to?
O.J. is still guilty of murder, no matter that a large majority of the black population clings to the notion that he was framed and set up.
Ok, explain how is it that *you* know better than the jury that O.J. did it? You're going to claim that, in this case, the public opinion "polls" regarding O.J.'s guilt are correct, and our formal legal system is wrong?
Facts is facts. 9/11 "truth" is extremely unpatriotic and destructive wishful thinking fiction.
Just like the case against O.J., the overwhelming circumstantial evidence indicates that the U.S. government is at least complicit if not completely responsible for the 911 attacks. And this is in accordance with the robust historical record that shows that deception and conspiracy and murder is what that organized sociopathy called "government" is all about. Accept it.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 3:47:12 PM
I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn't make it well. The black population in this example is you, or the "truth" movement. This group has deep suspicions about the integrity of law enforcement and the justice system -- some well justified -- just as you, (the "truth" movement) have deep suspicions about government, some also well justified.
But these suspicions and resentments don't change overwhelming facts and evidence -- some obvious and even admitted to and bragged about, (the guilt of al Qaeda) and some brought to light and made understandable through in depth investigation. (the collapse of the towers.)
The biased feelings of the black community and the black members of the jury, while understandable, are not a reliable gauge of truth regarding O.J. In this case feelings won out over science, evidence and logic. But that doesn't change the fact that his victim's blood and his shoe prints were at the murder scene, in his Bronco and in his house, any more than getting 80% of people to believe in "controlled demolition" changes the fact that there's no evidence for anything more than damage, heat and gravity being responsible for the collapse of the towers.
And yes, I'm as well able to judge the O.J. case as the jury, because I was there, along with the whole country. You need to recognize that the same phenomenon that freed O.J. is alive and well within you and the 9/11 "truth" community. You're in effect working to exonerate the guilty, and irresponsibly pointing blame at innocent people using nothing more than feelings for evidence.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 776 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 10:09:48 PM
First of all, the propagandistic tactic of lumping all people who question the "official" government version of the events of 911 into a single group (apparently for purposes of denigration and marginalization), doesn't fool anyone, and whoever does that obviously doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Second, generally speaking, comparing people who question the "official" version of the events of 911 with the Simpson jury is just plain laughable. The most appropriate analogy would be exactly the other way around.
Let's face it, if a private person acted the way the government has acted, shortly before, during and after the attacks, that person would have been already executed or institutionalized somewhere by now.
Without even getting into the physiscs of how a 56 minute, apparently scattered, smothered fire could bring down a skyscraper, the government's indisputably damning inculpatory behavior proves its complicity, as far as I'm concerned.
Everything from the lack of an investigation, to the Israeli agents that were obviously somehow involved, by chance happened to be caught, and then, simply let go, to the suspicious behavior of Bush, the withholding of evidence and crucial information, the lies, the illegal wars, the statement in Bush's NSS of the U.S. for 2002 that describes the attacks as providing "vast new opportunities" for the U.S., the magnificent Silverstein story, etc., etc., etc.
Put it all together and it is just plain damning... a reasonable person can simply come to no other conclusion than U.S. government complicity if not complete responsibility. And you're going to compare us with "Simpson jurors"?
