jump to navigation


Independent media activist since 2000 until abcnews.com contacted me in 2003 for usage of a protest photo featuring Bill Douglas, a 9/11 truth movement founder. Entered the Matrix as a founding board and graphic designer for the National 9-11 Visibility Project and then 911truth.org; currently staff of 911Research.wtc7.net. Co-Organizer of three events (KC Mariani event, DC ECT and Science Applied to the WTC Collapses) and have contributed graphics, media or technical assistance to many other 9-11 and anti-war organizations. Expect to eventually make a movie using footage from the founding 9-11 activist period. Expect to eventually publish a pictorial book from exclusive photos of the historic 2003 anti-war protests in KC.



1. Ragen Gillam - June 7, 2006

I was at the Chicago conference, and I agree with Jan Hoyer.
THe NeoCon job sign was not effective. I like the one that says “Stop the 911 Cover up” MUCH more effective. There were some good banners, though which I think got the message across.

2. Patrick Milan - August 1, 2006

I think your analysis of the Vanity Fair article is not quite fair (sic).
Certainly, there is an element of distancing herself, but I find
that quite defensible. It’s clear this event and its consequences
have disturbing implications for the state of the US power system
and for the future of the US. In the circumstances, some degree of
camouflage in presenting a contrary opinion is not only prudent,
it is quite conventional – as in any system where the ability to speak
freely is circumscribed (whether admittedly or not, is beside the
point). Surely you would want people to do their own thinking,
analysing and even investigating. By pointing its readers in the
direction of the Loose Change video, the article encourages just that.

I see more manipulative material every day in the British press,
on quite trivial (by comparison) subjects.


3. verysmallthoughts - April 27, 2007

The Vanity Fair article is a prime example of careful manipulation of a target market.
According to Conde Nast’s media kit for Vanity Fair, ONLY 22% of Vanity Fair readers are men, with over 90% of their readers having an annual income of over $75,000 yr.
As a female with a bit of experience in the marketing field, it is my conclusion that the Vanity Fair article is alienating to the majority of their audience demographics. My visual analysis .pdf is available here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: