"911Blogger.com" Accused: Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
Editors Note: Since the publication of the below RCFP article, Richard Gage AIA, one of the first names mentioned in the article has published a statement on this subject: Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s "National Security Alert"
Title: "911Blogger.com" Accused: Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
Commentary by John Bursill - Contributor and supporter of 911Blogger.com
"Is 911Blogger.com working for the other side?" This question has been asked in an article written by the "staff writers" at the Rock Creek Free Press.
I found this article I have attached below rather corrosive and it appears to me some people ("staff writers") want to perpetuate some sort of civil war within our movement over the Pentagon? Or is it only that many people truly believe that no plane hit the Pentagon and need a plausible scenario to make that theory work for them? And the limiting/censoring of CIT's exposure and other advocates of no plane theory, is just too much to bear and they have to speak out for their important theory?
Now any reasonable person could accuse 911Blogger.com of being, too careful, too reasonable, too responsible and pro positive public relations, fair enough. But to insinuate they are working for the government is laughable, ridiculous and very hurtful to some very hard working 9/11 Truth Advocates at this site!
So here's my take on it..."the censorship of CIT"?
Well firstly it is not just 911Blogger.com who has limited or removed support from groups and or people over the years, such as CIT, Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, Pilots for Truth, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and David Shayler to name but a few. This is a very common thing within political movements to stick to the best evidence and information and to only support people who behave civilly and responsibly regarding their dealings with people and subjects associated with the case being advocated. The 9/11 Truth movement is probably the loosest political campaign in history and is so full of misinformed people and theories it is already nearly impossible to get any high level support for such a rabble.
So who gives sites like 911Blogger.com the right to chose who they support? Well in a nut shell, they do! It's their site and they do what they please based on their experience and the advice they chose to take from the experts they trust around them.
It is obvious to us that watch the "deep politics" within the 9/11 Truth Movement why these people and groups have been marginalised. For the editors here at other major site have found their material either not sound on closer examination or they have done or said things that bring us as a movement into disrepute. In our "9/11 Truth World" where nearly everyone in the media is looking to attack us, it makes association with dubious or problematic characters and or ideas simply impossible for sites like 911blogger.com. In the case of the Pentagon issue it can be argued that it needs to be sidelined simply because of the disruption the debate has cause our cohesiveness and our effectiveness as a movement.
Sites that have taken stands on people and groups like the ones I've listed above include 911Truth.org, AE911Truth.org, TruthAction.org, Visibility911.com and 911TruthNews.com to name just a few. And it's not just web site editors that have made a stand against controversial information and or bad behaviour. Organisers of events like WAC's Luke Rudkowski, Jon Gold and my self have not allowed many of these people access to the stage because there were simply better people and ideas available that were not controversial. So would you accuse Luke, Jon and myself of being agents for being careful with information and our associations? Do people think that experienced editors, organiser and web site owners are idiots or people who don't understand the issue's, the evidence or the science? Do you think they follow along with one persons view, say someone like Michael Wolsey or Victoria Ashley? Do you think these hard core seditious types, these 9/11 Truth seekers, are all owned or controlled into one way of thinking, are you serious??
It is a fact that 911Blogger.com, myself and many, many others let the CIT information be seen by the public and got the word out about their film National Security Alert, so initially they were not censored. But for the editors, scientist, engineers, web site owners and organisers of many groups and sites the non-negotiable "fly over" became a cause of great concern, while the spamming by CIT et al of bloggs also became simply too much to bear. The CIT so called "censorship" in my view is of their own creation. I believe it was their aggressive take no prisoners approach to their pet theory "the flyover" and their absolute inability to see the reasons people thought their research proved very little that they have been pushed aside by so many websites. They are now seen by the most reputable editors and bloggers within our ranks as simply problematic and disrupting to our cause.
So who exactly does support CIT's non-negotiable "flyover"? Well it's not Peter Dale Scott or Richard Gage AIA as they often try to claim. They actually have specifically said they do not support "the flyover". There is also no such support from any of the editors of our premier science journal, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Rather Ryan, Legge and Jones are sceptics of the no plane theory and are slowly, scientifically, with other colleagues moving to the position that a Boeing 757 or similar did "likely" hit the Pentagon on 9/11, just as most of the witnesses believe. So I suppose that means that three of the writers (Jones, Legge and Ryan) of the Nano-Thermite Paper are also all agents? Although it is true that we do have some high profile supporters of the "no plane" at the Pentagon theory and of the "flyover" theory it is also true that CIT wanted support from many, many more but were refused. Even though most researchers, leaders and organisers like myself supported their gathering of witness testimony, they could not be tied to the unsupported "flyover" theory. As I have pointed out this is true of their two most important supporters with Gage and Scott by their clarifications on the matter.
I personally fully support 911blogger.com's choice to post what the experienced editors deem fit for public consumption. I also understand that there are many CIT supporters who want "the flyover" to feature in our top 5 strategies to awaken the masses. All I can say is good luck to you and yours and there are many web sites that support your claims and ideas, so go there and do your thing to your hearts content. One of these sites that allows debate is one that I do have some editorial control over; 911oz.com. Alas even though I am not trying to get them censored at my home site I still see I'm being targeted as an agent as well, go figure?
So here we are apparently divided once again....what now?
Well I think first those that are upset about "censorship" of content here and at the other premier 9/11 Truth Sites should ask yourselves three questions;
Q1. Why is it that 911Blogger.com is the #1 9/11 news site if it is censoring so much?
Q2. If experienced 9/11 Truth Researcher's question the validity of groups like CIT and chose not to support them, how on earth does this make them agents of the state when the information they do provide in abundance destroys the official story of 9/11?
Q3. Who are the staff writers for the "Rock Creek Free Press" and do they have a score to settle with 911Blogger.com?
In closing, please judge me on my record and do the same for 911Blogger.com the #1 source of 9/11 News on the web. But hey, please do me small favour, please stop your moaning and winging about censorship at "your" favourite sites! Just get your own site and build your own reputation there and make it the #1 9/11 Site, it's is still a free web world you know!
--END--
Here is the article from Rock Creek Free Press;
BY RCFP STAFF WRITERS
In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.
Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.
But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.
The mass bannings are not random, but directed at, among others, users who support the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). (The RCFP ran front page articles about CIT in the April 2009 and July 2009 issues. All back issues are available as PDFs at rockcreekfreepress.com.)
The uninitiated are urged to read those 2009 articles to get the full picture, but a drastically reduced summary is: no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT showed, through interviews of seventeen eyewitnesses, that the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon flew over it and away, as explosives simultaneously detonated inside the building. This created an enormous fireball, filling the sky with dense, black smoke, which obscured the escaping plane. Observers who saw the plane head toward the Pentagon, and next saw the fireball, falsely but understandably concluded that the plane had hit the building. However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer.
CIT has been endorsed by many of the leading figures of the 9/11 truth movement, including Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, University of California at Berkeley professor and author Peter Dale Scott, author David Ray Griffin, and actor Ed Asner. In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon. For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.
Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?
Before looking at the evidence that 911blogger is censoring the truth about the Pentagon and promoting disinformation, let’s look briefly at why this matters and what their motivations might be.
Although the entire 9/11 story is full of holes, the evidence proving that no plane hit the Pentagon stands in a class by itself, because a deception at the Pentagon is unspinnable. It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon. The military headquarters for the most powerful nation on earth is a very secure place, and evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government. Hence, for those trying to keep a lid on the truth, it is absolutely imperative that the facts about what happened at the Pentagon not get out.
Infiltration of the enemy is a common tool of warfare, and it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement, to prevent it from doing them (the perps) any damage.
Why activists are so alarmed
Barrie Zwicker is an award-winning journalist, lecturer, author and documentary producer. He was astute enough to question the official 9/11 story from day one, as it was happening. He produced one of the first 9/11 Truth documentaries, “The Great Conspiracy”, in 2003. His most recent book, Towers of Deception, explores the media’s role in covering up the truth about 9/11. Based in Toronto, Canada, Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements. When Zwicker peaks, people listen.
This summer, via YouTube, Zwicker created a ringing endorsement of CIT’s “National Security Alert” video. He not only enthusiastically applauded CIT’s work and their conclusion (that the plane seen at the Pentagon overflew the building as explosives were detonated), Zwicker delivered a stinging rebuke to CIT’s detractors:
“To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”
Zwicker submitted the video endorsement to 911Blogger on July 22, 2010.
Now, this is big news in the truth community. For someone of Zwicker’s stature to provide unambiguously enthusiastic support of citizen investigators, on an issue that has not (until now) had clear answers (namely, what happened at the Pentagon), is important to everyone in the truth community. But incredibly, Zwicker’s post to 911blogger was never published.
Zwicker, ever the gentleman, politely emailed the 911blogger moderators,
asking why his entry wasn’t approved. He never received a reply from any of
the four moderators.
However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.” The amateurish writing and ad hominem attacks are evident from the very first paragraph:
“Some time ago I wrote an article about not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that’s not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn’t mean they won’t be zipping around spouting their fl awed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.”
In part because of this decision by 911blogger, to reject Barrie Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT while publishing a childish hit piece from an anonymous source, Southern California 9/11 truth activist and We Are Change LA member Adam Ruff wrote:
“In my view it is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth
movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good
truthers.”
The RCFP interviewed Zwicker via email
RCFP: What do you find most compelling about CIT’s work?
Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.
RCFP: What do you make of those who say they appreciate CIT’s work but do not think they proved “flyover?”
Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.
RCFP: Have you read the criticisms of CIT’s work from Arabesque, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and do you think they have merit?
Zwicker: They lack merit because they do not provide counter-evidence. They have no firsthand eyewitness interviews from people who specifically place the plane to the south side of the gas station. Those I could weigh against the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT. As far as I can see, Arabesque, whoever that is (I don’t care for anonymity), Hoffman and Ashley have provided none at all. They take snippets of third-hand printed media quotes, none of which are actually South of Citgo witnesses, just statements by people who said they saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, one particular detractor blog by “Caustic Logic” quotes a few people as “witnesses” who were not even in the area at the time of the attack! One was in North Carolina, arrived in DC the afternoon of 9/11, saw the downed light poles, and was thus presented as a “light pole witness.” This is in a blog entry titled “The South Path Impact: Documented.”
RCFP: What conclusions do you draw from 911blogger refusing to post your endorsement of CIT?
Zwicker: Actually, my endorsement was briefly posted for about 30 minutes, then withdrawn. It’s painful for me to learn that 911blogger, which I consider to be the premiere 9/11Truth site, is censoring CIT and those who support CIT. Even more distressing is that 911blogger has failed to censor some quite rude comments about CIT’s work and its team members. So it’s clearly one-sided. One conclusion that can be drawn is that there are players behind the scenes who have prevailed upon the moderators at 911blogger to stultify CIT and its findings. Since the censorship is so blatant and carries with it obvious penalties in the form of loss of credibility, those behind the censorship orders must really have their knickers in a knot about something. It’s a clear sign that those who control that website are trying to control thought when it comes to the Pentagon. Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon. That the most visited 9/11 truth website would be so hostile towards evidence that supports this widely held belief within the ranks of Truthers is at the least disconcerting.
A little more than a month after Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT was rejected, the situation repeated itself, when retired NASA aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets recorded a video endorsement of CIT on August 30, 2010 and submitted it to 911blogger. Once again, 911blogger refused, without explanation, to post the endorsement of a highly qualified professional.
Prior to 911blogger rejecting these video endorsements from Zwicker and Deets, nearly all users at 911blogger who were vocal in their support of CIT had been banned. An informal poll easily came up with 25 former users of 911blogger who had been banned without explanation—about half of whom are CIT supporters.
Three of the most well-informed, articulate and prolific CIT supporters were banned simultaneously on May 24, 2010, while in the midst of a heated online debate with 911blogger moderator Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke). Truth activist Stefan S. of London, England explains it:
“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.
“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.
“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.
“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.
“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”
Response from 911blogger
Other than from moderator John Wright (aka LeftWright), who stressed that he was giving only his own personal views, not those of the website, there has been no response from 911blogger to questions emailed to them on September 15, 2010 about their treatment of Citizen Investigation Team. The email, which stated that the Rock Creek Free Press was working on an article about 911blogger and wanted to include their side of the story, was sent to the current email addresses for site owner Justin Keogh and moderators Erik Larson, Ted Tilton, Jr. and John Wright, as well as to the joint email address for the “blogger team.”
John Wright stated on September 16 that he was available for a phone interview, but, as of press time on October 23, has not replied to an email sent on October 5 to arrange that interview.
The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.
Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?
Truth activist and professional orchestral musician Adam Syed of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was banned during the debate with Larson in May, offered this comment on the censorship at 911blogger:
“Arguments in an online forum may at first glance seem to be of interest only to diehard keyboard warriors. But without the Internet, most of us would never have learned about 9/11—certainly the traditional media won’t go near it. 9/11 truth lives or dies on the Internet, and when the most heavily trafficked truth site decides to suppress certain evidence, it obviously makes it harder for people to learn the truth and figure out what happened. In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon. Now, why would any genuine truther ask us to turn our backs on such damning, unspinnable evidence?”
Answer: they wouldn’t.
Editor’s note: We welcome your comments on the situation at 911blogger; please send them to editor@rockcreekfreepress (dot) com.
- John Bursill's blog
- Login to post comments
Well someone had to say it/post it....
Lets keep it civil and informed.
The main reason I put this up is so that the editors and their supporters could have a say about this nasty piece in the Rock Creek Free Press.
Just remember everything you say will be chronicled by Ranke et al so get your spelling write or you'll be in trouble...:-)
Kind regards John
Thanks...I find it and fix it....
....thanks for proof reading...I made a joke of write...but the there is a mistake:)
Regards John
Great blog John - thanks!
The alternative media is picking this up:
911blogger.com Accused of “Working for the Other Side”
http://911truthnews.com/911blogger-com-accused-of-working-for-the-other-...
Thanks
for the backlink. What RCFP did to 911blogger here is revolting...just look at the title of their attack piece alone. A true Judas kiss.
blogger, me and DRG
blogger:
im impressed over all with the blogger peoples tolerence of me
i have posted some comments that were irritating but i felt i had to
i've since retracted some and changed my opinion about someone i was bigging up previously
to their credit the blogger peeps didnt ban me they told me off and again when i did it again
thx blogger people
on the other hand i might have got something censored from blogger by highlighting a dodgy part of a video clip which disappeared from the front page of the site soon after. i say "may" as im not 100% sure, but what i do know is that we do need a new investigation!
subtopic: the pentagon....
I'm not very well informed on this but if DRG were to write a book on it WOULD YOU BUY IT ?
I think I certainly would
the five corner building (as the chinese call it) is a bit of a mystery to me though not central to my understanding that there needs to be a new investigation
Here's hoping it all comes out in the wash and perhaps some well researched books on it too.
People will come here and see for themselves.
That is good.
Stop censuring my truth!
pfgetty said..."I think of 911blogger as the place for ALL information and ideas about 9/11 to be presented."
I'm glad you brought this up because I've been working on a blog entry that I thought might be be a little weird to some, but I think it explains what happened at the pentagon pretty good. I think it's the REAL truth and this might make me a real truther as opposed to the fake one I am now....it's this.....
Why did no one see the flyover? And why did so many people think the plane was so low it hit the ground?
Very simple scientific reasoning and deductive logic....the plane didn't fly over the pentagon....it flew under the pentagon. There was a super duper secret passageway built under the pentagon that opened up just as the plane got there and bombs exploded.
But how did they know exactly when to open the secret underground door? Simple..they had to have an operative at the scene with a garage door opener ready to push the button.
And who was that operative? Lloyd the cagey cab driver of course, who else?
When he got "the signal" from a CIA operative he pushed the door opener.
What was the signal? Obviously it was when the CIA agent threw a brick in his windshield.
Now I know some might ask "Why not just have the CIA guy push the secret tunnel door button?"
For the same reason CIT says they made a fake flight path.......just for fun and to "confuse" people.
I think this makes perfect sense and I am glad to know you fully support me and my efforts at getting this incredibly important information to the public. I appreciate that, Some people want to suppress this information and I can only conclude they are operatives, and MUST BE WORKING FOR THE OTHER SIDE!
Islamaphobia...
And targeting the religion of Islam is a BIG problem (just as some are targeting the Jews). However, that doesn't mean you have to promote questionable information and theories as fact that says "the hijackers are alive" or "there were no hijackers," etc... and so on.
I have addressed the issue again in this article entitled, "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime."
With regards to Kevin Barrett, have you NOT been paying attention? Kevin Barrett whines about being banned from 911blogger.com. The reason he was banned was because he was having guests on his show that talked about crazy things like "exotic weaponry," and so forth. He would lead people to believe (he has since removed that article from his site) it had to do with the fact that he is a so called Muslim, and that is a blatant lie.
Why ANYONE would want to have people participate that have been nothing but a detriment to this cause is beyond me. This isn't a f*cking game Jonathan Mark. Stop treating it like one. It's not censoring. It's called BEING RESPONSIBLE for an IMPORTANT cause.
If you had any credibility with me...
You just lost all of it. Sorry...
My "problem" is an avoidance...
Of the "big tent" where any idiot can say anything and promote anything they want, which in turn, is used against us at every opportunity. You may like repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. I do not. If that is a "problem," I'm glad I have it.
Well... if you want people like Kevin Barrett...
Posting on 911blogger.com, what you will get are Zionist hunters promoting every theory known to man. What part of Kevin Barrett being a detriment to this cause don't you understand?
Lots of 'confusion' with Jonathan
Jonathan Mark:
"Kevin has always been a positive force"
"I did 'not condemn the attack on Donna Marsh O'Connor.' To me this was off topic and full of confusion."
"I had not got into the mud slinging dual with Cosmos and Kevin.. More mud slinging in our group is really not needed.. "
Good comments, Jon
there needs to be a sort of learning curve within our peer group- the 9/11 truth movement
there needs to be tolerance of newbies who get into trouble when they pick up on poor research
we can help newcomers to get up to speed, leap over the poor research and find their way to a better understanding of the more accurate research
i have benefited from this kind of tolerance from others and from better leads
Who is...
Avoiding islamaphobia? I've written on hate towards Muslims 3x already.
"Your fears are out of whack, and your misrepresentation of the body of work of Kevin Barrett."
You're either in severe denial, or are protecting Barrett for some other reason. Either way, I don't want someone who will talk about things like Holocaust Denial, toasting 6 million Jews, space beams, how the Zionists control the world, etc... representing this cause in any way, shape, or form.
Speaking of spacebeams...
Jim Fetzer has now weighed in on this controversy and he endorses CIT, Pilots and RCFP.
I think it's a good match.
I'll go with Jon on that.
I'll go with Jon on that.
Like Danse said somewhere
We need harmony, not unity.
I'm with you though, I think this is a good idea. We can add a "totally discredited bunk that 911blogger disapproves of"-section where totally discredited bunk that 911blogger disapproves of can be posted. It'll be like 911blogger's trash can. Barret can fill it up completely on his own.
I think you mean censorship.
I also get them mixed up sometimes.
Don't censur my mis spelling of censorship
According to the article blogger likes to tell people how to think and censors them, I have a right to show the world my mis spellings and my theories now matter how dumb or offensive either of them may be. And Blogger has no write to try and make their site anything other than a place for folks like me and CIT to to spew their idiocy.
According to Rock Creek Press anyway
The owners of this site have a lot of nerve acting like they own the place. Damn Nazis.
Jimd3100 Founder of Citizens Over Nazis (CON)
Please
let's not get carried away.
This is not a food fight.
Thanks.
PFG
How long have you been here? Just curious.
If it weren't for some form of moderation, you might find that approximately one third of the posts on blogger would be about Jews, another third about holograms and space beams, and the remaining third about Reptile aliens controlling the White House and the Bilderberg group.
Why no sensible posts in such an environment, you ask? Because sensible people would have long since abandoned the site.
If you think ALL INFORMATION ABOUT 911, as you put it, should be PRESENTED, then perhaps the site owners should indulge those who think that 911 was the first salvo in an effort to implement Sharia law in the United States. Or that pygmies carried out the attack from the Congo rainforest.
There are actually rules on this site, so far as I'm aware; those who abuse them tend to get banned.
I for one think the mods here have done a terrific, if thankless, job.
The mods at blogger have no obligation to embrace a particular theory about 911, especially when advocates of that theory have a habit of accusing everyone and his cat of being a "disinfo agent"; rather, their responsibility is to the 911 truth community as a whole.
It's all the users that make 911Blogger what it is,
the moderators just try and make it a civil environment where a dynamic exchange of information and ideas can take place.
I consider it an honor to help moderate the site, as this site has been very important to me since I first found it.
The thanks we get is through all the great content that you all keep submitting.
Thanks to everyone who helps make this the valuable resource that it is.
Cheers!
What exactly do the Fab Five Frames represent please.
1- evidence or misleading evidence of a fly-over?
2- the crashing of the plane outlined in the official story
3-doctored evidence as mentioned in choice 1
4- a complete fabrication of the alleged crash
5- something other than outlined above.
Many contributors on this site who are convinced that CIT are 100% wrong must have some thoughts about how to reconcile the fab five frames in their theories.
I don't know what happened at the pentagon and I am trying to honestly consider peoples opinions on the matter. I am especially interested in finding out what the anti-CIT folks really think the fab five represent. Thanks
The video
represents what the physical evidence and all the witness testimony suggests it does: that a plane hit the pentagon. This 3D simulation explains why:
All the witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, including CIT's own witnesses. See Eric Bart's witness compilation. CIT claims that it is more important where the witnesses thought they saw the plane fly. That's absurd: what matters is if they saw the plane hit the building. This ought to be part of the flight path. When the plane cockpit first 'touched' the building... try to close your eyes and see that scene in front of you: is there an explosion? No. Then how could there have been a 'deception'?
Who saw the plane fly away? Roosevelt Roberts saw a U-turn, that is physically impossible for any 757. Therefore his account is meaningless. Erik Dihle? Hearsay.
Please read this post by Chris Sarns carefully..
Although I disagree with Chris about physical evidence fakery, his logic is sound.
See also this and perhaps read this entire thread from top left to bottom right. (Especially jimd3100's comments)
This vid is very convincing...
...to me at least. If I were on a jury, and saw this as evidentiary analysis, it would sway me. It puts the Fab Five Frames into a context that works, to my level of logic -- and for what that is worth; I can't claim any special expertise.
Convincing ?!?
Did you see the wings and tail section slicing smoothly into the building and the building face heal back up. Someone's idea of a JOKE !
Oops, strike that - don´t want to be banned (voted down I can handle).
Seriously though - my position is this - I see no evidence of a 757 hitting the pentagon. I can´t account for the witnesses, flyover is just a theory. Agnostic.
But one thing I believe strongly. Someone ERRED in censoring Barrie Zwicker - be he wrong or right on the substantive issues.
I too am agnostic.
There must be clear footage of the airplane striking the building.
I do not want to speculate what did hit, but is surley was not an inexperienced pilot flying a large aircraft type that they were unfamiliar with.
That animated presentation does put some perspective on the size of the pentagon and the distance from the camera etc. and how those fames "could" be an 757, but there will be a plethora of different angles as the pentagon would have plenty of survailence.
Until there is more clear footage we will never be certain.
Like many before have said on various aspects of this case, what do they have to hide?
If it was clear cut that it was terrorists, then debate.
If it was clear cut that it was a 757 that hit the pentagon, then show us the footage. what is there to hide?
Convincing!
The building face did not heal back up.
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html
After impact a hole 96 feet wide is seen, ample to admit the heavy parts of the plane and there was plenty more damage out to the wing tips.
AA77
I don't know what to think about the events at the Pentagon. I don't think it's worth arguing over that much, so as the movement as a whole loses credibility. I can think of a few more questions that need to be solved, before one can actually state with full confidence that no plane hit the Pentagon (like; what about the contents of the FDR of AA77, is that content reliable, what happens to the wing of a B757 when it strikes a lightpole at high speed?). Surely a flyover would've been witnessed indeed by many, so that would be very unlikely.
So maybe the FDR has been tampered with (I don't even know if that's possible or not). If it was hit by an airplane, we still don't know if it was indeed AA77, nor do we know who was behind the stick. The complicated manouvre itself suggests some kind of RC piloting, no good terrorist of any kind would go out of his way so much to not only hit the most empty part of that particular building, which just happened to contain all kinds of sensitive financial records.
I do think the Movement should keep at it to find out what happened there.
As a citizen, I sometimes have trouble what to believe and who to trust. Barrie Zwicker was someone I used to trust, and now I'm wondering very heavily what is going on with this man. Is he being threatened or blackmailed or something, it don't make any sense to me for him to take this position?
Let's just hope we all keep our eyes on the same purpose, exposing the fraud and getting to a real investigation. Having said that, I know that this is the only thing and the best thing we can do, as a (still relatively small) minority. But somehow my mind is telling me that if there are people outthere who planned this stuff, used the means to execute it and then used the media and other people to cover it up, then these people are so powerful and have so much influence, it's just a matter of time before they decide to pull the plug and pull another rabbit out of their hat. It's really mindboggling this predicament we're in right now. But at the end of it all, it's all about LR's famous quote: "Love is the only way forward".
That animation seems inaccurate in comparison to ASCE
This image is from the Pentagon ASCE Report: ( http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html )
The annotation makes it very clear:
The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.
It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab.The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily. (p.35)
The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft's tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade. (p.36).
"no portion of the outer
"no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building." - yet in the animation we see the right wing slicing right into the building?
"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft's tail. " - yet in the animation we see the tail seemingly slice right into the building?
Is this Hereward?
Yes, you are correct. BTW, I don't even think the PBPR is fully correct. (Studied it closely in the past) That last bit only shows it's possible, but in my opinion it doesn't show exactly what happened. I have many reasons for saying this, but I have to assemble all of that into my own reconstruction. One problem is that I'm no 3D modeler. I'm willing to learn, though.
9110z is Hereward Fenton - Editor of 911oz.com
Regards John
This video is more proof
...that with the right technology, generalizations, exaggerations and distortions, I can provide a video that will PROVE that Queen Victoria was actually a race horse named "Little Joe."
Besides that, let us see the REAL damned videos, if it was a damned plane.
Please address
every single argument and reference made here.
Thank you.
Re: What exactrly do the Fab Five Frames represent...
Who knows? The government supplied those five frames.
So what?
Prove they are fake. They show exactly what the witnesses said, and what the physical evidence demonstrates. See above.
...
See above, re: the vid you just posted.
Timestamps on the released pentagon photos incorrect?
Hey SnowCrash,
I remeber early on some had cast doubt about the photos pointing out the timestamp on "the plane" photo as being Sept 12. I see later on others have used the photos with no timstamp at all. Do you have any info about this aspect? thanks
peace all
dtg
I have no idea
and I don't consider the "fab five frames" that relevant at all: we have eyewitnesses and physical evidence.. all overwhelmingly in favor of a plane crash at the Pentagon. The reason I defend the "fab five frames" is because I feel most are too quick to dismiss it because they have unrealistic expectations, either about the frame rate, the expected size of the plane in the picture, the color of the fireball, what have you. One thing is for certain: CIT must claim it is fake because it probably would have shown some fragment of the initiation of a Pentagon flyover.
And I could investigate this, of course, and with respect to the frame rate, I have done some reading...but... what does it matter? How much evidence (or lack thereof, in the case of flyover) does one need? To apply this reasoning to CIT: how many of their witnesses will emphatically claim they saw the plane hit the building before CIT and their sycophantic lackeys realize the difference in sensory perception of relating a flying object to the ground and two objects colliding?
I don't see much added value in thoroughly analyzing the 'fab five frames' because I am well aware this will never convince anybody. Who knows what the future holds, for now, I don't want to invest too much time in it.
A Rockcreek Scoop -The Fly Under
Those 5 frames only reinforce the already overwhelming evidence of my Fly Under theory that "gate keeping" sites are frantic to silence. If it's so wrong why silence me? That's what Nazis do which is why my group "Citizens Over Nazis"( or CON )have contacted Rock Creek Press to give them first dibs on this explosive new evidence,
Nagging feeling
I have this nagging feeling there's going to be a 'mass banning' of all the 'Fly Under' supporters soon.... In mid-debate, so our detractors can have the last word. LOL!
...
See above, re: the vid Snow Crash just posted.
Thanks for posting the video.
It shows the context underwhich it very well may have happened.
Subject shift
This thread is about the hit piece in the RCFP.
Hello? . . ^ ^ ^ . . . . . . . ;-)
"Framed"
How many people on this thread know anything about video production? Or about video special effects? Or even how many frames per second are used in video?
Those 5 frames came from a security camera which, we have been told, shot the footage of the incident. We don't know what the frame rate was. High quality security cams can generate fairly smooth footage because they use a high frame rate. Low quality cams use low frame rates and generate jumpy footage. Who remembers the crash landing on the Hudson? It's here if you missed it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9CZivaR0tU&p=4B2799310A2B4BA3&playnext=1... That's pretty smooth footage for a cam sitting out on a pier.
Now look at the footage obtained from the gov, from which we were fed the (in)famous 5 frames:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8&feature=related It's very jumpy because we don't have as many frames covering the time span. But what we do have is very interesting and well worth a closer look.
That footage contains a lot of problems. A LOT. Analyze it frame by frame with video editing software. Get it big on the screen and have a good look at each individual frame. Be sure to look all around the shot; the weirdness is not just limited to the main "explosion" zone.
You can clearly see the matte(s) that were used. The "thing" that is alleged to have caused the "explosion" is sitting perfectly still way across the lawn an "explosion" matte first becomes apparent on the facade. The "thing" is essentially ON THE GROUND or slightly above it still way across the lawn. The "explosion" matte has some really nice right angles that are fun to look at, especially when it's still partially transparent. When it lights up, it's even more spectacular. Go frame by frame and you'll see a vertical structure that appears out of nowhere and remains visible for a bit then disappears as "fire" and "smoke" are seen forming nice regular geometric shapes, too. Amazing.
To answer your question, the 5 frames are supposed to back up the OCT claim that a 757 slammed into the facade of the Pentagon, and in so doing convince the world that there is no need to discuss the matter further. However, this official footage is so full of movie magic it's pathetic. There is NO 757. There is "something", rather some "thing" that appears out of nowhere, gets bright, sits there on the lawn for a while and then it "moves" toward the facade. But the "explosion" has already happened and the "thing" hasn't touched the facade yet. Go figure.
Who remembers the first accounts from the scene? Who heard the reporters say a truck apparently exploded in front of the building? That the dumpster or some other truck was on fire? Who remembers "HUNT THE BOEING" which appeared 3 days after 9/11?
As for the controversy as to "who saw the plane hit the building", rather those who SAY they saw "the plane hit the building", few 9/11 researchers fueling this pseudo-debate have taken into account a very important fact: these "eyewitnesses" THINK they saw the plane hit the building. Unless you were on the lawn, or somewhere nearby with a perfect unobstructed view, you are DEDUCING that "the plane" you saw in the sky -- regardless of how low or how loud it was (some only heard it and saw the the smoke afterwards) -- was what caused the smoke you saw, hence, "the plane hit the building". But we know there was more than one plane in the air in the vicinity of the Pentagon. So which plane hit it? Do we know for sure that all these "witnesses" are in fact talking about the same plane? Given what we do know, the potential for confusion, not to mention deception, was enormous.
Who has analyzed the news footage from that day? Who has studied how the story morphed into what it is today throughout the day? Do it. Get the archive footage and study it.
It's quite unsettling to see how this issue has ruffled feathers to the point that "we" are now censoring "ourselves". Just about anyone is free to tout their research and publish their papers and share their thoughts and expert opinions. Just about anyone EXCEPT CIT. Why? Why the lynching? Yes, some individuals have been rude and I don't condone that. But poor manners shouldn't negate a theory or hundreds (thousands) of hours of research. The RCFP article cites Sargeant Lagasse as one of the witnesses who remembers seeing the plane on the North side of the Citgo station. Fair enough. CIT detractors say "But Lagasse said he saw the plane hit the building!! CIT is lying!!!" Really? Who studied Lagasse's body language when he supposedly said he saw it hit the building? Do it. Watch him as he responds to the question. He DIDN'T SEE the plane impact the building. He THINKS he did. Rather, his BRAIN deduced that the plane he saw flying low north of the Citgo station was what caused the explosion he heard and the ensuing smoke he saw. His body language reveals an internal struggle. He knows his eyes didn't physically see the impact but his brain hoodwinked him into thinking they did.
The 5 frames show some "thing" on the lawn that eventually moves towards the Pentagon. The fire has already reached into the sky by the time the "thing" would have impacted. Was the "thing" real or just a flimsy piece of CGI? It is impossible to tell if the "thing" ever actually touched the facade. Given the earliest reports from the scene, and knowing there were several planes in the sky, we might consider that the "thing" was in fact pure fiction, like so much of the official 9/11 narrative.
Everyone who has approached 9/11 with honesty and sincerity, and using whatever means they had at their disposal, to try to uncover the truth should be commended. We are all free to agree or not. We can also agree to disagree. (But one-upsmanship is so much more fun, right?) We should be wary of those who purport to have figured it out and resort to name calling and attacking those who, in their eyes, have got it all wrong. We don't know what happened. No one does. So give us all a break and stop wasting our time. As for censoring, all I can say is, have we stooped *that* low?? Are the "infiltrators" *that* good? If they are, then I can't help but think, somewhere, someone is having a good laugh watching us go around in circles on this. Let's keep the dialogue open. And let's keep it civil.
Milongal
NSA was discussed at great length and the consensus is that in addition to being a PITA, CIT was claiming to have proof but they don't. The veracity with which they insist they have proof and the way they trash people who disagree with them is way out of line and detrimental to the TM in many ways IMO.
"Everyone who has approached 9/11 with honesty and sincerity"
I have pointed out several instances where CIT has not been honest and sincere.
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com
Jim Hoffman has pointed out the virtual impossibility of a plane flying away without hundreds seeing it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html
CIT has not been censored. That is another claim made by Mr. Ranke and the CIT supporters [with all due respect to you]. At a certain point, we must accept or reject a theory and move on.
The CIT tactics have disrupted and divided the Truth Movement and CIT has clearly stepped over the line with the assistance of Kevin Barrett, Barry Zwicker and now the RCFP. This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated and CIT, Kevin Barrett, Barry Zwicker and the RCFP should be classified with Woods and Fetzer IMO.
That could be done
If there was something to rebut. A link, or a peer reviewed scientific study made... instead of just bare assertions. I suspect it would make for a nice backup plan, to make us all go bonkers about the 'Fab Five Frames', because every little video compression artefact can be transmogrified into some outlandish, sensationalist video fakery canard.
Remember the video fakery nonsense @ the WTC? Has that avenue been as unproductive for you as it has been for the movement as a whole? Remember Ace Baker? The 'Webfairy' and her WTC 'Wotzits'? Oh the memories haunt.
Nevertheless, I guess we have no choice but to pretend there are no plane crash witnesses and there's no physical evidence and satisfy the curiosity of the 'Fab Five Frame'-theorists. I'm not looking forward to it. Somebody who reanimates Thierry Meyssan's "Hunt The Boeing" starts off on the wrong foot immediately. What's next? "Hunt the matte"?
Of course, the witnesses didn't THINK they saw the plane hit, they saw it hit. As the position of cockpit of the plane reached the facade, the fireball hadn't started, otherwise the fireball would have caught the plane as it allegedly flew over. This is CIT's theory, remember? The fireball obscured the 'flyover'. Therefore, the plane must have first fully cleared the facade before the fireball commenced. But, the witnesses who saw the plane hit saw the plane go into the facade, before the fireball occurred. No deception. It's that simple.
As for historical revisionism in the TV archives... I have those archives, Arie does, Nate Flach does.... plenty of fishy stuff happened and was reported, but none of it supports the 'flyover theory', unless you'd like to go back to the days of contextomy, i.e. "It was like a cruise missile with wings".
The Big Tent
Thanks for helping me understand where you're coming from. Since you support the Big Tent, would you care to endorse Jim's 'Fly Under' Theory? Jim would be much obliged. Jim and I have decided to stand behind this theory and declare everybody else disinfo agents. We will not stand for censorship of our, uhm .. sorry Jim's theory. (I wish I'd thought of it!)
The Big Tent.
Excellent!
I'm particularly struck by the intelligence of saying that when the storm comes, the bigger the tent, the safer you are!
The Fly Under is NOT a theory
I proved it!! The plane went off radar when it went under the pentagon, if it flew over why did no one see it? Why did it go off radar? The Fly Under is not a theory my research PROVED it. Damn gatekeepers......
Snowcrash said...."Since you support the Big Tent, would you care to endorse Jim's 'Fly Under' Theory? Jim would be much obliged. Jim and I have decided to stand behind this theory and declare everybody else disinfo agents. We will not stand for censorship of our, uhm .. sorry Jim's theory."
peacefulwarrior said.."Sure why not?"
Thank you very much for your support in getting this ground breaking information out. This indeed proves a military deception on 9-11. I have talked with numerous witnesses, this is called "independently verified", meaning witnesses don't count unless I verify them, and every witness I've talked to confirms the Fly Under. Not one of the independently verified witnesses saw the plane fly over the pentagon. The plane can't disappear and since all the parts found were planted the only place it could have gone was Under the pentagon, this not only proves a military deception but it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a secret tunnel at the pentagon. We need to stop asking for better videos, and demand a new investigation which would reveal this secret underground tunnel. I suspect the workers at the pentagon were not working on the west side wedge but that was simply a cover story for them finishing up making this under ground secret passageway that the plane clearly had to go into.
You are welcome to be a member of CON (Citizens Over Nazis) but it comes with responsibility. You need to DEMAND people acknowledge this ground breaking information. You also need to notify other members of CON when you enter a debate with anyone on any message board so we can "help" with the debate. I will be selling a 500 pack of DVDs (as soon as I can make them) and will sell for just $900 which is a much better deal than the debunked CIT garbage they sell. You need to get these to the media and elected officials. Also with your membership in CON you get to use CON after your name, to prove you are not just a NUT, but a serious researcher who is part of an Investigation team. Example...Jimd3100 CON, or SnowCrash CON....Peacefulwarrior CON ...looks good doesn't it? Better than having PHD, as it demands instant respect. You will need those DVDs for "Operation Disability". We will "disable" the NWO with this powerful evidence. We've already got more members of CON than CIT has, right now Deets is the hold up, I'm still waiting for his endorsement. I don't know what's taking so long, it's not like he has to study the pentagon or anything...I've already done it for him.
RIP Flyover
Welcome the Fly Under
It's been my experience
that the only thing worse than poor losers is graceless winners.
You've made your joke already.
Please take the high road.
Thanks.
Careful SnowCrash
While I greatly appreciate your point of view and sense of humor, let's not get carried away, ok?
Keep it civil and on topic everyone, please.
As the movement grows, we will keep enlarging the tent, but folks who start chopping down the tent poles or lighting the canvas on fire will be asked to cease and, if they don't, they will be asked to leave.
As Jon Gold said above, this is NOT a game and I'm not in this to lose. Thus, those people who have proven to be detrimental to the furtherance on 9/11 truth and the movement need to be marginalized in as civil a manner as possible.
I think much of the problem arises because many people do not have a thorough grounding in critical thinking and logic. This, combined with each individual's personality and how they relate to other personality types can lead to some rather basic misunderstandings which if not carefully addressed can then escalate into situations like what we see here.
The really tricky part for moderators is deciding what the reasonable boundaries are, drawing lines and determining when someone has irreversibly crossed a line. This can also be complicated when the moderators themselves may not have come to a complete consensus on precisely where these boundaries are, as well as the fact that they are human beings and thus not perfect, too.
That said, I know that I can work with anyone with integrity (who is willing to admit when they are wrong) who is working toward the same basic goal. I think of it as a long march, with more and more people joining all the time from every direction. As long as we are all marching toward the same point there is no real problem, but when some people turn in a different direction or suggest counterproductive detours, then it is time to let them go their way and to keep our ranks marching forward toward our mutually agreed upon goal.
Personally, I would like to see more civility and more tolerance on 911Blogger as well as more transparency from the moderators (and in the movement as a whole).
The movement and the site are works in progress, if we all keep discussing the issues that we really care about in a civil manner we will continue to grow and refine our movement and end up creating the world we really want to live in (long after the 9/11 issue is settled).
I hope that you and yours are well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Ha ha
Yeah sorry, John. Just the notion of what is actually happening here.. most of 911blogger, including the moderators, are described as "working for the other side" in the headline of RCFP's article.. It's just insane. Barry Zwicker was an important leader and role model for this movement, and look where we are now. This is very disconcerting. You know my position: no accusations of anybody being a 'disinfo agent' without some proper evidence. Including non-members of his site... I just wish this standard would apply to everybody.
For seven years, I've been trying to unravel 9/11, and these random accusations of 'disinfo' from one side, mixed with naive calls for 'Big Tent' type managing of the 9/11 Truth Movement... I wonder if we've learned anything from our mistakes. It's hard not to become cynical. If I think of the number of man hours spent on determining whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, clearly suggestions of redirecting our energy elsewhere have not had any effect.
The only remaining option is to tackle the problem head on. Will try to muster some tolerance. Obviously, had there been live, clear footage of a plane impacting the Pentagon we would have had a couple of years of debate over possible 'video fakery' after which everybody settles on the position that a plane crashed and no video fakery occurred, just like the WTC. However, we don't have this level of video evidence available to us, at least not as abundant as UA 175, which is why this argument is protracted, and a huge time sink.
I don't know about you, but I foresee huge disruption in 2011 over this issue, just when we don't need it. You know several people have been targeted already, now this issue is expanding like an ink blot. Misinformation memes are dangerous, and as you've experienced, you are now a target as well for these people.
John, maybe we could exchange views about this, what is going to be your strategy moving forward w.r.t to the Pentagon? Do you see a resolution on the horizon?
Rock Creek Outs Blogger As Sensible site
SnowCrash said.."This is very disconcerting."
Actually I think it's great. How much does an ad cost on Rock Creek? Whatever it is, they just gave 911 blogger a gigantic ad that promotes them as a site that doesn't go along with not just preposterous theories, but despicable ones. The average reasonable person is Not going to think "Oh, 911blogger thinks a plane might have crashed at the pentagon on 911 and doesn't promote the idea that it flew over and "fooled" everyone? They must be "in on it". LOL! Who cares what No Planers think? Rock Creek Press does....let's see how that works out for them. All I see is a gigantic ad that says "The leading 911truth site doesn't believe in No Plane garbage"
They just made themselves look ridiculous..
Thanks Rock Creek Press!
Unfortunately,
you are quite correct.
They have severely damaged their credibility with this ridiculous piece of yellow journalism, imo.
I will be very interested to hear what Barrie Zwicker has to say about this.
I, too, find this disconcerting and saddening.
Let's hope that it's just a few individuals that convinced the RCFP to run this, the rest will realize the mistake and work to right their ship before it sinks completely.
That said, this is but a small bump in the road and we have much work to do still, so let's not let it become the distraction that some folks may want (and others certainly do).
Onward, brothers and sisters, there is still much work to do.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
for what it's worth
my solution for dealing with the pentagon "accident" is to ignore it. IMHO we don't need to push suspicions about the pentagon because it's the one 911 issue about which the public already has suspicions. I think Kevin Ryan's list is as far as we need to take it
I totally share your concerns about this potentially being a thorn for us in 2011. So in this case I'm convinced that our best defense is offense, but offense only in the select areas where we are strong, which in my view is Building 7 (CD) and with what is publicly becoming accepted that the 911 Commission and NIST reports are completely unreliable and suspect
Another VERY IMPORTANT reason for us to stay on offense and be committed to things like "Building What?" and the plight of victim families is because if we don't, no one else will, and we can't have THAT .
He (or she) who cannot remember history...
...is doomed to repeat it.
Yes, I mentioned Hunt the Boeing. However, I did not mention Thierry Meyssan. When I saw Hunt the Boeing, I was not alone. I had people with me who had worked in DC and who were more than familiar with what goes on behind the scenes. Let's just say they helped me understand why the lawn had just been graveled over even though it was in pristine condition... Thierrry Meyssan was not part of the conversation. His name never even came up. Whoever got their hands on those first photos knew something was very wrong from the outset and that person wanted to set the record straight immediately.
SnowCrash, you seem to have resorted to the standard anti-9/11Truth reaction. Most likely because you have not (yet?) taken the time to analyze the footage frame by frame as I mentioned. Who remembers the old Steve Martin song which contains the line, "Criticize things you don't know about". That is what you're doing.
Sure, artefacts can be a problem in some cases. But you obviously don't know that an "artefact" can't occupy an entire zone of the video! Don't worry, my analysis will eventually make it on to the www and then you can have some fun trying to spin it in your favor.
Regarding your comment on "peer-reviewed", I sincerely invite the video people out there to look at the footage frame by frame. Why is it important? Because if that "official" footage is fraudulent (and it certainly appears to be), and in light of the fact that the gov has failed to produce anything with a clearly recognizable 757 slamming into the facade, then somebody's got a lot of explaining to do. And that somebody would be pretty upset if people realized the legs his or her explanation has been standing on are actually made of spaghetti.
How is analyzing that government-supplied footage (all of it, not just the 5 frames) any different from commenting on the NIST's Draft Report on WTC7? It too was filled with crap and some pretty smart people, using their expertise, proved NIST wrong. I'm using mine to demonstrate why the security cam footage is a fraud.
His story
The lawn was graveled up so the various first responder vehicles could traverse it without sinking. Plenty of photographic evidence exists of the lawn before this took place.
Indeed, you mentioned Thierry Meyssan, one of the worst misinformationists ever to plague this movement. It made me cringe.
Please, don't call me anti-truth. Truth is not "whatever most implicates the US government in the most sensationalist manner." Truth is determined by probabilistic inductive reasoning. By logic. By the scientific method. Resuscitating "Hunt The Boeing" as some way to buttress the non-starter that no plane crashed at the Pentagon is good way to discredit your argument from the get-go.
Suppose your analysis successfully unearths video manipulation. (I doubt it) If it is posted, it's going to be of little meaning, because a plane hit the Pentagon: the witness testimony shows it, the physical evidence demonstrates it, and there quite simply is no indication whatsoever that the 'Fab Five Frames' show anything else. Even if the 'Fab Five Frames' were altered; the immutable fact remains that a plane hit the Pentagon. If you disagree, I request you address every single point raised in this comment. Spin doesn't factor in in my work; the implication is insulting.
Scientific peer review is a good way to protect the 9/11 Truth Movement from yet another wasteful red herring, so it would behoove you to submit your analysis to the Journal of 9/11 Studies so that we can all be sure it's worth looking at before looking at it.
Like I said before, comparing the WTC investigation to what happened to the Pentagon is a mistake. In the case of the NIST investigation on WTC 7, it has already been established that the NIST report is fraudulent. Moreover, in the case of the WTC complex the Truth Movement has amalgamated witness testimony, physical and video evidence, supported with scientific studies. The comparison between the Pentagon on one hand and the WTC complex on the other is limp.
Yes, I say that a plane hit the Pentagon. After years of study, I am ready to say so. It is high time we drew a line in the sand, and prevent further harm to our movement.
Temerity
Since you don't address the evidence, I would say you are done too. There are only so many keystrokes to waste on people that talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
videos
Chris, you provide a link to your excellent site where you point out that some north path witnesses are also apparently "hit the Pentagon" witnesses. I am trying to make a list of video footage in which eye witnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Can you help?
Here's what I have
Sean Boger
Official interview 11-14-01 [audio]
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299
Sean Boger on 9/11 - At 1:29:03
"I was at the air traffic control tower and the soldier went down stairs to the rest room and I just looked outside the building and I see a plane run right in to the side of the Pentagon."
http://www.archive.org/details/911_News_Clips
NSA Supplemental - Starting at:
24:10 - Robert Turcios
35:50 - Sgt. Brooks
42:38 - Sgt Lagasse
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html
Keith Wheelhouse was in the Arlington National Cemetery.
At 9:36 ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760#
Craig's interview with Albert Hemphill MP3
"He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level." [@~7 min]
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/Albert-Hemphill-5-24-2010.mp3
here's a bunch:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-m...
getting it together.
Thanks guys. Does anyone have the ability and interest to string together the little bits where they say the plane hit the Pentagon into a short video?
Does anyone have a contact list of other people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who might be willing to be interviewed for a good cause?
Ignominious
There's a word for it.
Sent a message to the editor asking if I could write a follow-up piece for the next issue. Despite the fact that the RCFP was built on articles by people like me and others who regularly post here, my guess is that they will decline that opportunity.
Don't forget that RCFP benefited greatly from all the publicity given to them by 911blogger over the years. What a shame.
Craig Ranke has a brilliant presentation, but,,,
Since attending "Deconstructing the 9/11 Pentagon Attacks" July 11, 2009 event in Arlington, Va and doing my own "on the ground" research and interviews of some of the same persons, I have come to the conclusion that flight 77 most definitely hit the pentagon and the CIT are barking up the wrong tree with this "flyover theory" of theirs.
The caveat: I did research all materials CIT has to offer, Craig Ranke has a brilliant presentation, but all they have is a theory and they offer little evidence, essentially all they have is a "UFO story", with no witnesses to the "flyover" event. If you’re driving on I-95 to 395 and take the "pentagon city" mall exit, from that perspective you'll realize there would have been hundreds if not thousands of witnesses to a "flyover", which in reality there is not a single person even hinting of a "flyover".
Sanity talks
Thank you.
Pentagon Is Different Than WTC
With the WTC there is relatively abundant video which I have viewed and re-viewed and been able to see things for myself. With the Pentagon crash/explosion there essentially is no available video to analyze, so for myself, as a lay person, too much about the Pentagon is just "he said-she said" kind of arguments.
In my own mind I don't what happened exactly at the Pentagon, but that is primarily due to lack of much evidence of any kind.
Just my two cents. Peace
Nothing Compelling Yet
Penguin, I think a lot of us feel as you do. The evidence surrounding the Pentagon is too vague for the average observer to come to any concrete conclusions. At this point, the plane proponents and the no-plane proponents have failed to put forth anything that even comes close to what is coming out of groups like AE911Truth. And because so much progress is being made on other fronts, it doesn't bother me that the Pentagon remains unresolved.
hahaha
Sorry, I just can't help but laugh whenever the no planers get their panties in a bunch. I still see CIT discussed a lot around here, it's just that most people with working brains see it for what it is.
This is barely high school level journalism, and its riddled with lies and half-truths, typical of the no planers. I do however think its rather cheeky of blogger to post this article from the RCFP "newspaper", so Im getting a kick out of that.
Oh, hardly. But what is it... at worst?
Isn't that what the Pentagon no planers think of the 'fab five frames'?
"Well guys, those video frames were released by ..THE GOVERNMENT.. so they MUST be faked!"
Not to mention the "faked" damage at the Pentagon, the "faked" damage to the downed light poles and Lloyd Englands' windshield, the "faked" photos of plane parts and the "faked" photos of charred bodies in the seats. Its all fake, you see?
Dont forget, CIT would have you believe that Lloyd and his wife (WHO WORKED FOR THE FBI OMGLULZ) are totally in on it. But dont listen to me, Im just a Mossad agent who wants people to look the other way when it comes to the Pentagon, aint that right Zwicker?
Hmmm.. an incredible 'sleight-of-hand' to trick the eyes. The Pentagon no planers aren't too far removed from the bullshit once spewed by Morgan Reynolds and his ilk.
We now look back on Reynolds BS and laugh at how silly it all seems...hmmm.
Censorship? Not!
Those complaining of censorship just can't handle being rejected. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The posts are still there for those who want to read them but they don't clutter up the thread. This is a good thing IMO. There's about 30 off topic posts on this thread that should be voted into hiding IMO.
I get creamed for my position on the light poles but that's OK. I'm not emotionally tied to it. The down votes are very educational. There was one thread where I tried to make a point and got negative votes. I restated the point with more reasons and better clarity, and got voted up.
I would throw out
Someone that didn't know a honey pot from honey jar. ;-)
Whereas I agree ...
... that the pentacon/flyover theory (even NoC) is not strong enough to warrant associating equality with 9T's main arguments like WTC CD and therefore unnecessarily risking further cred damage, I surely do not understand the censorship of CIT's and their supporters posts, discussions and comments.
It is aparent that 911blogger is blogs and not all the info posted on their site is their opinion. And I don't believe that the vast majority of readers would care if they censored ridiculous arguments (e.g. WTCs destroyed by Lizardmen from Space) but despite my stance on the topic, I KNOW it is not ridiculous to consider pentacon/flyover/NoC 'likely' theories.
I do not fully understand how the home page 'news' articles get preference, but I'm guessing that if the scare is that CIT supporters may post 100 articles a day, the mods could choose how many or even which ones they will allow to be published there.
I really don't understand why pro-CIT comments (or any comments/questions about this type of censorship will not be posted. I myself have had questions I posted about it removed and emails ignored.
Greg Kramer
Cincinnati
I agree 100%
I think the above comment is the height of common sense - yet I see its been voted down - which I find incomprehensible.
I fear there are trolls here trying to destroy consensus by actions such as voting down a totally sensible statement like the above, and it worries me.
I say this not as a supporter of CIT (which I'm not) but as a supporter of open dialogue, and someone just wants to know the truth, whatever that is.
Of course there are trolls here
So what? The TRUTH can't be "voted" down. I get negative votes all the time with no comment or logic even attempting to explain the "no" votes.
Not this again
I have no strong opinions of what happened at the Pentagon and I doubt anyone would care if I did, but I think Kevin Ryan's recent piece provides a great outline for 911 Truth activists as to how best to approach the issue;
http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2010/10/a-dozen-questions-about-fligh...
"Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements."
If that's true, then Zwicker should have been aware that to insinuate, as he did, that critics of a rather far-out theory concerning the Pentagon are working for the government might not have been a very smart thing to do. I enjoyed Zwicker's early work. It's rather sad to see him engaging in these tactics.
We've all been doing it
I'm not saying you or me specifically, but in general, the movement (whoever that may comprise) is easy to point at people and say: "You're an agent! You're an agent".
First, most people don't even have the slightest clue about what they're actually saying when they accuse somebody of being a 'disinfo agent'. What is a 'disinfo agent'? Where do they all work? What kind of hard-hitting investigative pieces have exposed a network of CIA moles on ANY 9/11 truth site? It's the anonymity of the internet that fuels this paranoia. But absence of identification is not proof of 'disinfo agent'.
Second, such accusations are hurled back and forth without a sliver of evidence whatsoever. They spring into existence, simply because some self-anointed 9/11 truth leaders and followers fancy themselves mind readers.
Third, Zwicker is obsessed with this speculative cul-de-sac, because he would rather not admit he could actually be wrong about the Pentagon. I have literally studied hundreds, maybe even thousands of Pentagon photographs until my eyes were swollen, finally coming to the conclusion that it was all there... taking the laws of physics into account.. I had just been unwilling (or unable) to see it. I once started out taking seriously every single claim in "In Plane Site". We all know where that went, don't we. Yes, it woke me up. But I had rather been woken up by the 9/11 Family Members and their questions instead. Alas: such is the nature of the internet: it's a jungle of misinformation.
There's so much obvious evidence of Inside Jobiness
elsewhere that arguing about the Pentagon seems like a waste of time to me.
I've read the back & forths for awhile & don't know what to think except it is a waste of time.
FWIW I think all energy should be focused on spreading this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
Unfortunately, this article is riddled with misinformation
and misquotes, in addition to being very poorly written, imo.
I think it is worth noting that no one at RCFP would have their name associated with the article.
For the record, let me address the parts of the article which reference or paraphrase me.
The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.
Here their writers are mixing several comments together and completely out of context, thus creating a totally false impression of what I said.
While I did say I've " been busy; as a fulltime truth activist I have higher priorities" or something very similar, this was in reference to the repeated requests I have received to provide a thorough critique of the CIT NSA video, as my immediate critique of the video ( "this is a highly subjective analysis of subjective "evidence and is not conclusive evidence of anything") has never been satisfactory to these proponents of CIT's NSA video and the flyover theory.
[I should note here that I have never stated that the flyover theory is not possible, only that CIT has not proved anything conclusively through their research and the NSA video. That said, I do not think the flyover theory, as they present it, is very plausible.]
[ I should also note here that in resorting to this kind of yellow journalism, the proponents of CIT have given me even less of a reason to spend the many hours a full critique of the NSA video would require, and I’m probably not the only one who feels this way]
With regard to "despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly": The moderators at 911blogger are human, we make mistakes and each has our own bias, so yes, sometimes some rules are not enforced as equally as I think they should be in an ideal world, but I continue to try and work to make the moderating here as equitable as possible (and when anyone finds an ideal world, please let me know).
With regard to "the site has been in a state of transition", this refers to the sometimes messy process of upgrading the entire site and the amount of extra work the upgrade created for the moderators during the upgrade (some of which continues to date) as one reason why moderators, including myself, may not have been as responsive to the frequent emails demanding a response to their grievances as they would like. [This is a very busy site and responding to people who badger and/or break rules is not a high priority, nor should it be in my opinion]
Yes, some "personality conflicts have gotten out of hand" and this applies to more than just the conflict over CIT. One solution is to put people who constantly engage in personality based conflict into moderation or ban them out right, and this has been done with certain individuals after they were given repeated warnings (or been in and out of moderation). Personality conflicts are always unfortunate and detrimental, and always require at least two parties to create and perpetuate. I don’t think anyone who honestly supports 9/11 truth wants to see sites over run with personality conflicts and perpetual conflict.
Moving on, the article states:
Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?
This rhetorical question is ridiculous on its face and the writer(s) should be embarrassed to expose such sloppy research and/or reasoning in public. Yes, Barrie’s video was removed because it could be interpreted in a way that implied that the moderators at 911blogger (myself included) were disinfo agents and that is strictly against the site rules. When I asked Mr. Zwicker to clarify the ambiguity in his video on this point, he declined and stated that the ambiguity was intentional. I’m still trying to sort out his intention here, as this kind of ambiguity all but guarantees that someone will misinterpret and consequently misuse the quote for their own purposes (as perhaps is the case here).
[ I should note here that I consider Barrie Zwicker a friend and asset to the truth movement, and continue to try and resolve this situation in an amicable manner, as does he ]
If one looks through the archives of the site there is plenty of evidence of discussion of disinformation, including acknowledging that it exists. However, there is a distinct difference between discussing disinformation and allowing unfounded accusations to be asserted.
The 9/11 truth movement, including this site, is a work in progress. We need to keep our focus on educating the public with the most credible, most accessible and least controversial evidence possible while at the same time continue researching the events of 9/11 as best we can. There is a natural tension between research and public education that can create divisions, if not handled carefully and with discipline.
Finally, even though I may have relatively minor disagreements over some moderation issues here at 911blogger, I know that the other moderators are well-intentioned activists who work extremely hard to insure that this site remains the excellent asset for the 9/11 truth movement that it is. I am proud to be associated with this site and enjoy working with the other moderators very much.
I will continue to work to keep this site as dynamic and transparent as possible and encourage anyone with questions, suggestions or complaints to email me directly.
I hope that all of you and yours are well.
...
LW, thank you for your work, and honesty.
It is a little bit weird that
It is a little bit weird that the attack piece is so deferential to the official dogma of the no plane hit the pentagon people. If the evidence was really so overwhelming then why is it failing to generate consensus the way convincing and conclusive evidence usually does? The reason is that the evidence being provided is riddled with problems, not the least of which is its failure to cohere with available photos and eyewitness accounts. Nobody should feel threatened or bowed by this attack because it is just another inevitable step toward mainstream respectability for the movement, and a sign that we are getting there. With the path laid out for the most promising lines of inquiry I think some of the folks are becoming nostalgic for the good old days of rampant speculation. Either that or there is some cointelpro shit going on. Either way the truth is winning the day. And seriously people, just look at the pictures of the plane engine parts and plane crash victims still strapped in their seats. These photos plus the eyewitness accounts and the fact that AA77 never reached its destination should make this issue a no brainer to any halfway reasonable person. And in my opinion the famous five frames depict the crash. We knew that winning the information war would not be easy and proceed in a straight line.
I've never seen the photo
I plane crash victims at the Pentagon still in their SEATS? That's hard to believe, given the nature of the supposed impact there..
The parts strewn around I have seen, and it still doesn't convince me that a Boeing 757 was responsible for the initial impact damage and lack of lawn damage leading up to the wall, prior to the outer wall collapse. No Boeing hit there and no person who's really LOOKED at it could possibly draw that conclusion.
The problem again is with the eyewitness accounts who saw a Boeing at the scene, and no I'm not saying there wasn't one there, which to me supports "the flyover" scenario, but again, not the best way to approach our campaign I agree, since it's ripe with apparent speculation and conjecture, and, therefore with reasonable doubt.
Pentagon victim photo
MOD EDIT replaced extremely graphic embed of Pentagon victim with link.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
Now, I am not exactly sure this depicts a plane passenger strapped in his seat, and it isn't claimed in the exhibit text either. But I do know this is the picture commonly referenced when this point is made. I am sorry for posting this, this is a distressing picture, but we should not avoid any questions that are asked when it comes to the Pentagon.
And Robert, about a hundred witnesses saw a large commercial airliner crash there. You should study the effects on objects that collide at high speed and kinetic energy. The physics is complex, and not intuitive. Were there much more plane parts at the WTC than at the Pentagon?
You know I need to be careful
You know I need to be careful here and qualify my assertion. I cannot say that I know this to be a passenger strapped in a seat on reflection, but the photos are from the crash scene and many argue there are no bodies at the crash scene
Mind you there is witness testimony, too
As Jim quoted:
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
"Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes"
"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
Rense.com (no alternative)
So even when that photo does not depict a plane passenger still in his seat, there is witness testimony. And there might be many gruesome pictures withheld from the public for reasons of privacy for the 9/11 family members. If that was my family right there, I would be heartbroken to see them on the internet. I would try to prevent that from happening, so that a bunch of .... can debate over whether or not the event that killed that my family member was an impossible combination of explosives designed to fake a plane crash with an actual plane flying as cover. (???)
(Isn't it obvious that flyover is all a bunch of B.S.?)
Will The Real Truth Advocate Please Stand Up?
If in fact Justin Keogh had a hand in censoring Dwain Deets supportive comments for CIT then that should be complimented. Both Dwain and Justin have/now served on the board of directors for AE911Truth.org - it must have been a hard decision for Justin but I support it. If the issue of infiltration is to be seriously considered then it should be that issue within the ranks of AE911Truth during the time of its 1000 member press conference surrounding one of its errant board members-Jeffrey Orling and his associate Gary Trujillo.
CIT has been seriously disruptive of the cohesiveness of the 911 Truth Movement and 911 Blogger's response to it is fair and well considered.
Missing from the entire Pentagon debate is the most convincing form of evidence and that is photographic, videographic and ample material from a multi-country consortium of spy satellite data that exists to this day, in great detail of the air space and locales above ground zero, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Rather than engaging the CIT challenge that eats the Truth Movement alive, we ought to focus our efforts on obtaining more evidence, like that mentioned above.
Our real friends and our best efforts are those that focus on developing hard and fast evidence. CIT and its supporters, no matter who they are, have failed the movement in this regard.
John Parulis
Go to this web address and
Go to this web address and tell me what you see. Draw your own conclusions. 911research/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#parts. These pictures have been public domain for some time but seeing them changed my views about the nature of the available evidence concerning the pentagon some years back
I find this whole article
I find this whole article unfortunate, to say the least, but I hope a full accounting of the exchange between RFCP and the managers of 9/11 blogger is forthcoming. If 9/11 blogger did not respond to requests for rebuttal from RCFC from September, that is a serious administrative lapse of responsibility from the 'premeire 9/11truth news site' .
That said, I have also just ended my 100 copy a month subscription to RCFP, until they formally agree to print a full rebuttal by Kevin Ryan in their next issue.
All of this is very painful, like two best friends fighting over a manipulative tramp that neither should really want for more than an evening.
A little exchange...
Between Aldo Marquis and I on facebook. This is only part of it. But I wanted to show what type of individual and liar Aldo Marquis is.
Aldo Marquis
Jon, you are not a researcher. You are no one to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't believe or research. You are so ignorant, that this entire time you've been attacking us/deterring people from our findings you've actually believed ...that we promote that there was no plane involved in the Pentagon attack at all. Shows how much you know about our research to begin with, let alone real research-so why should anyone believe you?
We get it Jon, you love Israel. They can do no wrong. Why do you spend so much time defending them? Why can't you focus on real evidence, Jon? Why do you have so much invested in removing suspicion from Israel? Either way, I can care less. However, i do care when i see you dragging our name through the mud without even understanding the basic tenets of our findings.
Yes or no, Jon, have you even watched the interviews with the witnesses who place the plane on the north side of the gas station? Do you agree, no, do you understand that a plane on the north path CAN NOT hit the light poles, show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the gate cam vid, and hit the Pentagon?See More
Jon Gold
Hi Aldo... I don't think we've ever spoken before. First off... I'd like you to read this entire exchange...
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97772&postcount=1
The reason I want you to read it is because of your statements, "We get it Jon, you love Israel. They can do no wrong. Why do you spend so much time defending them? Why can't you focus on real evidence, Jon? Why do you have so much invested in removing suspicion from Israel?"
Also... did you see this profile pic I had posted the other day from when Cindy Sheehan and I protested Netanyahu's visit to the White House?
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs286.snc4/40634_41726829528...
Also, read Facts #1, #21, and #50 in this article.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090104025547844
Everything you said in that paragraph was a complete lie. Every single thing you said. Those people who see my posts KNOW that I post more about Israel than MOST people, and NOT in a good light.
You don't know what a "researcher" is Aldo. You're not even an honest person. I would never promote your work based on this simple fact. You're a liar.
End Post
The fact of the matter is, just like "Pods on a plane", "Mini-nukes", "Holograms", "TV Fakery", "Exotic Weaponry/Space Beams", "CGI", "witnesses are actors", "No planes at the WTC", etc... CIT is a campaign just like all the rest. People concoct a theory, and make a snazzy video or two. Teams of individuals then start promoting it on all 9/11 sites. The people promoting it act like @ssholes, and as a result, those 9/11 sites ban the @ssholes. Then the @ssholes act as though they're being censored when the fact of the matter is, their information is bubkus, and it's not censorship, but instead, being responsible for a cause that is EXTREMELY important. Rinse and repeat.
I've seen it too many times to count.
Yesterday, on Roseanne Barr's website, I was confronted by someone who was trying to paint me as something sinister, using RCFP's article.
"A question for Jon Gold: How about that Rock Creek Free Press article about 911Blogger being a "controlled opposition" group to suppress evidence about 911? Weren't you one of the founders of 911Blogger, Jon?"
I responded with the truth...
"911Blogger.com has been in different hands for a long time now. First to Reprehensor, and now to Jkeogh. In fact, I never owned/moderated/ran any part of that site. I just provided its content in the beginning at Roger Peter's request. Which, incidentally, helped to propel that site to being one of the most popular "9/11 Truth Sites" on the internet. The story in Rock Creek Free Press is laughable, and that's all I have to say about it "John."
I originally supported Rock Creek Free Press. I will never support them again.
Zwicker is a joke. Back in 2008, when Kevin Barrett was running for office, his "PR Manager" Rolf Lindgren was attacking members of the movement left and right ATROCIOUSLY. Zwicker defended Barrett no matter what. Just as Carol Brouillet recently did with regards to what Kevin Barrett and Adam Syed did to Cosmos.
Zwicker accuses anyone that doesn't support CIT of being agents. Oh really? I seem to remember someone saying, "what’s needed is politically relevant education. Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics… While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation. Especially specific name-calling. Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate, based on observable facts, statements and patterns. Education drains the swamp. Most of agents will stand out. It’s happening already. Other agents are deeper. Understanding their purposes and identifying them and dealing with them depends on more education yet." It was Barrie Zwicker that said that.
The bottom line is, judge a person by the fruits of their labor.
Edit:
Roseanne Barr For 9/11 Truth
The first person who showed me Rock Creek Free Press...
was none other than the vicious charlatan, Webster Tarpley. This was back when Tarpley played the semi-reserved big tent encourager role (he would always say, especially on the NHaupt and JFetzer episodes of Tarp's radio show "World Crisis Radio" statements like 'we must not censor discussion of these theories regardless of how far fetched they sound.' ) while inviting folks like Nico Haupt, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and David Shayler on his show to spout off on their speculative theories and hard-lined extremism. It appears lines are being drawn in the sand and I am happy to see that blogger is doing the right thing. At least the RCFP is outing itself as an extremist laden paper which we need not waste our time with anymore. Jon Golds comment and quotes above also make a very powerful statement as to the intentions of CIT.
R.I. P. Rock Creek Free
R.I. P. Rock Creek Free Press. Died here today on the e-shores of 911Blogger- one of the standard setters for the entire movement.
Harsh but Fair!
You've got to stand for something in this f&%ked up world:)
Regards John
I do
if it's Rosemary's baby.
Pentagon
Odd how the easiest part of the 9/11 lie is ignored in favor of the hardest.
Avenue of least resistance.
We lose.
Please allow all
researchers, including aviation professionals, to post their findings on 9/11 blogger. Let the chips fall were they may. All discussion should be open. Please, no name calling and finger pointing, it looks bad to newcomers.
My guess is that there are fewer disinformation agents out there than many suspect. But even if they are all over the place, there is not much we can do about it. We need to stick together and share information in an open and honest fashion. We need to operate from a position of strength, not fear. We need to welcome everybody who’s goal appears to be getting to the truth about 9/11!
Thanks for all your work on 9/11 blogger.
I think
that this is the best 9/11 truth site on the Internet. I just wish they would drop the ratings system and would have some open threads like we had at one time. I think the rating system just causes animosity. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions.
I agree
It generates discord, not harmony.
I don't mind them & they really don't mean too much
they are a seemingly decent way to cut out bs.
why is it.....
....that the personalities and entities in this movement that often exhibit suspicious inconsistencies keep doing more of it...... and louder? And they're always defending each other. In my brief career as a 911T activist, I've experience the fallout of the poison pen first-hand. And It's always from the same pool.
911Blogger ROCKS and RCFP is jealous.
high school
911truthers can distinguish clearer than anyone those who are attempting to bring us together under a banner of credibility versus those who are regularly on the divisive cutting edge of internal controversy.
RCFP wants the power and credibility of 911Blogger without earning it.
No Deal.
Please check my profile
and tell me what else you think I should include.
Thanks.
Well Done LeftWright
You have a well documented profile. I only wish others would be more forthcoming. In my opinion, it's kind of like the DOD not showing us the tapes they supposedly have of the Pentagon on 9/11 because of National Security concerns. That's a bunch of BS. Everyone in this movement should know they can't hide from the prying eyes of this government using a username so why not give a complete profile so others can have some idea who they're dealing with. We don't have to give addresses and phone numbers out, just a city and state, and we should just summarize our adult years. It's then up to the person if they want use their research skills to dig further to see if what is being used in a persons profile is legitimate information.
...
Alas, some of us have to hide identify due to work-place concerns. Call it cowardly. Or realistic?
On your point above, I agree. It is very good to have people with LeftWright's integrity on board, and doing so much.
We're all "in on it"
4 Blatant lies really stick out from the article:
1. "However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer." Lie
2. "For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon" Lie
3. "no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn." Lie
(read a f**king book....)
http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055#_
4. "CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away." Lie
Then Adam chimes in with....
"In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon."
And that kids....is why I call them "No Planers"
But at least he has something new to put in his scrap book. Look! My name is in the paper! LOL!
Thanks Rockcreek press for getting the word out that blogger isn't going for No plane garbage and is interested in reality. You just destroyed any credibility you thought you had. Brilliant move! The cultists can go hang out somewhere else.
Since Barrie Z asked a couple of questions in the pathetic article I have some of my own...
Who is "in on it" in this article... Sgt Williams, or the reporter who filed the story?....
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm
The answer of course is they are all "in on it". He's a SGT so he has to be in on it, and the reporter works for USA Today, and CIT has already fingered that entire company as a CIA front. I've been accused as well and I will confess Ya got me I'm actually the "handler" for Keith Wheelhouse and Mike Walter...I'm actually Jimd3100Stein, nice to meet you.
So if self professed experts on the pentagon can't even be bothered to read a f**king book on the subject, why should anyone take these guys seriously?
As seen here CIT and Pilots for truth tend to ..."work together"
http://thepentacon.com/discussion.htm
Someone goes on their "partner" forum P4T and has the nerve to ask a reasonable question...the nerve!
"Having read from various sources a little bit of the description of the recent 'Firefight' book I wondered if it had been read and considered by anyone involved with Pilots For Truth. The book is apparently a detailed account of the experiences of firefighters to the Pentagon incident. I haven't read it myself, but short excerpts from the book seem to document bodies of passengers, luggage, plane parts etc, which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory."
"How does the content of the book fit in with Pilots For Truth's campaign? Will information from the book be incorporated into future PfT material?"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13950&st=0
Seems like a reasonable question.
What kind of response does he get?
"What is your stance on what happened at the Pentagon, Alex?" --Aldo CIT
LOL! No he's not interested in reading a silly book,...in other words.... are you with us or against us? LOL!
"It amounts to nothing but propaganda." --Ranke CIT
LOL.....said the guy who never read it either and isn't interested.
"Do we have to buy the book? Or do they give it out for free as we do all our presentations... Are they making money off 9/11? Do we have to buy "truth"?" --Balsamo P4T
LOL! Said the guy who just bragged about selling 20 DVDs due to his latest BS publicity stunt. Guess going to a public library would be to much trouble.
The "infiltrator" speaks again....
"Interesting responses. Nobody claims to have read the book, or seems to indicate that they want to. This seems to me a crying shame, particularly given it directly tackles a key incident in PilotsForTruth's campaign. Maybe it would be worth getting a copy?"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13950&st=0
Yea, that seems reasonable. These folks don't give a damn about the truth.
"Do we have to buy the book? Or do they give it out for free as we do all our presentations... Are they making money off 9/11? Do we have to buy "truth"?"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13950&st=0
Balsamo reminds everyone again that he doesn't know what a library is.
I read it, and it cost me $0. But I know what a library is. But the people that wrote the book are not experts and neither am I, we are all "in on it" and so is 911blogger....does it get any more pathetic?
Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon
the book you referenced above, published in 2008, states on page 24 about the approaching plane allegedly about to fly into the Pentagon: "It was travelling more than 500 miles per hour and was less than 30 feet off the ground".......
many professional pilots have serious problems with the idea of a boeing 757 being able to fly at those speeds at that level, since, as i have heard from many different sources, the air is too dense to fly at that speed at that low level.
to me, this is a huge problem with the official story about flight 77.
i have other problems with the official story on flight 77, such as why it was not shot down etc., the testimony of the secretary of transportation contradicting vp cheney....
but the physical capacity of a boeing 757 to do what it did that day, and to do so with the alleged hijacker we are told pulled off the manuever, is deeply problematic...
Show me
the Boeing test data for a 757 proving your position.
does john lear's testimony have any credibility?
he seems to have tons of experience as a military and civilian pilot, and he also seems to not believe the official story of the arab hijackers being the ones in control of the planes hitting either the twin towers nor the pentagon.
now, i am not claiming to know exactly what happened, but what confuses me is why there is such powerful resistance to taking seriously the testimony of former airforce and commercial pilots, like john lear and many others, that are deeply skeptical of the official story of who and what was actually hitting the pentagon.
do we have a list of which former airline pilots are to be taken seriously and those who are not?
For the record
I despise Mark Roberts, but were you to bring this argument to him in a debate, this would be his response (it's his clip, I think, hence the NWO banter)
You have to make sure people like Mark Roberts can't pin you down.
Here is something you should know about John Lear.
Please read this as well. John Bursill is a "Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, Avionics - Boeing 737/767/747 Series"
All planes land
And the plane was still descending (landing) when it landed into the first floor of the pentagon. Or maybe everyone was "fooled"? Landing a plane at high speed is dangerous though and highly recommended that it not be done, as it's dangerous, and sure enough....everyone on board died.
Sure enough!
... I could freely laugh if it wasn't so damn tragic. It's like the "ground effect" nonsense: it implies an uncrashable plane, as long as you fly fast enough.
Ever seen a 707 do a barrel roll?
I don't know how fast this 757 is going... should it have come apart?
Like John Bursill said: where is the Boeing test data? All this is conjecture.
Thanks mate...well laid out!
Kind regards John
One thing I know...
And I don't know who the true perpetrators of the attacks were, but what I do know is that "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime."
You know who the "actual perpetrators" are?
Please do tell us all and provide all the credible evidence you have to support your claim.
It is an absolutely ridiculous argument that anyone or anything is off limits on this site, as long as it is related to the events of 9/11/01 and is credible.
After seven years of very steady research, I only have a long and growing list of persons and organizations of interest, and they come from many countries.
Well let's see:
Cosmic Fingerprints were left by:
The PNAC boys
The mossad camera crew
The lying generals
The Vice President
The President
Norad
The FAA
Larry Silverstein
The FBI
The 911 Commission
The secretary of State
Other charges would include accesory to murder, obstruction of justice, torture, withholding evidence in a murder investigation and treason.
I accept most of that
with the exception of the Secretary of State. He was out of the country and I don't think that happened by accident. Powell was being used constantly by the Bush administration, until he had enough and quit in 2005. Undoubtedly, the way he was framed to push the lies about Iraqi WMD by George Tenet and the war hawks had something to do it.
I was also thinking of rice when she said no one was
ever thinking of planes being flown into buildings.
A false dichotomy divides us
Unlike most of the previous splits in the 9/11 community, this one about the Pentagon attack is founded on a false dichotomy. Both sides are arguing with some truth, and weak assumptions about the rest. Both sides feel justified in pushing their bit of truth, and condemning those who question the rest, since they feel themselves being unfairly criticized.
The solution to this division into two incompatible sides is careful rational thinking and honest admission when there is lack of solid evidence. I'm glad to see that 911blogger and the people who are attracted to this site prefer the rational side, (in my opinion) at least most of the time. I've seen those supporting the CIT side, including many at P4T and a few other places, being much more irrational and emotional, and thus their little bit of truth gets drowned out in disbelief by the rest of us.
Here is my summary of the arguments, their strengths and weaknesses. I'm being rather vague on the details, trying to emphasize the overall thrust of the arguments so you can see the dilemma we are in.
CIT claims flyover is proven, but based on what?
1. Several witnesses to the North of Citgo flight path, whose testimony seems very believable. This is the only part that some supporters of CIT agree with.
2. Suspicious downed light poles, which seem irreconcilable with NoC path. This seems debatable and not clearly proven one way or the other.
3. Suspicious impact zone, which seems debatable at best, and substantially disproved by detractors.
4. Lack of large debris on the lawn, which is a clear misunderstanding of the physics of high-speed impacts.
5. Only one supposed witness to a plane flying over, about which almost every detail is fuzzy. Several of CITs witnesses of the NoC path also claim they saw the impact, and none claim they saw a flyover.
6. Suspiciously neat round exit hole (and two other holes) on the inner ring of the C wall.
Not much of a case for flyover, in my opinion. Based on the very believable witnesses to the NoC path, and some loose arguments about some irreconcilable path, though skipping the possibility of an impact path that excludes taking out the light poles, and basically wildly guessing about the rest, CIT and supporters make this out to be a clear proof.
Meanwhile, opponents of the flyover hypotheses (it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory) rightly criticize all the points I also criticize above, but they go further.
1. Witnesses can be confused about the precise path of the plane, but seeing an impact followed by an explosion is fairly unmistakable. Many witnesses saw the impact from many directions, while no one (arguably) saw a flyover, and many should have seen a flyover if it happened. This is all very reasonable, and most people agree, and CIT has to stretch things enormously to argue otherwise.
2. The light pole damage seems reasonable, and most people might assume it is, but few have examined this issue closely. The same is true of the interior damage.
3. The impact zone, light debris outside, the light pole damage, and interior damage is all consistent with a South of Citgo path. This is very reasonable, but by itself this consistency does not prove it happened that way.
4. South of Citgo witnesses? - um, I don't think I have seen any that are really South of Citgo witnesses. Witnesses of the impact are not witnesses of South of Citgo, unless you can prove the impossibility of any other path.
5. The North of Citgo path seems irreconcilable with the path through the light poles and the other directional damage, including the C ring exit holes, therefore we should be willing to dismiss their testimony as untrue. This is going too far, in my book.
So here is the essence of the division: On the one side we have CIT arguing that the North of Citgo witnesses and other loose arguments prove flyover, and on the other side, detractors of CIT argue that the South of Citgo path is consistent with all the evidence except for the North of Citgo witnesses, therefore they must have been mistaken.
Furthermore, neither side is admitting that there are any weaknesses in their arguments. And neither side is willing to seriously consider the possibility of a different path that goes through the North of Citgo area and also involves an impact with the Pentagon. Both sides seem to assume that such a path is impossible, but neither side has really proven it.
So here I am arguing against almost everyone, so I am not expecting this will be a popular posting. I suspect Chris Sarns is on my side, since he is one of the stanchest defenders of careful critical reasoning I have seen here.
RCFP's Waterloo
BY RCFP STAFF WRITERS
In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.
Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.
But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.
The mass bannings are not random, but directed at, among others, users who support the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). (The RCFP ran front page articles about CIT in the April 2009 and July 2009 issues. All back issues are available as PDFs at rockcreekfreepress.com.)
The uninitiated are urged to read those 2009 articles to get the full picture, but a drastically reduced summary is: no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT showed, through interviews of seventeen eyewitnesses, that the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon flew over it and away, as explosives simultaneously detonated inside the building. This created an enormous fireball, filling the sky with dense, black smoke, which obscured the escaping plane. Observers who saw the plane head toward the Pentagon, and next saw the fireball, falsely but understandably concluded that the plane had hit the building. However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer.
But don't let the inaccuracy bother you, after all, RCFP goes on to claim that the witnesses CIT interviewed saw a flyover. This is a lie, the witnesses emphatically say they saw the plane hit. And Roosevelt Roberts cannot possibly have witnessed a 'flyover', because his account is physically impossible. The way his witness account is represented by CIT is not Mr. Roberts' fault.
CIT has been endorsed by many of the leading figures of the 9/11 truth movement, including Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, University of California at Berkeley professor and author Peter Dale Scott, author David Ray Griffin, and actor Ed Asner. In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon. For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.
Not even David Ray Griffin could resist inserting some nuance in his endorsement of "National Security Alert": "The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it."
Unfortunately for Mr. Griffin, it doesn't make any case for flyover whatsoever, because that would require flyover witnesses, and there are none.
As for the plane wreckage: where were the wings, tail, fuselage, luggage and bodies at the World Trade Center? Why the differing expectations? The plane never struck the lawn, so it's normal that there are no 'skid marks'. RCFP are feverishly bayoneting their own straw man. After the crash, the lawn was anything but pristine:
Where were the bodies? Inside the Pentagon:
Or see this photo or this photo or this photo or this photo.
Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?
Before looking at the evidence that 911blogger is censoring the truth about the Pentagon and promoting disinformation, let’s look briefly at why this matters and what their motivations might be.
From Thierry Meyssan, to Gerhard Wisnewski to Nico Haupt, Sophia Shafquat, Eric Hufschmid, Kevin Barret, Webster Tarpley, Jim Fetzer, Judy Woods, to CIT, baseless conjecture and junk science has been propped up as '9/11 research'. Research which turned out not only to be incorrect, but so catastrophically false, the damage inflicted required years to repair. 'Flyover' is the new mini nuke. The new space beam. The new directed energy weapon. The difference is, this time, the canard is concocted so elaborately, so perniciously and is perpetuated with such unremitting aggression that it becomes almost impossible for the 'uninitiated' and even the 'initiated' to untangle. It is without a doubt the most dangerous wild goose chase ever to plague this movement. Like a dark cloud, it casts a shadow over anyone it approaches, including prominent researches we knew and loved. The editors at RCFP apparently have no sense of what is fact and what is not. What is scientific and what is not. RCFP should have a long, hard look in the mirror.
Although the entire 9/11 story is full of holes, the evidence proving that no plane hit the Pentagon stands in a class by itself, because a deception at the Pentagon is unspinnable. It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon. The military headquarters for the most powerful nation on earth is a very secure place, and evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government. Hence, for those trying to keep a lid on the truth, it is absolutely imperative that the facts about what happened at the Pentagon not get out.
Infiltration of the enemy is a common tool of warfare, and it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement, to prevent it from doing them (the perps) any damage.
Why activists are so alarmed
Barrie Zwicker is an award-winning journalist, lecturer, author and documentary producer. He was astute enough to question the official 9/11 story from day one, as it was happening. He produced one of the first 9/11 Truth documentaries, “The Great Conspiracy”, in 2003. His most recent book, Towers of Deception, explores the media’s role in covering up the truth about 9/11. Based in Toronto, Canada, Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements. When Zwicker peaks, people listen.
This summer, via YouTube, Zwicker created a ringing endorsement of CIT’s “National Security Alert” video. He not only enthusiastically applauded CIT’s work and their conclusion (that the plane seen at the Pentagon overflew the building as explosives were detonated), Zwicker delivered a stinging rebuke to CIT’s detractors:
“To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”
Zwicker submitted the video endorsement to 911Blogger on July 22, 2010.
Now, this is big news in the truth community. For someone of Zwicker’s stature to provide unambiguously enthusiastic support of citizen investigators, on an issue that has not (until now) had clear answers (namely, what happened at the Pentagon), is important to everyone in the truth community. But incredibly, Zwicker’s post to 911blogger was never published.
Zwicker, ever the gentleman, politely emailed the 911blogger moderators, asking why his entry wasn’t approved. He never received a reply from any of the four moderators.
However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.” The amateurish writing and ad hominem attacks are evident from the very first paragraph:
“Some time ago I wrote an article about not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that’s not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn’t mean they won’t be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.”
In part because of this decision by 911blogger, to reject Barrie Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT while publishing a childish hit piece from an anonymous source, Southern California 9/11 truth activist and We Are Change LA member Adam Ruff wrote:
“In my view it is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good truthers.”
How much damage was done with this undertaking? How will this affect future litigation? It appears to me that Arcturus, the one who posted "CIT is useless", has it right, and RCFP has it wrong. Judging from how we're doing so far, this is becoming a trend.
The RCFP interviewed Zwicker via email
RCFP: What do you find most compelling about CIT’s work?
Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.
RCFP: What do you make of those who say they appreciate CIT’s work but do not think they proved “flyover?”
Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.
Is that possible Mr. Zwicker? No, of course it isn't. Thus, Roosevelt Roberts is not a flyover witness, laughable subterfuge about cardinal directions notwithstanding.
RCFP: Have you read the criticisms of CIT’s work from Arabesque, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and do you think they have merit?
Zwicker: They lack merit because they do not provide counter-evidence. They have no firsthand eyewitness interviews from people who specifically place the plane to the south side of the gas station. Those I could weigh against the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT. As far as I can see, Arabesque, whoever that is (I don’t care for anonymity), Hoffman and Ashley have provided none at all. They take snippets of third-hand printed media quotes, none of which are actually South of Citgo witnesses, just statements by people who said they saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, one particular detractor blog by “Caustic Logic” quotes a few people as “witnesses” who were not even in the area at the time of the attack! One was in North Carolina, arrived in DC the afternoon of 9/11, saw the downed light poles, and was thus presented as a “light pole witness.” This is in a blog entry titled “The South Path Impact: Documented.”
Of course, there is no need to provide "counter-evidence" to unproven allegations. Nor is there any justification for trusting CIT around witnesses.
RCFP: What conclusions do you draw from 911blogger refusing to post your endorsement of CIT?
Zwicker: Actually, my endorsement was briefly posted for about 30 minutes, then withdrawn. It’s painful for me to learn that 911blogger, which I consider to be the premiere 9/11Truth site, is censoring CIT and those who support CIT. Even more distressing is that 911blogger has failed to censor some quite rude comments about CIT’s work and its team members. So it’s clearly one-sided. One conclusion that can be drawn is that there are players behind the scenes who have prevailed upon the moderators at 911blogger to stultify CIT and its findings. Since the censorship is so blatant and carries with it obvious penalties in the form of loss of credibility, those behind the censorship orders must really have their knickers in a knot about something. It’s a clear sign that those who control that website are trying to control thought when it comes to the Pentagon. Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon. That the most visited 9/11 truth website would be so hostile towards evidence that supports this widely held belief within the ranks of Truthers is at the least disconcerting.
So, what about the 'real world'? Does 911blogger reside in the 'fake' world? That reminds me of Sarah Palin's deeply confused meanderings about the 'real America'.
In the 'real world', Mr. Zwicker, when roughly a hundred witnesses say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon or saw it in a position where it would be impossible to pull up and 'fly over' the Pentagon, you take their testimonies to heart. In the 'real world', when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a 'flyover', you disembark before the sinking ship takes you with it. In the real world, when one of CIT's star witnesses, Pentagon police officer William Lagasse says this:
Then you take them seriously, and you question those who would con this man into participating in a documentary that does not reflect his full account of what happened that day. Witness testimony can be notoriously flawed, which is why CIT pretends to rely on 'corroboration'. Of course, those wwo do not 'corroborate' are all attacked and baselessly declared 'disinformation agents'. Similar to what RCFP is doing to 911blogger right now.
In the real world, when an innocent, impressionable cabbie, who was nearly killed on 9/11, in other words, a victim and a survivor, is referred to as "the first known accomplice" who has made a "virtual confession", then you ask yourself if these allegations are truly justified.
In the real world, Mr. Zwicker, when the plane knocked down light poles locking it into a southern flight path, when the plane confetti is littered over the Pentagon lawn, when the facade has the outline of a hull and most of the wings, when there is directional damage, including passenger and hijacker DNA, when a friend of John Judge was toured around the gruesome scene at the Pentagon and shown remains and/or personal belongings of her flight attendant colleagues, when there is a plane engine component matching the one used in AA 77, where there is clear evidence of an engine hitting a generator, moving it towards the Pentagon, when there is a cut into the top of the generator from the flap track, when a fence post by the generator is dented towards the Pentagon, when there is foundation damage near the facade, then....You accept that a plane hit the Pentagon. That's what we do in the real world. You're welcome to join us.
A little more than a month after Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT was rejected, the situation repeated itself, when retired NASA aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets recorded a video endorsement of CIT on August 30, 2010 and submitted it to 911blogger. Once again, 911blogger refused, without explanation, to post the endorsement of a highly qualified professional.
Prior to 911blogger rejecting these video endorsements from Zwicker and Deets, nearly all users at 911blogger who were vocal in their support of CIT had been banned. An informal poll easily came up with 25 former users of 911blogger who had been banned without explanation—about half of whom are CIT supporters.
Three of the most well-informed, articulate and prolific CIT supporters were banned simultaneously on May 24, 2010, while in the midst of a heated online debate with 911blogger moderator Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke). Truth activist Stefan S. of London, England explains it:
“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.
“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.
“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.
“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.
“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”
Response from 911blogger
Other than from moderator John Wright (aka LeftWright), who stressed that he was giving only his own personal views, not those of the website, there has been no response from 911blogger to questions emailed to them on September 15, 2010 about their treatment of Citizen Investigation Team. The email, which stated that the Rock Creek Free Press was working on an article about 911blogger and wanted to include their side of the story, was sent to the current email addresses for site owner Justin Keogh and moderators Erik Larson, Ted Tilton, Jr. and John Wright, as well as to the joint email address for the “blogger team.”
John Wright stated on September 16 that he was available for a phone interview, but, as of press time on October 23, has not replied to an email sent on October 5 to arrange that interview.
The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.
Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?
Truth activist and professional orchestral musician Adam Syed of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was banned during the debate with Larson in May, offered this comment on the censorship at 911blogger:
“Arguments in an online forum may at first glance seem to be of interest only to diehard keyboard warriors. But without the Internet, most of us would never have learned about 9/11—certainly the traditional media won’t go near it. 9/11 truth lives or dies on the Internet, and when the most heavily trafficked truth site decides to suppress certain evidence, it obviously makes it harder for people to learn the truth and figure out what happened. In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon. Now, why would any genuine truther ask us to turn our backs on such damning, unspinnable evidence?”
Answer: they wouldn’t.
Answer: nothing.
Editor’s note: We welcome your comments on the situation at 911blogger; please send them to editor@rockcreekfreepress (dot) com.
(A small portion of the) References:
Pentagon eyewitness Steve Gerard
Pentagon eyewitness Tim Timmerman #1
Pentagon eyewitness Tim Timmerman/Dawn Vignola #2
Pentagon eyewitness Dawn Vignola #3 (Is the heliport high enough for a flyover?)
Pentagon eyewitness Mike Walter (No, he doesn't support 'North of Citgo')
Pentagon eyewitness Don Wright (Says it happened at 9:35, R.I.P. 9:30)
Pentagon eyewitness Michael Kelly (Saw pieces of the plane fly)
Pentagon eyewitness Joel Sucherman
Pentagon eyewitness Omar Campos
Interviews by Jeff Hill: "9/11 Pentagon Eyewitnesses - Plane hit the building"
Albert Hemphill
Alan Wallace
Noel Sepulveda
Keith Wheelhouse
Lincoln Liebner
Steve Storti
Conversation with researcher and lecturer John Judge
The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 by John Judge
CIT even made a video about south flight path witnesses:
"The USA Today Parade" (Hat tip to Chris Sarns)
The "Fab Five Frames", 3D presentation of flight path, light poles, physical evidence and impact
Pentagon engine remnant
Technical comparison of the Pentagon engine remnant to a 757 engine
Diagonal cut to the generator
More about the generator
ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'
ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole'
ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'
Columns 'up and out' myth
Eric Bart's Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation
Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation by 'SomeGuyYouDontKnow33' (Overlaps with Bart's compilation)
Summary and Analysis of National Security Alert by Chris Sarns
Dr. Frank Legge — What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
And last, but certainly not least: Adam Larson a.k.a. 'Caustic Logic. Start reading his blog and don't stop until you've read all of it.
Flyover: R.I.P.
Awesome
Nicely done snowcrash
Jus finished
Jesse Ventura's book and was wondering which book I'll read next- it's gonna be snowcrash's reply above!
Seriously, good work and I'll plod through it ALL
Snowcrash could you do like a book signing of the reply ?
Wow
What an outstanding piece of ownage.
Forgot one
Pentagon eyewitness Isabel James
Fantastically well stated!
Glad to have this compilation at hand. Amazing how discredited this RCFP article is by the fact that it's based around one debunked discredited theory. I feel great about the people at 9/11 blogger and that their relentless critiquing and open-minded approach's have drawn so much attention (even being attacked in this case). This article and the responses of articulate bloggers in this thread proves indeed that 9/11 bloggers are doing the right thing. Attacks like this article can be a uniting source of strength for those of us willing to be critical within the 9/11 truth movement.
Regarding my 9/11 truth CV ...
[tongue firmly in cheek]
Actually, (and at the risk of being immodest) if you check my profile you will see that if I am a mole the movement is in real trouble. I work with one of the oldest groups in the movement, work with the fastest growing group in the movement and have helped create some of the most watched dvds in the movement (now that I think about it, I'm kind of surprised that I haven't been fired by my government handlers).
Seriously folks, let's NOT go down the paranoia road as that can only lead to confusion, self- destruction and defeat.
There are way too many historical examples of this for anyone who has spent more than a week studying movements to not know this.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
CV
I should have looked on your profile for more information...I admit I know more about Erik and Justin than I do about you (I knew you mostly as the film festival director), but you have an excellent track record and I expected as much. I also didn't mention the fourth moderator, (Orangutan?) ... I'm not certain who he is and I had too little information...Please give my regards to Ken Jenkins. I remember one instance of showing Ken Jenkins (SF 2004?) to someone who was extremely 9/11 Truth-averse and Ken actually cracked the barrier a bit.
No worries, SnowCrash
I actually prefer to keep a low profile and let my work speak for itself, but folks do need to know who the moderators are and what they have done within and for the movement. I just updated my profile, so there really is no way you could've known about much of my previous work without doing some pretty serious digging. I've always been a role player, looking at what needs to be done and doing what I can to get the job done, no matter how "dirty" or "menial" the task may seem to some. I greatly enjoy working in support of other people's work, such as Ken Jenkins with 911tv or Richard Gage with ae911truth. If we can ever get the NorCal 9/11 Truth Alliance to really get its act together, we will be quite a force for truth moving forward (they have done much already).
I really enjoyed hosting three days of the film festival this year and hope we can expand the festival into five or six venues and about a week's run next year (to cover the entire greater SF bay area). We really need more new, good films though and many people will probably head to NYC for the 10th anniversary.
Reprehensor and I got to know each other a bit at the Vancouver conference and I was quite pleased when he asked me to join as a moderator a few years back. While I miss that very serious, scholarly and hard working gentleman, we must try to carry on with this great resource and maintain the excellent standards he set.
Ken Jenkins is great, we have had many conversations with folks trying to help them sort through the evidence and evaluate some of the wilder theories. We had an especially memorable time with one gentleman in Seattle a few years back where we thought we had made the case against video fakery at the WTC, only to have him revert back to it about a week after we left (we were up there shooting the DRG video Let's Get Empirical which is based on his Debunking 9/11 Debunking book. Ken, hummux and I had a very memorable conversation with Sophia in Seattle which I shall have to recount in my future memoirs of my time in the 9/11 truth movement, along with many other great stories of all kinds.
Ken's excellent understanding of the Enneagram gives him the ability to understand and connect with almost anyone he chooses. I highly recommend that everyone learn about the Enneagram, it is the single best way to understand human personality types and behavior, imo, and it has helped me enormously since I began studying it.
I will pass along your regards to Ken.
I hope that you and yours are well.
Cheers!
Other than the fact...
That I have to scroll 100x just to get past it, this is an excellent write up.
Mr. Deets
Please address and rebuke every single point made in my comment "RCFP Waterloo" above. Not too long ago, I asked you to study the Pentagon attack more thoroughly. Have you?
Look at the radar returns
Oh yes, I’ve studied it. What I find is the radar sites in the area produced radar-return data consistent with a NoC flight path.
Read about it by going to post #13 and following at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15913
Radar
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/09/faa-wtf.html
I suspect the upcoming FDR analysis is going to disappoint you.
Could you rebuke every point made in my post, please?
ETA: Corrected apparently erroneous link
Dwain
We have and continue to disagree agreeably and I respect you for doing so.
However, that does not stop me from voting you down sometimes. ;-)
C
That's the spirit!
Please keep us informed as to how your dialogue/debate continues and, hopefully, resolves.
The ability to disagree agreeably is what will ultimately save human civilization from humans.
The growing global 9/11 truth movement is creating the foundation for the evolution of politics on earth, from the local grassroots level all the way up to the highest international body.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
You've studied it Dwain?
So you must know that the CITGO camera that Sgt. William Lagasse was captured on at the time of the Pentagon hit tells a different story than the one he told CIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VefUF5w8Dz0
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZI6WaDxQzw
.
You might also want to take a look at achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach?; a step back from the details:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3457944/
.
Could use a little help
dadeets said.."RCFP has grown in stature in my eyes"
Could you endorse my new theory?
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-...
Yeah
That one makes me laugh out loud every time. =)
Obviously, if you "suppress the truth" about the "fly under" theory you are a "disinfo" agent. What other motive could there possibly be?
I endorse your theory, Jim, it makes perfect sense, compared to flyover.
I think all should read the Cointelpro Papers.
That's all I have to say about this dispute.
Research Fail
"However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.”"
Hahaha, oh man, this is just getting too much.
Everyone, I am NOT anonymous. My name is Kamen Fattorusso. I have used that name on several articles and used it in passing to reference myself. This isn't a secret. Please...you can agree with me or not, just understand that I'm not anonymous.
I also love how they reference my article without even mentioning what it entails. You'd think from that excerpt and their description that I just spent 3100 words ranting endlessly. There was actually a point to it and everything.
Anyway, back on the overall topic, I have my criticisms of 9/11 Blogger, and that's no secret, but it's definitely done a lot for 9/11 Truth, not only as an outreach tool but for news & communication among members of 9/11 Truth. To claim that it's an op is pretty ridiculous as far as I see it, and I think John hits it right on the nail when he says that CIT brought this on themselves.
A Real Name I like That
Hello Kamen Fattorusso who goes by "Arcterus",
My real name is Matthew Naus who goes by "nausea7543" glad to know yours. I click on the user names of many of the bloggers here and I usually get very little information. Sure would like to get some more real names. Hope this starts a trend.
Take Care Matt
I think 911blogger is doing a great job!
I was at a Niels Harriet presentation just a few days ago and there were just amazing how many weird people that asked question. No-planes, mini-nukes etc etc was all up and questioned to Niels. I really felt all that made the whole presentation not so powerful for the new normal "john doe" people in the audience. Therefore I think it is a good strategy to keep 911blogger very serious and leave most questionabled topics to other places.
My understanding
The challenge of the informational warfare we are subjected to / engaged in is to find the truth--and exposing any and all untruths which we have been told by the authorities--while being alert to counter-tactics that work against this goal, whether those tactics come in the form of red herrings (unfounded rumors, faulty arguments, etc., that have the effect of distracting or discrediting the movement), limited hang-outs (seeming revelations from official sources that seek to limit or divert skeptical inquiries and thereby protect key aspects of the official account), or restricting debate, the flow of information, etc. And it is only in keeping with the nature of informational warfare that this challenge can prove to be immensely difficult. Ultimately, we're left on our own--with our own observation and reasoning--in order to answer the questions: Is such-and-such a red herring? A limited hang-out? Is debate too constricted? Or, is it too permissive, so that it may be accomodating faulty (perhaps deliberately faulty) information? As these questions come up in different instances, some may readily answer 'Yes'; others 'No'; and still others, 'Don't know, need to wait and see....'
My understanding has been that, for example, theories that there were no actual plane impacts at the WTC, that it was all done with video fakery, are not welcome at this site (I'm glad for that!), on grounds that they are false and discrediting to the movement. To believe that the pursuit of truth requires that we include such theories in our discussions is to be naive (at best) regarding the use of disinformation as a tactic. People who wish to pursue such theories are not welcome to do so here, and repeated attempts to do so will get them banned.
As you say, it would really help if we had more information about what happened at the Pentagon. As it is, some in the truth movement are convinced of the truth of some claims and the falsity of other claims. Arguments in the threads on this site often trend in favor of one line of argument and against another.
BUT, it has NOT been my understanding that holding a particular opinion about what did or did not happen at the Pentagon can get you BANNED from this site.
Nor has it been my understanding that that was the reason for banning any of the individuals alluded to above. I can't say what the reason was, but it might help if the moderators could answer: Am I correct in this (and the preceding) understanding?...
With all that we would still wish to know regarding the Pentagon, and Rock Creek Free Press--which has been the subject of many favorable posts on this site in the past--has apparently become so invested in one particular line of inquiry to the point that it would run such a smear of a headline. Very disappointing.
It's too bad for you
You have no arguments, just unsourced, bare assertions. This is no basis for taking the position you've taken. The time for Pentagon agnosticism has come and gone. Most if not all of your questions have been answered, too. The no crash at the Pentagon theory is much, much worse than no plane theory; the latter never gained any momentum, although both theories are equally baseless and nonsensical. This is not 911blogger's fault.
In another thread, you insinuated that kdub had something to hide: "Kdub, I don't think you could sign this declaration because we might find out who you are! HAHAHAHAHA"
This wasn't the first time you did this. I guess you know how to expertly steer clear from within a hair's length of a rules violation.
In this thread, you've been vitriolic from the start. You criticized the moderators earlier, bawling about "why the hell are people banned" and advocating the Big Tent. Then, in the first comment above, you complain about 'a handful of people' deciding what happens at 911blogger (that would be the moderators, and you know this), and also say "they ban serious investigators and others because they have different ideas about some of the issues" and "I don't know much about this banning, but it sounds bad to me."
I once partially fell for it. I even complimented CIT in e-mails for their "take no prisoners" type approach. I should have known better, I am ashamed for this blunder. However, even then, I was skeptical about flyover. E-mail dialogue with CIT commenced for neutral reasons and then intensified because I had been critical, and my criticism pissed off CIT. Most of us by now have been threatened in some way or other, explicit or implicitly, directly or indirectly. Ask jimd3100. Ask Adam Larson. Ask Arabesque.
Given all the ill-natured clamoring and complaining about 911blogger from your side of the isle, I think it is fair to ask you: when is the last time you produced some original, groundbreaking research instead of posting the latest 9/11 feeds from Google Alerts or RSS? Reminds me of Mike Ruppert and Jenna Orkin's (now frozen and moved) blog.
Are you aware of the long track record in the 9/11 Truth Movement of this site's moderators? Do you trust them? I know I do. Please, don't let your ego stand in the way of seeing what's right in front of you. Would you like to understand the truth about the Pentagon or would you rather believe anything furthest removed from the official account? Because that, Paul, seems to be the '9/11 litmus test' these days by which 'real' and 'fake' truthers are measured, and I refuse to accept it, because truthfulness is not a function of how extremist or absolutist you are, it's a function of willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads, even and especially if falsifying your own theories.
Too harsh
I will not and do not comment on the Pentagon issue, but accusing pfgetty for feeding google-rss-info into 911blogger is way too harsh. I myself google from time to time but do not have the time to look everyday, so I welcome that service. Without it, 911blogger surely would miss something.
The other points (accusations) against him I did not check, if there really is a 911blogger.org site and he's contributing nonsense there, that should be damned...
Hardly Harsh
Sorry but SnowCrash's comment is right on. It's all about whether or not people are willing to discuss things openly and be critiqued. In pfgetty's case (just read some of his comments on this thread, filled with anger and swearing in some cases) when asked with some basic questions or critiqued in a relatively basic fashion, pfgetty tends to lash and start accusing people or making things personal. If you research further I would hope you would concur. Pfgetty has indeed contributed to blogger.org! That quote about pfgetty questioning my identity because I asked a simple question of one of his posts was not only childish but insidious. I have seen you Sitting-Bull comment on threads where pfgetty has behaved in this immature manner so I know you can understand if you look back. Whether or not you think its a big deal that his method of finding articles is quick and easy, is a matter of opinion. What's worse than laziness is pfgetty's apparent lack of concern for his sources. Pfgetty seems to focus on articles which are very divisive or insulting towards left wing and alt media, in addition to articles with loads of anti-semitic implications. I have followed a few recent links of pfgetty's to sites which are laden with holocaust denial (which pfgetty accepts, but just dismisses it as not a big deal, or starts personally attacking me). Pfgetty's latest slew of Ahmadinejad cheerleading articles lined up with this trend of divisiveness as well. I don't know why an adult professional dentist ends up behaving this way nor focuses on such obnoxious sources, but he certainly deserves to be critiqued for it.
I might concur
thanks for more input. I did not read the comments from him on this thread, I couldn't read them all. No excuse on my site.
I will not play the lawyer for pfgetty.
I try to explain it from my point of view:
"very divisive or insulting towards left wing and alt media"
I for myself found me in an area of tension regarding the media in my own blog. (german language, 911-archiv.net)
The media IS complicit. And I do speak about that. On the one hand site. On the other, I try to encourage other media professionals to join. With critic alone this couldn't be done. But there is more to it than "right or wrong".
"anti-semitic implications and Holocaust denial" are no gos, I concur. Other is that, regarding the role of some elements within the Israel government or intel. If I speak about that, there sure will be the same accusations, even If I never was or will be anti-semitic, racist or such...
First if you really care to
First if you really care to follow up with this, please read this thread:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-26/sign-declaration-against-racial-in...
and be sure to click the READ MORE link at the bottom. Pfgetty doesn't even seem to really disagree with me about some of the problems with the sight, just makes it personal. BTW these are not sights suggesting Israel involvement in 9/11. They are linking to all kinds of different materials praising Ahmadinejad. Other articles linked include a 2010 discussion on political misuses of the Holocaust. Regardless of any roll one thinks that Israel had in 9/11, which I personally see very little, these sights in the link are indeed considered very divisive and anti-semitic in many cases. 9/11 Truthers referencing sights like these will most certainly be used against us.
Also be sure to read pfgetty's comments in that thread I linked above and the current one if you really care to discuss this. For they are telling of the things SnowCrash and I discussed above. I assure you that I have exercised a lot of patience here especially in trying to avoid personal scuffs with someone whom I feel has been divisive for a long time. It only sounds harsh if you have not read the specifics.
And regardless of the alleged complicity within the MSM, since such a claim is unprovable until people are asked and admit it, (ie who is complicit? who are they complicit with? how do we prove this) we most certainly cannot assume that most in the left or alt media or MSM are complicit with a 9/11 cover-up. When we assume this, it is a great excuse to give up in this type of outreach. Why in SF after protesting for several months in a row on the 11th of each month, CBS did a report on us which showed quality quotes from the truthers and even vid of building 7 going down! I spoke recently with Alan Colmes on a call to his radio show and found him more receptive to 9/11 Truth than EVER when approached politely of course.
Quality presentation is key to our success in outreach. If we stay angry and start accusing people of some type of complicity, we of course will never reach anyone in the media.
pfgetty
You are still relatively new to this site. Being new, you tend not to be aware of history here -- and take, for a good example, your early impression that people here would not tolerate the suggestion that 'alternative media' was, in general, remarkably 9-11 truth-averse.
It is good to read lots and think lots before deciding on these matters. Doing that has shown me over time -- a long time -- that 9-11 Blogger is the best of the best, on this crucial 9-11 topic. The moderation is heroic, IMO. The mods' job is very difficult and time-consuming. These folks are remarkably fair and rational, IMO. But it has taken literally years for me to form that opinion, while watching the site grow.
reason for banning
I have been watching 9/11 Blogger for quite a bit of time, enough to see how banning is done. It is not because people have particular views about what happened at the Pentagon. It seems to me that if you want to get banned here what you have to do is keep on stating the same view without coming up with new evidence or a new argument to support that view. Even if this is done without abuse it must get boring and a diversion from other useful arguments. Repetition does not increase reliability.
Thanks!
Thanks for the timely and concise response John.
Correcting the record
Well done, good way of handling this, John, thanks.
John and many others commenting in this thread have corrected the record on various fallacies in this RCFP article, so I'll just comment on what Stefan is quoted as saying, which applies to me:
“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time. What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon. Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack. The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond. Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”
It appears Stefan is confusing the debate on this thread THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED by Adam Larson, which took place late Dec 2009, with 2 debates on separate threads which took place in May 2010 (see link below).
Read the "South Path" thread and decide for yourself if "it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path."
Stefan has accused me of banning Stefan, Adam Ruff and Adam Syed in "mid-debate." Jpass previously accused me of the same thing, which i pointed out was false, in this July 2010 comment:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-30/911blogger-rules-moderation-policy...
CIT and their fans have never shown that anything I've posted is false, let alone intentionally false.
CIT's material has been promoted at 911blogger for years by various people, and the merits of their arguments and evidence have been debated numerous times. As of this posting, CIT is still not on the list of topics banned at 911blogger. The only reason people are moderated or banned is for violations of the posted rules http://911blogger.com/rules
I wonder
What do the 9/11 family members think of what happened at the Pentagon? Do any of them support 'flyover'?
If...
You watched "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families" you will see 9/11 Family Member Mindy Kleinberg, one of the "Jersey Girls," a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and a member of the September Eleventh Advocates, talk about videos being withheld, and that it's not that she has a "conspiracy theory," but that it's evidence that isn't being provided, and should be. She's right. Just as with EVERY piece of legitimate evidence having to do with 9/11. However, I'm not about to ask any of them if they support a "flyover theory." Just as I wouldn't ask them about any of the other theories I mentioned above.
Families
I watched both "Press for Truth" and "In Their Own Words", but thanks for reminding me...your answer is along the lines of what I expected. Great, great documentaries. So far I know that April Gallop and a Pentagon first responder support CIT's theory... but I don't think CIT would have much success convincing many other families who survived or lost loved ones at the Pentagon of 'flyover'. We have a responsibility here at 911blogger to promote factual, sensible research.
Dispassionate Research and Discussion
I have not made up my mind as to what exactly happened on 9/11 nor I do not believe the official conspiracy theory. I do have numerous questions about 9/11 that I would like truthfully and satisfactorily answered.
I have understood the argument for some time that to categorically claim “no plane hit the Pentagon” is detrimental to the 9/11 Truth Movement yet I understand the need for investigation into this area because the available evidence concerning the events at the Pentagon are so inconclusive. I do not see the presented “evidence” confirming a plane hitting the Pentagon to be “overwhelming” nor do I see the “fly-over” at present to be particularly credible.
9/11blogger is where I go for up to date 9/11 news and I am grateful such a website exists. One small problem with 911blogger, as I see it, is that some seemingly “influential” commentators constantly use inflammatory, defaming, self-aggrandising and sarcastic language to belittle those with opposing or alternate opinions.
In the case of this topic some are almost revelling in the controversy and cannot refrain from using emotional and disparaging language in an attempt to alienate others while pushing their own oft-repeated beliefs.
Those who fervently support the idea that a plane struck the Pentagon are as rigid in their belief as those that support a “fly-over”. These beliefs are of little consequence when the whole event of 9/11 and its global reverberations are taken into account.
The present truth is that no one authoritatively knows what happened at the Pentagon because the available evidence is minimal, contradictory and questionable.
Scoring cheap points by attacking each other is pointless and a standard of dispassionate research and discussion where empirical fact wins the day should be honoured.
A common ground must be adopted for the sake of the over-all goal, that of a new investigation that faithfully leads to full exposure and the prosecution of those in any way responsible for the attacks.
Your points are well taken
and I hope that everyone will read your post and consider your statements, especially with regard to the language and rhetorical tactics that some people use on this site.
One small problem with 911blogger, as I see it, is that some seemingly “influential” commentators constantly use inflammatory, defaming, self-aggrandising and sarcastic language to belittle those with opposing or alternate opinions.
I, too, see this as a problem that needs to be addressed and the only really effective way for it to be addressed is for everyone to be more conscious of and responsible for the language and rhetoric they use on the site and some people seem to delight in walking right along the line and violate the spirit, if not the actual letter, of the the rules and guidelines and this does create an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere here.
Does anyone ever wonder why there are so few women involved in the 9/11 truth movement? I think our communication style has a lot to do with it, quite honestly and I would like the movement as a whole to address this issue (this site would be a great place to start, btw).
However, I think that if you really dig you will see that the case for some kind of plane impact on the Pentagon is quite strong. What plane that was, how it got there and what else may have happened at the Pentagon still need to be settled, imo.
My bottom line has always been that nothing should have happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/01 (or any other day) and since the government controls all of the critical physical and video evidence, it is an aspect of 9/11 that really will have to wait for a full, complete and transparent investigation before we can have a really clear idea of what took place there.
This is why I do not feature the events at the Pentagon in my public education activism, other than it being an excellent reason for having a new investigation.
I hope that you and yours are well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Thank You
LeftWright,
My first realisation that the events of 9/11 may be suspect was in regards to a live report on Channel Four News in England when a reporter obviously confused about the wide spread of debris from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania suggested that the plane may have been deliberated downed.
Later authors such as Nafeez Ahmend, Craig Unger and David Ray Griffin helped me acquire some perspective concerning the events of 9/11.
While it is absorbing to “investigate” the minutia of the day itself, it is the global after-effects of that day that are of major concern. The truth, however painful must be fully exposed.
Something hit the Pentagon that caused an explosion and killed innocent people, that is for sure but why this happened is the important question.
The most telling comments come from Andre Hunter who was on that day outside the Pentagon looking for his sister (she worked inside the Pentagon).
Andre Hunter said, “I just wondering where she is, that’s all and I’m trying to figure out how does a plane hit the Pentagon? You know what I’m sayin’? I mean the Pentagon! I mean that’s the defence! You know what I’m sayin’? I mean, come on! I know it was a US plane and all that but I’m just sayin’….how do you let a plane…..Don’t they have radar?
No one has been banned here because they expressed
an "unpopular idea".
Those who have been banned have either broken rules or repeatedly violated the guidelines after being warned.
This is not a "free speech" site where anyone can say anything they want.
Those who feel that they have been unfairly banned and want to return to 911blogger should make as strong a case as they can for reinstatement to the moderators and not just keep slamming the site and expecting the moderators to change their mind.
(I think I can hear the other moderators collectively groaning at me right now...)
Since sorting through all of this will fall on my virtual desk, please email me directly at marin911truth (at) yahoo (dot) com and be patient. In addition to moderating here I am also a full time activist involved in many other projects.
I know that some have been frustrated in the past at the very slow process of reviewing individual accounts to see what can be done, but that is just the way it is and you have my sincere apologies for that.
Finally, there is nothing "narrow minded" about rejecting clearly false "theories" that have do not adhere to the scientific method and/or basic logic and reasoning, or exclude relevant data.
I hope that you and yours are well.
Very true.
"Surely you can see that if a theory is "clearly false" or unscientific it can be easily refuted."
Indeed. And it HAS BEEN!
Nevermind, why bother?
Arguing with CIT is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to it's flock to claim victory.
Just so everyone knows...
There's a new site started by LV911Truth of this site called 911blogger.org.
Jonathan Mark, pfgetty, posters from here, are contributors to that site.
It is a site meant to be an anti-911blogger.com site. It promotes everything that has been used against this cause. At least, from a quick glance, that's what it looks like to me.
Just more "divide and conquer." Like the terms LIHOP and MIHOP have been used, and were probably meant to do.
Ah yes
His name is Jeff Jacobucci, he apparently runs another website: Join911Truth.com
"I question the so-called Holocaust, too." — Jeff Jacobucci A.K.A. LV911Truth
"40% of History Commons Topics Based on Unproven Allegations" — Jeff Jacobucci A.K.A. LV911Truth
Jeff Jacobucci A.K.A. LV911Truth attacking Donna Marsh O'Connor
Attacking 9/11 Family Members who stood up for this cause? Because of this, I never liked the guy from the start. He looks and talks like a weasel. I suppose Paul Getty the dentist (pfgetty) and the rest of the snitchjacketing cowards can now get suspended. The site is another RSS aggregator from Google alerts. I do say that moderation could be a little more lenient. Just a little. Recently we had a thread removed because somebody attacked Mike Walter. Disgusting as that is, I didn't think it merited intervention. Then again, I'm growing really tired of the slipshod, speculative nonsense and conjecture going around, under the banner of '9/11 Truth'.
if anybody wants to take over Paul Getty's "work" of posting ten 9/11 threads a day: just go here: http://www.google.com/alerts
Type "9/11" and have the daily results mailed to you, then repost on 911blogger. No effort whatsoever.
We do now know what the primary attack vectors on the 9/11 Truth Movement are going to be in 2011:
(1) Pentagon no plane crash theory
(2) No hijacker/hijackers alive theory
(3) No passenger theory
These memes hang around like unpaid bills, don't they? I know what to focus on, and I'm going to help fend off these attacks.
DAMN
Jon and Michiel, that website is awful. I have been offended by Paul Getty's constant posting of the most divisive articles which invovle 9/11. I have been offended by his accusing me of hiding my identity in response to a simple critique of his posts. Paul's cheerleading for Ahmadinejad was also quite disruptive. Despite that I still assumed he was just one who was just angry and cynical. His association with 911blogger.org however is inexcusable. If you participate in promoting and working with blogger.org, you are taking part in a direct attack against the critical thinkers at this site. 911blogger.org is promoting racist and divisive materials and people. The fact that a website would create an address so close to this one is an obvious attempt to confuse those who might looking for the truth in regard to the RCFP or just blogger in general.
I would add to your list SnowCrash that these vectors will be used (and have been used in the past) primarily to divide us from the mainstream/anti-war left in the US. I see this as a huge agenda for those attempting to discredit 9/11 truth. 9/11 skepticism merging with mainstream/anti-war left would be a powerful bridge which would be incredibly hard to contain. Judging especially by the divisive comments of some on this sight who I now see are promoting the same junk as the scum at blogger.org, it is the obvious agenda of those attempting to confuse the people seeking the truth, to keep 9/11 Truth from reaching out to the mainstream left.
Also, an obvious contrast exists in regard to 9/11 Truths ability to reach the right-wing mainstream. There have been little to no attempts by these sights (blogger.org, infowars.com) and groups to spread materials which push divisiveness between truthers and the Libertarian Right/Ron Paul/what became the tea party this year/militia movements. If anything Alex Jones and some at WAC have encouraged many truther's to merge their political and world views with that of the very racist, radical, and right-wing. All of a sudden those listening to AJ and getting deeper into his perspective will find themselves most agreeable with the ugly tea party radicalism. This has been a stark contrast to how folks like AJ and others have told 9/11 Truthers to speak to the left (gatekeepers!, lihopers!, zombies!, latte liberals!).
It is most unfortunate
that someone created a site called 911blogger.org that is not connected to this site.
We had been checking that url (and other like ones) to secure it and prevent something like this from happening, but it must have slipped through quietly.
A most unfortunate situation, imo.
If this were to happen in the corporate world, I'm sure teams of lawyers would be arguing that it is a clear infringement on 911Blogger.com's identity.
We will just have to wait and see how this turns out.
sigh
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Sent to http://join911truth.com/contactus.htm just now:
Mr Jacobucci,
Mimicking a preexisting 9/11 Truth broadcasting effort or organization is a hostile action. I think fighting is necessary at times but this is clearly a dishonorable tactic, sir. It's possible that you just made a mistake here. Please change your url and redirect traffic from 911blogger.org there. I invite you onto my podcast show. http://www.paulsdomain.libsyn.com/
Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/
info@911artists.com
Looks like someone had a problem with my comment.
It appears to have been was taken down in a short number of minutes. It was comment 6.
http://911blogger.org/2010/10/31/is-leading-911-truth-site-working-for-t...
As Follows before deletion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTING MY DELETED COMMENT ON 911BLOGGER.ORG]
6. 0 0 Rate This
Just sent to http://join911truth.com/contactus.htm and posted at http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-...
Mr Jacobucci,
Mimicking a preexisting 9/11 Truth broadcasting effort or organization is a hostile action. I think fighting is necessary at times at times but this is clearly a dishonorable tactic, sir. It’s possible that you just made a mistake here. Please change your url and redirect traffic from 911blogger.org there. I invite you onto my podcast show. http://www.paulsdomain.libsyn.com/
Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/
info@911artists.com
Comment by truther911 | November 5, 2010 | Reply
[END QUOTE]
--------------------
screenshot before deletion:
http://truther911.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/911blogger-org-comment-del...
Great Work Paul!
Obviously desperation is now in the mix!
Adam Syed as his ilk are so silly it amazes me. If Ranke/Syed et al had of been nice and tried to find a consensus that their "fly over" was a working hypothesis (I now don't think it is) they would be engaged in the discussion.
They have in my view just flushed themselves down the drain by this "hostile" act.
So silly, so immature and so obviously disruptive it's ridiculous! LMAO!
Kind regards John
2nd attempt and resolution
I discovered that there was a rule against posting email addresses there so I reentered my comment again without that element. It looks like it's staying up.
Also, this was then posted there as comment 7:
[QUOTING 911NEWSCENTRAL.COM]
"If you refresh your browsers, the domain name is now 911NewsCentral.com. Mr. Deets, your post really initiated this change, and the process was already well underway by the time you posted, Paul. Thanks to you both, and to Adam, for the timely feedback.
Note: the “blavicon” seems to be stuck. Having trouble replacing it.
- Moderator"
[END QUOTE]
http://911newscentral.com/2010/10/31/is-leading-911-truth-site-working-f...
Thanks to Mr. Jacobucci and all others involved.
I have heard Craig Ranke has said he has nothing to do with...
...this site?
It does not seem that many want to be tied up with it...I suppose it's that low it is simply not helpful to any.
Regards John
John it's all for the best!
These people have lost, so now they play dirty pool...and it is so dam obvious it is very helpful to our being reasonable campaign.
911blogger.org is possibly the most aggressive and unreasonable thing I have every seen done in this movement, so be it!
If any content is supplied by that site that is not theirs people in this movement should make sure if they are the source that it is pulled down.
Kind regards John
PS - An editorial is well overdue from 911Blogger.com
Pilots for 911 truth
what about the research done on the black box from the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon by pilots for 911 truth (pilotsfor911truth.org) that also indicates that the official flight path was not true and also indicates that the plane flew over the pentagon , didnt hit it.
what about the fact that the supposed plane hit the offices of the pentagon where they were investigating the missing 3 billion , an investigation that had been started one day earlier on the 10th?
The Pilots work has been discredited!
The G force analysis was in error and the raw data from the DFDR (black box) was not properly decoded and now shows that the plane did hit....more info coming soon.
2.3 Trillion misplaced...and?
Regards John
Pilots work discredited?
Hi Can you send me some proof of what you say about that the information in the black box now says that the plane did hit the pentagon? And what is the opinion of pilotsfor911truth about this new supposed information?
FDR file for AA77
The FDR file has now been fully decoded by Warren Stutt. It shows the plane descending smoothly from the VDOT tower, pulling up strongly, but not too strongly, passing so low that it had to hit the light poles, then hitting the Pentagon at the position observed by the many eye witnesses and as shown in photographs. Here is Stutt's web site.
http://www.warrenstutt.com/
A paper on this is under review.
What Pilots for 9/11 Truth say about this evidence you will have to ask them. Last I heard they were still saying their calculation of the g-force required, 10.14, was correct. If the plane flew the optimum path after allowing some clearance over the VDOT tower, to the Pentagon the correct g-force is about 1.8. Apparently the optimum path was not flown as the maximum shown briefly in the FDR file was 2.26, still well below the legal limit for a 757, 2.5g.
Warren Stutt
We are supposed to trust someone named Warren Stutt who has no credentials over a whole community of oficial pilots?
trust is a two edged sword
Dianacastillo,
We all have an obligation to look into evidence before we make assertions based on what others are telling us. In this world, working out who to trust is no easy task. However in the case of Pilots for 9/11 Truth it is very easy too show that their calculations about the g-force required for the plane to pull up out of the descent on approach to the Pentagon is incorrect. They say the pull up would have destroyed the aircraft. I say it would not. I think you will find if you do the calculations that I am right and Pilots is wrong about this calculation. It doesn't matter how many pilots are in their community, the truth is found by repeating the calculation, not by counting heads.
Hey, Ms. Castillo. I don't know.
What about it?
Do you have any art about all this that you want me to broadcast?
Paul
Unfortunately Jim Fetzer has been discredited
This is not a good person nor video to be sharing on this sight or with anyone in regard to 9/11 Truth. Fezter spreads debunked and bizarre theories. When confronted with quality information questioning Fetzer's speculation, Fetzer showed absolutely no willingness to acknowledge any errors. Fetzer's ridiculous assertions about directed energy weapons and video fakery have been a huge problem for 9/11 Truth in the past. Diana, are you aware of some of the issues that most people in 9/11 Truth have with Fetzer?
"......EVERYONE is in
"......EVERYONE is in agreement that the spot where the supposed plane hit... "
Nothing supposed about it. A plane most certainly hit the pentagon and the two towers despite what Fetzer has said in the past.
"I am aware of the differences of opinion with Jim Fetzer"
In regard to Fetzer, differences of opinion do not properly characterize Fetzer's divisive behavior. See when folks began to ask Fetzer about his new theories and question them (the way people with different opinions usually behave), Fezter's response was angry attacks, name calling, and more ridiculous theories. At the time most people respected Fezter and assumed he was just confused. However, after ignoring or yelling at those who were only asking Fetzer basic questions about his new radical ideas, Fetzer showed us that his attacks and bizarre assertions were not just a difference of opinion. Fetzer proved the he was an unreasonable and illogical individual for he was unwilling to simply back up his statements.
as of less than two weeks ago, Fetzer says--
"My own personal experience with 911blogger confirms the view that it has long been operating to suppress dissenting opinions from its own narrow-minded take on 9/11."
http://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26737&postcount=6
(just amazing, the audacity)
This link is a perfect example of how divisive and unreasonable Fetzer is. It also shows us how fringe his ideas about 9/11 are. Discussion, and a willingness to have one, is a key definer as to whether or not you are here to establish facts. This is a simple concept, yet it serves as our litmus test for who is willing to humbly find the truth
.
I know YT just posted this link at the front of the discussion thread, but it's worth repeating here in regard to Diana's continuing support of Fetzer.
Insanity
Can someone explain to me how getting info from the black box found at the Pentagon proves that the plane didnt hit the Pentagon?
WOW, ALL THESE DISINFORMATION
WOW, ALL THESE DISINFORMATION AGENTS SPREADING IRRELEVANT RUBBISH PROMOTING THE CIT PENTAGON NONSENSE!
NEWSFLASH!!!
SOME WITNESS TESTIMONY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE!!!!
THE PENTAGON ISSUE IS SO IRRELEVANT AND PROPORTIONATELY MINISCULE IN IMPORTANCE RELATIVE TO THE COLLAPSE PHYSICS AND NANOTHERMITE THAT SUCH A DISPROPORTIONATE, COORDINATED BARRAGE OF COMMENTS AND FOCUS ON EVERY 911 BLOG CAN ONLY MEAN THERE IS A CONCERTED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
IF THESE 'PEOPLE' CARED ABOUT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AT ALL, THEY WOULD STOP POLLUTING THE MOVEMENT AND CREATING STRAWMEN FOR OPPONENTS TO LATCH ONTO AND SHINE THE SPOTLIGHT ON THE AREA WITH NO EVIDENCE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MOVEMENT.
AS MUCH AS I DETEST CENSORSHIP AND FIGHT LIKE HELL AGAINST IT, UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THE CREDIBILITY AND COHESION OF THE MOVEMENT I STRONGLY SUGGEST ALL 911 SITES DELETE ALL POSTS PROMOTING THE CIT PENTAGON THEORY.
Please don't
remove those posts, they are evidence. We cite it.
Please don't, our links and source references will go dead.
For further clarification
I'm currently in the process of compiling a large list of references to 9/11 research, much of it linking back to 911blogger. Any action by the moderators to delete CIT posts or blogs of users who have now been banned would completely invalidate this work, which so far has taken me days, it would completely destroy any possibility for the 9/11 research community to study the evolution of Pentagon no plane crash theories, including flyover, and analyze what went wrong with so many believing them.
I am absolutely mortified at the thought of all this historic material disappearing. It would be a grave, grave mistake. How any serious researcher could even consider removing this archive of material is beyond me. There are several critical comments in those threads by all actors which are very relevant and important to cite, because they show a certain mind state, logical errors, fallacious arguments, or perhaps just an interesting discussion from a research perspective, even when rude or angry. I've made errors too, I do not wish these errors to be erased. I learned from my mistakes.
Imagine somebody with such an attitude at the National Archives...Unthinkable. It completely *does not matter* what *you* think is *right*, what matters is that research materials are conserved which would otherwise be lost. Of course, since 911blogger is also a site aiming to be a credible representative of 9/11 Truth, disruptive users repeatedly promoting discredited theories will ultimately be banished. They will then promote their material elsewhere, and this provides all, on whichever side of the argument, with a historical and chronological continuity. If I want to look up what a certain researcher said when and why, I can still find it.
History 101. This is so basic and so essential. I hope I've made my point, because this is really important.
For the record
It is the policy of 911blogger.com to not delete anything once it is published.
We do, on occasion, un-publish comments (and even more rarely blogs), but the content that is created and published on this site will remain available for the historical record even if the user who created it is in moderation or has been banned.
It is our hope that many people will create content with links to blogs and comments from this site, so we are very careful about preserving the integrity of the content on this site.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Thanks,
John
Diana
Have you read my Summary and Analysis of NSA yet?
Please study it closely and tell me if you find anything wrong with it.
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com
They have NO proof of flyover.
Proof of flyover
I didnt say there was a proof of a flyover, I said there was NO PROOF of a hit and therefore since there are testimonies of a plane , and the black box data indicates a flyover it is the most probably deduction.
There are mountains of proof
that a plane hit the Pentagon. By way of reams of physical evidence, witness testimony (and even the black box FDR data.) The current FDR analysis appears to be erroneous, new analysis is underway. Furthermore, have you considered that for the black box to prove flyover, it had to have been forged, therefore it is worthless to begin with? This is a logical problem you need to deal with. CIT recognizes this logical problem and therefore avoids the FDR like the plague. Didn't you know?
You cite Jim Fetzer, which is, for evident reasons,a very unwise thing to do on 911blogger, you claim Pilots for 9/11 Truth led by Rob 'tends towards planes at the WTC' Balsamo, are 'credible' and so on. I wouldn't ever get into a plane with any of these people. I'd rather cross the alps in the back of a bus with a drunk, blind driver.
None of these claims help your own credibility, especially not when asserted with such chutzpah. I suggest you start by addressing every single argument and cited reference in this comment. You owe the 911blogger community that much before you continue with this CIT/P4T promotion campaign.
In the meanwhile, it almost looks as if you are deliberately provoking. I can't say I appreciate that.
OK
In my Summary I specifically point out that: "The North of Citgo flight path does not prove flyover."
CIT claims that the NoC flight path proves flyover in NSA.
That is not true.
Do you agree?
If you think flyover is the most probable deduction, I don't have a problem with that. You are entitled to your opinion but probable is quite different than proof.
You are asking the wrong question.
Chris,
CIT makes its case on finding a few eyewitnesses who were prepared to say that the path of the plane was too far north to have done the observed damage. They conclude three things from this.
1. Something else must have done the long line of damage both inside and outside the Pentagon.
2. The plane must have flown over the Pentagon.
3. Everyone else who saw the plane travelling on a more southerly path, or who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, was deceived.
Of course you know all that, so what am I driving at?
Let us look at the basis of their claim. For some reason their witnesses are to be believed but other witnesses are not. Scores of people saw a large two engined plane approach the Pentagon. They saw it before it hit, hence before the smoke cloud, so they could not have been deceived by the smoke. There is no reason to think they were deceived. Many of these witnesses have been interviewed and the interviews recorded. You can listen to some of these at Pumpitout. As you yourself point out some of these interviews were done on camera by Craig himself. The five of his witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon stated that the plane hit the Pentagon. The look on Turcios face, and the tone of his voice when asked by Craig if he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon are priceless! He clearly knew the plane "collided" with the Pentagon.
So what do we have? There are two sets of witnesses. One very small set says the plane was too far north, the other large set says the plane hit the Pentagon. If we look at the photos of the light poles we can see no sign that explosives were used. They are snapped at the bottom as they are designed to do if hit. They are indented where they were hit. The newly decoded FDR file shows the plane descending smoothly and pulling up safely as it flies through the light poles, then entering the Pentagon. The light poles get progressively shorter as the plane gets closer to the impact point. The radio heights lead inevitably to impact at the observed position.
Given that there are two sets of witness reports which conflict, there is no case whatsoever for asserting that the north path is proof of anything. That leaves us with all the rest of the evidence. The light poles and the damage inside the Pentagon would have to be given a very high probability that they indicate the path of the plane right inside the Pentagon.
Clearly the right question is not "where did the plane fly?", but "did the plane fly into the Pentagon?" Who would clearly remember an unimportant side issue when the traumatic impact was flooding their senses?
A bit of history. Only a few cranks initially suggested that no plane hit the Pentagon. Some thought it was a missile. Then the FDR file was released and its data appeared to stop at a point too high to have hit the Pentagon. This produced an atmosphere which promoted the development of alternative theories. Balsamo produced a calculation showing that the plane could not have pulled out of the dive required and some witnesses were found who said the plane passed too far north, and a big fuss was made of these ideas.
Balsamo's calculation has been proved wrong and the FDR file has now been properly decoded. The motivation has evaporated. Can we now get back to balanced discussion of the real evidence?
Hello Frank!
That's all well and good Frank and I like you are becoming convinced that a 757 or very similar hit the Pentagon by the body of evidence that yourself and others have amassed.
But the question is how do we convince the "conspiracy theorist's" amongst us that have formed their rigid unscientific position that no plane hit and have convinced themselves they are smarter than people like yourself and that you are most likely an agent?
The next question is do we care?
Regards John
I care
The reason I care about persuading people that there is no proof that the plane flew over the Pentagon is pretty simple. Scientists do not have the reach to influence the mass public very much. What scientists do is provide the hard evidence which activists can use to spread to the public. It is important to reach the public because unless there is a majority pressing for a new investigation there will be no way for any politician to propose a new investigation because he will lose his seat if he does.
How do we convince activists to stick to the hard evidence? That is not so simple. Scientists are in competition with certain highly visible web sites which project false claims. Experience tells us that we will never change the minds of these people. Fetzer recently endorsing CIT, P4T and the Rock Creek statement is a prime example of the way these forces work together to support one another and so lead their viewers to believe there is strength in their position. If we can't change them we must go round them.
The only way to improve this situation that I can see is for the good people in the movement to keep repeating the hard evidence and pointing out the softness in other theories whenever they get the chance. There is a vast army of activists now. If they can be given reassurance to follow the strong arguments they will eventually overcome, by sheer weight of numbers, the troublemakers.
The danger is that the public is picking up the overfly theory from the troublemakers and one day the authorities may release evidence that proves a 757 hit the Pentagon. They would do this if they felt in danger of prosecution. The damaging effect on our credibility regarding the demolitions would be severe.
@Sabretruthtiger
I agree with you that the CIT theory has been proven to be rubbish. It is also of course frustrating to see all of this divisiveness related to such trivial points or ideas. SnowCrash is also correct in regard to how it would actually be detrimental to remove posts in the fashion you (Sabre) suggest. As frustrating as it is to see bunk ideas and highly speculative things posted here, we, the users of blogger, can remain grounded and point out the fallacies. It is important and "ok" that we are forced to show that bunk and bizarre ideas with no basis in truth were never supported here. By doing so we are proving that blogger has been open-minded enough to consider all ideas and has given US (the reasonable users at blogger) partial responsibility to moderate and back up our own assertions.
I think that it is extremely important
that we examine everything to do with the events of 9/11.
This movement is founded on the practice of critical thinking, thus we need to examine everything put out into the public sphere.
Fact need to be verified, hypothesis tested until they can either be rejected or accepted as theories. Theories re-examined if and when new credible facts become known.
The problems begin to arise when people either can't agree on the facts, have different standards for evidence, don't have the same understanding of the underlying logic or science, or a combination of these factors.
If egos get invested in different positions, then these differences often get compounded and can become very divisive. This is the point at which people too often begin behaving in an uncivil manner and fall into moderation. If they persist, then they will be banned.
It is very important for me to note here that it is not the simple expression of an idea that can get one into trouble, it is the act of persistent incivility or intransigence when confronted with contrary evidence or superior logic (this is all given the rules and guidelines of the site, of course).
911blogger.com encourages free and open debate, as long as it is civil (and also not an endless recapitulation of previous debates/discussions).
Thanks,
John
The same individual...
Also purchased www.911truthnews.net
Who are these people? Only an evil pr*ck would even think to do such a thing.
Domain mapping
http://en.support.wordpress.com/domain-mapping/map-existing-domain/
It's easy to hijack domains and just being a general pest, it's hard to offer quality 9/11 research. That's why I don't worry about these people. They will eventually go the way of the Dodo like their predecessors.
More sleaze from Adam Syed
He also bought .info and has it redirecting to the-site-formerly-known-as-911blogger.ORG.
Are you sure it's...
Syed? I ask because John Wright says it's someone by the name of Jeff Jacobucci. However, Syed is now a "contributor" to that site.
Syed, Jacobucci...
911BLOGGER.ORG was created at the same time as 911TRUTHNEWS.NET and 911TRUTHNEWS.INFO on October 31.
All three redirect to 911newscentral.
Whomever did it...
Are scum.
Indeed.
Awful awful. Proof that 9/11 Blogger and 9/11 Truth News are great powerful effective sites though. The fact that those spreading fringe theories have resorted to this bizarre and aggressive tactic, serves to show just how great the heavily critiqued research and awesome approach of both the original sites truly is.
Are you referring to a different John Wright?
I don't recall ever saying anything about someone named Jeff Jacobucci.
Please clarify.
Thanks.
Sorry...
Snowcrash said it. I got the comments mixed up.