you're always telling us to watch out for hoaxes. im not accusing you of anything but this seems to be your main purpose. remember how you told me not to speculate? numerous times? you might try that when talking about other 9/11 researchers. there seems to be a new trend in this movement where if somebody even mentions the name of a Fetzer or Barrett or Tarpley they HAVE TO BE disinfo. im not happy with Fetzer or Barrett etc. but not everybody is gonna cut ties with all of these people even if you and i think it would be best(and i do). and when did Fetzer write introductions to his books? when he was still widely accepted in the movement and before he started talking DEW? and i think if you know anything about Spitzer you would know he has no intentions of looking into 9/11. he already refused to when he was the top law man in NYC and was in a position to do so. he has a job to do and if some hoax like this, if thats what this is, is enough to discourage him from looking at 9/11 evidence he should be fired now, im sure you would agree.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Chris, caution is sensible -- why dis it?

>>you're always telling us to watch out for hoaxes.

So am I, BTW. What hurts us is when we show no tolerance for careful work and reasoning, and caution. The hoaxes are everywhere this anniversary, NY, LA and even Ireland! It's a real swamp sometimes.

>>there seems to be a new trend in this movement where if somebody even mentions the name of a Fetzer or Barrett or Tarpley they HAVE TO BE disinfo.

As someone who answers the mail on the scholars group I've seen a LOT of people come along with questions about Fetzer and when they are answered with the facts, most people with any sense at all respond expressing their gratitude, concern and support for our work to expose that stuff and keep the names of professionals unmucked with the nonsense he advocates. People that don't have that response are the ones I have to be concerned about -- they aren't interested in evidence, they are interested in hype.

you miss my point while voting me down, i too think Fetzer is disinfo and that he should be exposed. that doesnt mean slandering everyone who has ever done business with the man. thats the kind of reactionary thinking ive seen more and more of around here from the self styled disinfo police. mention Barrett etc., and not even in a supportive way? you get voted down and your thread gets about 3. are book burnings next?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

>>Fetzer is disinfo and that he should be exposed. that doesnt mean slandering everyone who has ever done business with the man.

I saw no slander, I saw caution and questions. Sometimes there is a larger picture too, and we don't have all the information right away.

>>are book burnings next?

This is the classic response to try to intimidate anyone from asking questions, expressing concerns and feeling they are allowed to do that. "Censorship!" "Book burning!" "No critique allowed!" etc.

I'm sorry you don't approve of people interested in more than cheerleading or positive responses. We need to allow the range of responses.

We all wish Sander the best and many support his work. But this is a discussion forum we also have some people bringing up concerns. So what? If there's nothing there than nothing will come of it. No need for strong reactions. All of us get our work looked at closely at one point or another because this is an investigation we are involved in, and we each have to be open to it because if the ability to even ask questions and voice concerns is shut down, we are left unable to call the nonsense when we see it.

Tolerate critique, dissent, analysis. Don't tolerate abuse and slander. Those are two different things. I see no slander anywhere on here.

classic response? i guess head of the 911blogger disinfo police would know huh? :-) hows that saying go about those who scream the loudest about something etc.? i forget. i critique people all the time, i know exactly what the word means and im not against that. scrutinize away. i am against censorship in all its forms. you were one of the few that applauded the censorship policy here while it lasted correct? and just when is it ok to speculate? Arabesque gets on me and others when we do it but i guess its ok when it comes to personalities and if they are disinfo or not? whats your guys rules? you guys know whats best for the movement right?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

This is not just dirrected at you Chris, but at everyone who is "hoax" fatigued. Which appears to include you, but you can correct me on that point.;-)

Let's remember that the 9/11 attacks, as the official story pushes them, are a big HOAX. So, as 9/11 activists, exposing hoaxes is our raison d'etre.

Now the perpetrators of the 9/11 hoax will happily and cheerfully do what they can to distrupt our efforts. That WILL include perpetration MORE hoaxes. If you prefer to say disinformation or disruption, fine, the semantics don't matter as much as recognizing when we're being fucked with.

Some responses to the KW I've observed are very much like the mainstream public's responses to 9/11 is an Inside Job--even though one preson in particular has blown his credability out of the water by unneccesarily insulting anti-war activists publically, some of us just don't want to believe it. I'll let those people take time to process--I'm not pushing on that point. But the one thing that is beyond doubt is the bad behavior given little provocation.

Now if we can't hold our own people responsible for their actions and words, how do you think we'll keep any cred when asking everyone "not there yet" to hold Cheney, et al responsible for 9/11?

As we are all leaders here, we should ALL be the disinfo police, right? That's why we're here. Not everyone will be interested in doing everything, and that's fine. But if someone thinks something MIGHT be dodgy, you'd want them to tell you, right? Give you a bit of heads up? So you could go a bit more carefully? Wouldn't you be a bit annoyed if you stepped in some shite then found out someone could have warned you but didn't?

I'm not telling anyone what to think. I don't have an opinion on this thread--yet. But given this IS a 9/11 annivereary, and we do know "they are out to get us", caution should be the watch word.

I will agree with you the "temporary moderation policy" was overkill--but I don't think that has anything to do with being cautious about dodgy looking info.

______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I'm closing this thread to try to keep the peace. Agree to disagree and move on.