By Craig McKee
The largest web site in the world devoted to discussing truth behind the so-called terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 has been condemned for its unwarranted and destructive banning of contributors.
The site, 911Blogger.com – which has banned a long list of 9/11 Truthers from contributing to its site – was condemned in the form of a resolution passed by the 911 Truth Teleconference, a group of prominent 9/11 activists that holds a virtual meeting each month to discuss issues related to the Truth movement.
In particular, 911 Blogger has banned many activists who are sympathetic to the position of Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Blogger also permits persistent and vicious attacks against CIT and their supporters while denying those being attacked the opportunity to defend themselves.
It enthusiastically encourages support for the official government story of 9/11 as it pertains to the “attack” against the Pentagon. The idea that the evidence doesn’t support the notion that a 757 hit the building is ridiculed by many of the favoured contributors of 911 Blogger. I have addressed this issue in a number of posts (including: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/the-assault-on-cit-who-is-really-undermining-911-truth/)
Here is the text of the resolution, passed at the 911 Truth Teleconference meeting of April, 27, 2011:
“911blogger.com has harmed the 9/11 truth movement by banning users who support Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), and allowing unsubstantiated personal attacks on CIT and their supporters, while aggressively promoting the unlikely account that the physical damage at the Pentagon was caused by the crash of a large aircraft.
“We condemn this behavior and urge the 911blogger moderators to reinstate users who were banned because of their support for CIT. We further urge the moderators to strive for fairness, transparency and objectivity. This will foster an environment in which truth can be discovered and propagated.”
The duo behind CIT, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, have produced a number of documentary films that make a case that the large plane seen approaching the Pentagon by many onlookers flew to the north of the Citgo gas station, located across the street from the Pentagon. The official story requires a “south of Citgo” flight path to account for the five light poles that were allegedly felled that day. If the witnesses interviewed by CIT are correct about the “north of Citgo” path, then the light pole evidence has to have been staged.
This thesis has received support from some of the most prominent names in the 9/11 Truth movement, including David Ray Griffin (who has written numerous books alleging that 9/11 was an inside job) and Barrie Zwicker (author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 and the first journalist to suggest on national television anywhere that 9/11 was an inside job). I wrote about this in a recent post: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/david-ray-griffin-barrie-zwicker-support-cit%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98staged-evidence%E2%80%99-scenario/
While Griffin is not part of the 911 Teleconference (founded by Jonathan Mark of flybynews.com), Zwicker and a number of other important members of the Truth movement are. Here is the list of those who participated in the most recent Teleconference meeting, according to the meeting minutes (copied from 911discussion.com):
Susan Wolfe (www.nycfor911truth.com), Jeff Orling (NY activist, architect), Shelton Lankford (www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org), Ted and Nelisse Muga (San Diegans for 911 Truth – www.SD911truth.org) , Chris Pratt (filmmaker, www.DeceptionsUSA.com), Paul Zarembka (Professor, Buffalo University, Hidden History of 9-11), Barbara Honegger, Sheila Casey (Staff Reporter www.RockCreekFreePress.com), Barrie Zwicker (Author, Towers of Deception, Toronto International Citizens’ Inquiry), Robin Hordon (www.Pilotsfor911truth.org), Adam Sayed (www.911discussion.com), Adam Ruff (www.meetup.com/We-are-Change-inlandempire), Edwin Jewett, Ben Collet, Les Jamieson, Jonathan Mark (www.FlybyNews.com), Ken Freeland (Houston 9/11 Truth – www.meetup.com/9-11-281, facilitating).
Casey contributed to an article some months ago in the Rock Creek Free Press that questioned whether 911 Blogger was working for or against the movement. This important article is responsible for getting the discussion into the open.
Adam Sayed, who is supportive of the CIT position on the Pentagon event, decided to fill what he saw as the void created by 911 Blogger’s disappointing direction by starting his own forum, 911discussion.com.
Having read dozens of vicious and factually challenged attacks on opponents of the 9/11 Pentagon official story, I can’t help but be encouraged by the move made by the Teleconference group. This resolution tells the truth, and it’s the first time since I started writing this blog that I can imagine “911 Blogger” and “good news” finding their way into the same sentence.
I think most people familiar with 911blogger see them as transparently compromised. It’s such a horribly toxic environment.
The regular members shout down (and vote down) anyone who isn’t lock-step in with their twisted agenda which makes virtually every thread a flame fest. It’s the worst possible environment to cultivate community and activism and casual participants or observers quickly see this.
It certainly seems that way. The positive thing about it is that more people seem to be ready to speak out against this. Maybe reason will win out after all.
If the Citizen Investigation Team wants to be taken seriously, I have a few suggestions.
1. Prohibit your supporters from saying stupid things like “There is no evidence of a 757″
2. Prohibit your supporters from saying stupid things like “The hole is too small for a 757″
3. Stop making stupid claims like Terry Morin Supports the NoC Flight Path, and obviously dishonestly-framed ones like None of the Witnesses Who Could See the Citgo Placed the Aircraft on the SoC Flight Path.
4. Stop demonizing cooperating witnesses like Lloyde England and Father McGraw. It makes truthers look like unethical people and repels potential whistleblowers.
5. Explain how the cloverleaf light poles got knocked down. The notion that they were planted early in the dark is ludicrous. They would have been right there in the short grass in the cloverleaf through two rush hours.
6. Interview people who cleaned up the Pentagon about plane wreckage and damage.
7. Track down the flyover witnesses Eric Dihle spoke of.
8. Acknowledge that Roosevelt Roberts’s account is so screwed up it’s useless
9. Track down Deb Anlauf. She saw the whole thing.
10. Put some time into canvassing potential east-of-Pentagon flyover witnesses: bus drivers, freeway commuters, airport limo drivers, DOT employees, dog walkers in the park, bikers in the park, marina employees, marina tenants, planespotters, airport employees, aircraft pilots.
CIT’s failure to persue certain obvious lines of research is damning. It’s like they went there looking for a certain story, a dozen witnesses who fell into their lap told them what they wanted to hear, and they believed it and terminated their investigation.
I have no problem with the suggestion that more research could be done and that more witnesses could be found and interviewed. And you certainly have the right to cite witnesses that you feel contradict CIT’s research. But there are serious problems with some of your other suggestions.
The first and most obvious is your suggestion that CIT prohibit its supporters from expressing certain opinions. Are you seriously suggesting that CIT has control over those who support their research?
When people use terms like “stupid” in connection with the Pentagon event, they seem to usually be doing so to attack CIT. I don’t think stupid is a very strong word to use in debating an issue.
Whether or not there is any evidence of a 757 is really not the point. I contend, as do many others who support CIT’s work, that the airplane parts found at the site were not from Flight 77 or any other 757 that crashed into the building that day.
As for the hole, it clear wasn’t large enough for a 757 to disappear into the building. And no, I don’t buy the Mike Walter fantasy of folding wings.
The last point I’ll address is the “demonizing of co-operating witnesses” reference, because this is clearly one of your favourite arguments. It’s also very popular with the anti-CIT crowd at 911Blogger, which is losing credibility with an ever-growing number of 9/11 Truthers.
Lloyde England is not a demon and he’s not an evil mastermind behind a conspiracy, but he has given an account of what happened to him on that morning that defies common sense. I’m sorry if you feel this is unfair to him, or that it demonizes him, but I simply don’t believe his account. Aren’t you disbelieving all the witnesses who support the north of Citgo flight path? Their accounts clearly don’t jive with the light poles being hit. Why is this different?
You, and others who agree with you, seem to want to support the official story of the Pentagon on 9/11, and I still don’t understand why.
If “evidence of a 757 is really not the point” then it’s doubly stupid to claim that there isn’t any when there are many pictures of plane parts that appear to be consistent with 757 parts.
Practical people understand the way that a wing is built, swept back with three spars,
means that the first thing that happens when the shoulder of the wing hits the wall is that the first two spars are severed, leaving only one spar to give lateral support. The wing hinges back as the trailing spar bends.
Whether you believe Mr. England’s account or not is beside the point. People see CIT demonizing him in their videos, and they’re not going to undertake an exhaustive investigation of Lloyde’s tale. They’re going to react on the face of it to the fact that these arrogant young men are beating up on a confused old man.
I don’t want to support the official report on anything. I want people to stop spreading falsehoods that make us look bad. I want CIT to either finish the job, and do the further research or admit that they aren’t going to do it because they’re afraid they won’t find what they’re looking for. Their investigation is as dishonest as NIST’s is.
I don’t understand how you can sound reasonable when you talk about the demolition of the towers and be so off the mark on the Pentagon.
You wrote: If “evidence of a 757 is really not the point” then it’s doubly stupid to claim that there isn’t any when there are many pictures of plane parts that appear to be consistent with 757 parts.
I’m sorry, I don’t get the cause/effect relationship alluded to in this sentence. What’s important is that no piece of wreckage has been positively connected to Flight 77. Not one. You admit this when you write: “parts that appear to be consistent.” I get it; there were airplane parts, but not enough to account for a 757.
I have no idea what you mean by “practical people” understanding how wings are built. I wrote an article on this point several months back that shows in detail why the wings would have snapped off and been left outside the building. Until you can refute the science in that article, then I’m not to interested in your version of “practical.”
Whether I believe Mr. England is entirely the point. And if it weren’t for CIT, we wouldn’t even know about how ridiculous England’s account is. I think this whole thing about CIT being arrogant is SO irrelevant. And also, this silly idea that England was a “confused old man” is getting old. He knew what he was saying. Get over it! Would have been happier if they’d bought him dinner first?
The fact remains that you seem to support the official story on the Pentagon. Please tell me where you don’t. And please explain why you are not suspicious of what the government says about what happened at the Pentagon.
I don’t think there is enough visual evidence to push the pentagon as there is for say wtc7. So the thinking is go after what would be the easiest to prove then the rest will follow.
Methinks Thou doth protest to much
Brian Good is in no place to make “suggestions” to anyone.
He has proven himself a troll and a coward who will not face the people for debate that he regularly stalks and torments. He is currently weaseling out of debating Willie Rodriguez as documented here:
And has already weaseled out of debating CIT as documented here:
We don’t need any more evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC or for the north side approach/flyover at the Pentagon.
Both have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and both indisputably prove the official conspiracy theory a lie. That should be all we need to know in order to end the fraudulent war and start indictments for the cover-up. Anyone who claims to be part of the movement who says otherwise should be strongly suspected of working for the other side.
I’m not weaseling out of anything. Willie R has shown a tendency to use innocent third parties as human shields, and I’m trying to structure things so they don’t get hurt.
I didn’t weasel out of the debate with CIT. The pre-debate debate was going very well–I was kicking CIT’s ass, and we were getting a lot of reads, and I wanted time to promote the debate so we could have it out once and for all. And if we had, maybe CIT would have sunk earlier–a good thing for the movement.
Your overblown claims of proof will repel thoughtful people. Until there are hearings where both sides can be heard, nothing is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The government has never even tried to refute the CD theory, and until they try and fail, nothing can be regarded as proven.
The northern flight path can not be regarded as proven until CIT plausibly explains how the light poles could be planted. “In the dark” won’t cut it, because they’d have to sit there broken in the short grass through two rush hours. Flyover is not proven until you find credible flyover witnesses.
Dear Mr. Good,
Would you be so kind as to contact me through email? I have a brief and painless couple of questions for you.
Awhile ago, I asked Mr. McKee to contact you directly on my behalf (and with my contact info) using the email that you post with. I’ve snuffed out a potential email address for you on my own and sent you a message. Between the two messages (neither having bounced), you should have my email address. I assume that the gmail account is a junk account that you rarely monitor. Would you please log in, look for my message, and ping me some life signs?
The reason that Brian Good supports the demolition of the towers while being so “debunker”-like with other aspects of 9/11 is that he’s what is known as a fake truther. You see, on the one hand, there are full blown anti-truthers like Albury. On the other hand, the perps have to send in people who CLAIM to be on the side of 9/11 truth. How can the person “prove” this? By embracing the one physical evidence aspect that the perps have probably declared a losing battle by now… the demolition of the towers. Let’s face it: 99.99999% of all truthers embrace controlled demolition, so for a person to have even marginal credibility within our ranks, they must embrace it. They then expend that “credibility capital” when they pull JREF-style / Popular Mechanics- style arguments out of their asses in order to defend various key aspects (physical evidence wise) of the official story.
That’s right Brian, I am suggesting you are an infil-traitor and a stinky turd in the punchbowl. You sure do have a seemingly unlimited amount of time to bash everyone from W Rod to CIT. Who has this kind of time? Someone who’s either insane or an op. Sue me for defamation you POS.
Aw Adam, you’re going to hurt somebody’s feelings talking like that.
William Rodriguez has been very destructive to the 9/11 Truth movement. He appropriated the story of Pablo Ortiz, a 9/11 hero who saved dozens of people by breaking down doors and letting trapped people out and who died himself when WTC1 fell down. Willie’s claim that he saved hundreds is verified by no one, proven by death statistics to be untrue, and depends on a belief that any fireman, cop, security guard, janitor, or architect can see in an instant is a lie–the notion that people were trapped behind locked fire exit doors waiting for an Angel of God with a Key of Hope to come and set them free.
CIT’s unwillingness to undertake the obvious lines of investigation listed above shows that they are afraid to test their hypotheses. An hypothesis that depends on ignorance for its plausibility is only junk science. Until you can provide a plausible explanation for how the light poles could be planted without detection, you’ve got nothing.
Until you can explain all the north of Citgo witnesses and how they can be reconciled with the fallen light poles then you’ve got nothing.
I don’t need to reconcile anything. I am not making any claims about the Pentagon.
CIT needs to reconcile the fallen lightpoles. That’s my point. An hypothesis that can not explain all the evidence is a weak one.
Until CIT can reconcile the fallen light poles with the north of Citgo witnesses, they’ve got nothing. Their handwaving “planted in the dark” argument is absurd. The broken pole pieces would have been there in the cloverleaf through two rush hours.
To say you are making no claims about the Pentagon is disingenuous on your part. You are clearly claiming that Flight 77 hit the building, are you not? You are claiming that the light pole evidence is genuine, are you not? Why not take time away from attacking CIT and defend your position. Either the north-of-Citgo witnesses are wrong or the light pole evidence is fake. Which is it?
Maybe Brian can explain how a plane smashes into light poles without seeing it and how a light pole spears a taxi cab without anyone seeing it – I’d consider those pretty memorable events but all we have at the Pentagon is a large number of witnesses who place the plane in a separate location to the light poles.
Yes, I’ve been trying to get that answer out of him for some time. Apparently, he thinks it has to be proven how the light poles were faked before he’ll even consider the idea. I suppose all of the north flight path witnesses were lying or mistaken?
Craig, I don’t know what happened at the Pentagon. I don’t know if Flight 77 hit the building or not. I know that those who claim it did not make some silly claims–such as No 757 Wreckage, and The Plane had to Penetrate 6 Masonry Walls, Hitting the Building on the North Path is Aerodynamically Impossible, and The Light Poles Could Have been Planted in the Dark the Night Before.
I concentrate on debunking false claims. As a matter of logic it’s possible that the North Path witnesses are wrong AND the light poles were faked.
We agree that no one knows with certainty what happened (except the perpetrators). But a reasonable discussion about what in the official story is impossible seems like the best place to start. Did a hijacked 757 hit the Pentagon? The evidence says no, in my opinion. There isn’t enough damage to the building, there isn’t enough wreckage outside the building (considering the size of the hole), and the pattern of damage is not consistent with the official story (deaths in the A ring when the plane is supposed to have stopped after punching a hole in the C ring). Can’t we focus on where agree about these issues instead of focusing on where we don’t agree?
“Hitting the Building on the North Path is Aerodynamically Impossible”
That is not a “silly claim” it is a physical fact.
Of course Good’s straw man wording implies the claim is that it is impossible to hypothetically hit the building from the north side when the claim is actually that it can not have hit the the light poles or the building from that approach in order to cause the observed physical damage on 9/11/2001. Thus proving a flyover.
Brian Good has not even attempted to “debunk” this scientific fact because he can’t. Even the most prominent CIT detractors (such as Hoffman & Legge) agree with CIT on this point.
Of course nobody knows for certain everything that happened, but some things we do know for certain such as the fact that a flight path north of the gas station proves a flyover and the fact that 2.5 seconds of freefall acceleration of building 7 proves controlled demo.
These two simple details expose a full-on MIHOP scenario and it’s impossible for any alleged “9/11 truther” or official story skeptic to remain intellectually honest while denying this.
If a plane flying on the northside of the gas station can’t hit the lightpoles and cause the directional damage to the building then that suggests the plane did not fly on the northside of the gas station. It contradicts the evidence that the plane flew on the northside of the gas station. The eyewitness evidence, and all of the other evidence, of the plane hitting the building contradicts the evidence of the plane flying on the northside of the gas station. Coming to a conclusion about something on the basis that it is ‘unanimously corroborated’ and then declaring that all the evidence that contradicts it is false , just highlights the fact that the evidence has not been properly assessed.
It can also suggest that the “evidence” has been fabricated to lead people to draw false conclusions. The light pole evidence is fake, in my opinion. The ridiculous account of Lloyde England is one indication of this. If his story is a lie, then the rest is in doubt. If I have to choose between the CIT witnesses quoted in National Security Alert and Mr. England, I know which I find more credible.
FFB, first you claim that “Hitting the Building on the North Path is Aerodynamically Impossible” is a physical fact. Then you claim that the statement is a straw man argument and place a lot of conditions on the issue. Why are CIT supporters like you spreading such confusion?
Craig, if evidence has been falsified then it’s just as reasonable to think that the testimony of the North Path witnesses has been faked as it is to think the light poles were faked. Were the light poles planted in the dark the night before, as CIT claims, they would have been sitting there broken in the short grass in the cloverleaf through both the 8:00 and 9:00 rush hours.
I agree 100% with the first comment here. I don’t think anyone has proven one way or another what happened at the Pentagon. I don’t side with either side mentioned here. The point of the article is that 911blogger is actively censoring, and now has been taken over largely by LIHOPers (although that last part is not mentioned in the article.) Censoring does no good; it just makes people distrust you. If you can’t prove your point without muzzling opposing viewpoints, some of which I think are perfectly valid, then you are not standing on solid ground. P4T has done some great work (this is very interesting: http://tinyurl.com/3gu5jx8 – be sure to read the whole thread and click on the jpgs and voice recordings), and I don’t think they necessarily agree with CIT, yet they haven’t been invited to the Toronto hearings. April Gallop, who has nothing to gain from her story, has also been excluded. Aidan Monaghan would also be a valuable speaker.
But back to the point of the article, I find it interesting that in this space, opposing viewpoints are allowed without voting down or outright censorship or banning. What is Blogger afraid of? Yes, there are the Judy Woods people, etc., but those people have essentially disappeared from the truth movement without being banned or censored. There is a growing truth movement and people are realizing all around the world that we were lied to. To marginalize people because their theory – and that is all it is – differs from yours, when NO ONE HAS ABSOLUTE PROOF either way, is to effectively divide the truth movement and make it less strong. Blogger has become an insular club of thugs, and it would appear to outsiders they are bent on dividing the truth movement. They have the mentality of GW Bush, who infamously said, “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
Brian, I met you at the Deep Politics conference. I was there with David Chandler, Chris Sarns, and a few others. I am good friends with both David and Chris, and I’ve made clear to them that while I am not in the CIT camp, I am also not in the Jim Hoffman camp, and we are still very good friends despite this. I would say to you, based on your posts here, that what would convince me that AA77 hit the Pentagon would be the sort of proof Aidan Monaghan has been seeking (to no avail), which is identification via serial part numbers, and footage from the CCTV cameras. If the government has nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?
And why has Frank Legge et al. chosen not to consult with actual aviation experts, such as the FDR analyst who has pointed out that Warren Stutt is mistaken in that the aircarft ID he purports to have evidence for is no such thing? I did my own research into this, and the aircraft ID that would appear on the FDR (which is not the tail number, btw), is nothing like what he provided as ‘proof’. When a chemist such as Legge, a software guy such as Warren, and Jim Hoffman, another software guy, and even David Chandler attempt to write with some authority on something so far out of their field without consulting any aviation experts, I have to wonder about their methods and conclusions. I wrote to Rob Balsamo, the spokesperson for P4T, and he said they would be happy to consult on any paper Legge et al are working on. If Legge et al don’t trust the aviation experts at P4T, then they should find some other experts, but I think they should give P4T an opportunity to peer review any forthcoming paper. Or any aviation experts, for that matter.
Oh, and at that P4T link, there are some questionable comments that suggest either goofballs or disinfo agents, but they are virtually, politely ignored, not censored or banned. That is the way to go, not Blogger’s approach, if they have any hope to regain their credibility. Censorship is the #1 enemy of the truth. It’s as if Blogger doesn’t trust us to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.
Thanks for this very intelligent comment. I agree that openness and inclusion will always be a better approach than censorship. I think all points of view deserve a chance (assuming they are sincere, and not offered to intentionally divide the movement). This includes those who agree with Dr. Woods. There’s nothing wrong with vigorous debate. Some, including the Blogger crowd, think that if we aren’t all in agreement to start with, we should stick to following what they think. I think ripping apart EVERY aspect of the official story can only be positive. Those who are ready to fight to the death in claiming that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon are not helping. They do, however, have the right to express that opinion.
Dear Ms. Burik, you wrote:
This comment merits further scrutiny. Dr. Wood was so attacked and marginalized from outside but mostly inside the movement, that it is no wonder her supporters seemed to have disappeared.
For many years, Dr. Wood’s website remained “under construction” and incomplete. Yet of all the 9/11 websites, she was the one who asked the right energy questions and provided pictures (e.g., of toasted cars) that other theories fail to adequately address. I took the “incompleteness” aspect in as a sign of external pressure to shut down her line of questioning. Indeed, someone associated with her and the website was killed.
Meanwhile, others ran her down in any way possible. And they tried to corner her into making definitive statements about the mechanism that caused the destruction. (She’s not an expert in exotic weapons, and if she were, she’d be under national security NDAs to keep her mouth shut.) All along her response was essentially that the pulverization energy requirements need to be addressed, that the damage to vehicles (and not paper, trees) need to be addressed, and that various pieces of evidence (like seismic data, audio signatures) exclude certain more conventional theories of controlled demolition.
The sacred cow of nano-thermite needs to be slaughtered. It certainly could have been involved, but falls short of explaining the duration of underground fires, pulverization, and anomalous vehicle destruction.
And guess what? Dr. Wood’s new textbook deserves a prominent place in every serious 9/11 researcher’s library. It is very well done. I have read it. I came into it from the perspective of milli-nukes with the intention of mining the book for nuggets of truth to bolster my claims. I’ll be damned if I’m not waffling on that and believing now that exotic directed energy weapons (mostly from within the towers) were were deployed. The crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at the boundary line with its unaffected North wing leave the door open for space-based DEW to also have played a role. There was, after all, a massive hurricane that was tracked all week long as it moved up the coast and headed straight for NYC and on 9/11 should have hit NYC, but instead was stopped off of the coast… Yet nearly all weather reports on 9/11 were silent with regards to this storm, whose storm surge still could have caused lots of destruction. Such a conveniently placed hurricane could have been an ideal energy source.
Dr. Wood’s work deserves revisiting and re-consideration. BTW, she does her best not to pin down a definitive mechanism, but to open your eyes to other possibilities, because questions aren’t answered by those steering the 9/11 truth movement and gatekeeping on various forums.
I definitely want to know what caused toasted cars, molten metal, and pulverized concrete. Haven’t heard a traditional explanation that stands up, so maybe the truth lies with an untraditional one. I personally put my focus on how impossible the official story is, but I don’t think we should be afraid to discuss more “exotic” possibilities. If Jonathan Kay’s recent book Among the Truthers is any indication, the movement will be mocked regardless of what ideas are discussed.
Yes certainly I remember you from the Santa Cruz conference. I had already heard before then of your efforts to help AE911Truth transcend some disruptors. At some point I may ask you to identify some others that were at the table to confirm that you are who you claim to be,
Having been banned myself at most of the popular 9/11 forums (sometimes more than once!) I agree that censorship is a brute-force tactic. But I also recognize that bad actors can be extremely disruptive if given the opportunity. I put quite a lot of time in at ScrewLooseChange, and people who post blatant lies persistently there are very disruptive and harmful to the credibility of the forum.
I disagree with your formulation that since we don’t have ABSOLUTE PROOF then we should accept any kind of nonsense that comes along. The 9/11 Commission had 15 million dollars and subpoena power; NIST had $20 million and subpoena power. They couldn’t prove their theories, so why should anyone expect that we can?
Why is the government hiding everything? Well, I’d submit that the reason is because by doing so they can get people to spin all kinds of conspiracy theories which, if they ever get any traction at all, can be easily trashed simply by releasing some videos and plane parts. If we’re not careful, that will discredit the entire movement.
As to Legge et al., they need not be aviation experts to point out impossibilities, faulty calculations, and internal inconsistencies in Mr. Balsamo’s material. At 911oz I presented Mr. Balsamo with a list of 23 questions that he refused to answer.
* What about the ten holes in CIT’s story?
* Where’s your math, physics, and formulae for the flyover flight path?
* How were lamp poles 3, 4 and 5 planted in the cloverleaf without detection?
* Isn’t CIT lying when they say the cloverleaf light poles could be planted the night before because they would be inconspicuous?
* Did the plane fly away without detection on radar?
* What was achieved by the flyover op except providing a golden opportunity for citizen jouirnalists to prove inside job?
* Why not just fly a plane into the building like they did at the WTC?
* Where do you think the flyover plane went?
* At what altitude did the flyover plane cross I-395? How did it escape notice?
* Your sole flyover witness says he had the flyover plane under observation for five seconds and that it flew away to the SW.
* Can you calculate for us the G-forces involved for a 757 in a five second U-turn?
* Suppose the U began at the time of the explosion, make it a 15-second U turn. How about then?
* What’s the radius of the U-turn?
* If you don’t believe the flyover plane was a 757, what kind of plane was it? What G-forces and turning radius are involved?
* At what altitude did the flyover plane cross I-395?
* How do you explain its invisibility to radar? Or are the DCA ATCs in on the plot too?
* Wouldn’t a plane crossing the approaches to runway 15 and/or 19 attract some attention amongst commuters, planespotters, ATCs, and pilots?
* Do you agree with Cindy Sheehan that a lot of stuff in the truth movement is “batshit crazy”? What do you think she’s referring to?
* Do you agree that most aviation professionals, military people, media people, and politicians react negatively to Craig’s needs-a-haircut Partridge Family persona?
* What’s your opinion about John Lear’s “Cities on the Moon” stuff?
* Did Ranke lie when he said on Op Ed news that DCA runway 15 was used by 757s and 737s 24/7?
* Isn’t it strange that you rely on government representations about flight data and radar data for your theories when you’re claiming the government is lying to you about nearly everything else? How do you know they’re not feeding you a load of bull?
* Do you agree with Commander Kolstad that “In Plane Site” is a good source of information about aircraft?
If I may horn in on your private grilling of Laurel, here are a few points that occurred to me:
That’s not what she said. Here’s her quote:
I take from this that she’s simply saying we should be open to other points of view and not reject them out of hand simply because they don’t conform with our beliefs. She’s right.
Your reference to how much money the 9/11 Commission spent makes little sense to me. You’re assuming that getting to the truth depends on how much money you have. If the Commission had had $500 million, they would just have done a better job of covering up.
Your idea of why the government is hiding the truth is very strange. They’re not doing so to get away with the crime, they’re doing it to encourage crazy theories.
Once again, about the light poles, you accuse CIT of lying by saying that the poles could have been planted inconspicuously. Well, you might as well include me, because I believe the same thing. So do a number of people who have commented on this site. Are we all liars? No room for honest disagreement?
The further down your list I go, the more unimpressive your comments get. Why don’t YOU tell us what Cindy Sheehan meant? Why would anyone care about Craig Ranke’s haircut? And what’s wrong with the Partridge Family? They had some good tunes. No, seriously, are you for real? Most aviation professionals? And you’re worried about CIT making the movement look bad?
Instead of sending out questionnaires that only succeed in sending everyone on a wild goose chase, why don’t you stick to refuting the arguments you don’t agree with. And stop calling people liars because you don’t agree with them. It only blows your credibility.
Dear Mr. Good,
I suspose we all are guilty at one point or another of re-posting passages from past exchanges. Sometimes in our rush, though, we lose sight of the fact that we should edit such re-postings to make the salient points even more applicable. Such is the case here when you wrote:
Mr. McKee has already taken you to task for several questions meant to steer the discussion into the weeds and could have been removed to make your case tighter. When I do the mental editing of your 23 questions to make them applicable here, one question stands out and is my motivation for responding.
You assume that planes were flown into the WTC, because it is what we were told. TeeVee footage repeated this over and over so that it has become a very tenacious opinion held by the public, whether or not it is factual. However, September Clues and other proponents of video forgery raise sufficient doubt and highlight what was imposed on us by a complicit mass media [an impression underscored by the coordinated and purposeful surpressing of the Hurricane Erin status on all networks]. The lack of aircraft debris at Shanksville was a glaring piece of evidence that none of the airplanes can be assumed; each plane’s existence or definitive role in the events must be proven independently.
On this note, each plane’s definitive role in the events has not been conclusively proven by the govt. Unanswered questions abound regarding whether certain planes flew that day, whether they took off, who was on the official passenger lists, the lack of conclusive serial numbered plane parts, flight data recorder discrepancies, flight paths, flight physics, crash physics, cellphone calls…
Risk mitigation was the primary reason for video forgery on the towers, and remains why a real plane doing a flyover at the Pentagon coordinated with ground explosives is better than a real plane.
Would a real plane hit the target? … And not be crippled by light poles causing it to crash early, not hit the target squarely, or not impose sufficient damage?
A real plane might not achieve the hidden but vastly important goals of wiping out the entire Office of Naval Intelligence investigating the $2.3 trillion dollars unaccountable by the Pentagon (September 10, 2001). This is a significant amount.
Redundant questions. The answer: Multiple military exercises were in progress during the critical 9/11 events. They involved simulating the exact scenarios that transpired. They also involved the insertion and deletion of radar blips.
You asked in a stilted and framed manner:
Stating opinions is not lying. I agree with CIT, that “cloverleaf light poles could be planted the night before … inconspicuously.”
Here are three other questions that should be striked from your 23 as being irrelevant.
Negative reaction to a haircut? If they’re adults, such reactions should be fleeting. Or are you saying that “most aviation professionals, military people, media people, and politicians” are so shallow as to base their entire assessment of another individual exclusively by how they look? Judging a book by its cover?
This is a guilt by association ploy. If that wasn’t bad enough, if you scratch the surface, what do the many highly educated and articulate astronauts say on the subject? Your ploy fails twice in the same pass.
Hey, I’m “batshit crazy”! It doesn’t make me wrong, and more importantly, it hasn’t been proven wrong. And I, for sure, would greatly appreciate it be convincingly proven wrong so that I won’t so consistently be outside of mainstream opinions and views in my “batshit crazy” realm.
My point was a simple one: Balsamo ran away rather than address the questions. He actually bragged about putting me on ignore, as if it were clever or cute or admirable.
“It hasn’t been proven wrong” is about the weakest argument there is. The proposition that George W. Bush is actually a 500-year-old reptile from outer space hasn’t been proven wrong, but that doesn’t mean we should use it in our campaign to increase 9/11 awareness and get new investigations. Associating the movement with science fiction fantasies hurts credibility.
Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:
Agreed. But even the lamest of weak arguments will prevail if it isn’t countered. Moreover, those countering it will need more than ridicule and side-stepping; they’ll need reason and truth.
The batshit crazy spectrum is rather broad. When I wrote that fragment, my mind was thinking “Dr. Judy Wood and her excellent recent textbook on 9/11 and directed energy weapons.” It was also thinking “video forgery, September Clues, no planes.”
If you have sufficient information to make “the proposition that George W. Bush is actually a 500 year-old reptile from outer space,” then you know more than I do or have gathered.
With regards to tying the Bush family bloodlines to alien reptile cross-breeding in ancient days, I am most unclear on its relation to 9/11 in specific matters, but it does kind of explain how American foreign policy has an almost alien agenda to it — to radically position mankind into a state where they are easy to control and exterminate. I don’t bring it up in the campaign to increase 9/11 awareness. (You sort of did by bringing up John Lear and moon bases manned by Germans since 1943.)
Science fiction fantasies? Most good science fiction have elements of truth to a degree that they foreshadow or predict the future in terms of feel and some details.
In terms of 9/11, too many have painted with an overly broad brush of science fiction fantasy, with an explicit attempt to take out directed energy weapons and video forgery among other theories from that broad batshit crazy spectrum.
Here’s a couple of short videos relating to 9/11 video fakery. One shows how the videos we watched didn’t correlate to other live action crashes we’ve observed. The other shows how Hollywood paid more attention to detail (and probably had more time to tweak it to make it look right) in their 1978 movie of a plane crashing into a building and exhibiting crash physics.
9/11 fake: Basic Crash Physics 101
9/11 Fake: 1978 Movie Mocks 9/11 Plane Crash
Brian, it’s kind of weird that even after meeting me, and my using my real name on here, that you would question I am who I am, and for the record, I didn’t “claim” to be anyone. For the Deep Politics conference, I paid hotel and entrance fees for John Parulis, Chris Sarns, Debora Blake, David Chandler, Mike Marino, and Steve Wilson and his family. I paid to fly Debora over from France. It was sort of a reunion of the Reformers, though some of us had never met each other before. We were invited to a private meeting with David Ray Griffin after one of the events; in fact, he invited me to a dinner as soon as I got into town before the events, to discuss a project he wanted my help on. Besides my work with WACLA, these are core people I work with. You can google my name and see that I’ve written articles for AE (which was only one of my duties there), and am involved in numerous activist areas such as chemtrails, vaccines, Bradley Manning, fluoride, the plight of the Gazans and of course 911, and I’ve donated large sums to each of those interests to further the cause. I put my money where my mouth is, and I also go out there and DO. I’m not an armchair activist. I have done years of research, a lot of it quite technical, but I am also out there in the trenches.
Because I am such an inquisitive person, I decided to google you, to see who you “claim to be”. You claim to ‘spend a lot of time at ScrewLooseChange’ – why? It’s a duhbunker site. It’s a complete waste of time. ‘Harmful to the credibility of the forum’?! So you are defending the credibility of a duhbunker site?! Run by the guy who made a phony ‘AE info’ website? It appears they have taken down the forum, so what do you spend your time on now? The few hits that came up on you on google were not flattering, to say the least.
It seems you spend your time fighting with other truthers. I experienced something like this in the early stages of the Bradley Manning Support Network. There was a guy, also from the Bay Area, named Ryan, who fought with many of the organizers of that group and was so disruptive we had a hard time getting any work done. Once he was removed, the group operated smoothly and productively, putting together a steering committee and advisory board with some big names, raising about $50,000 in a month or so for Manning’s defense and other efforts, including the original protest in Quantico and the International Days events around the world. The group has done an incredible job in raising public awareness and support for Manning when all anyone was talking about was Wikileaks.
This same type of disruption/distraction occurred at AE, with a couple ‘volunteers’ who joined within a month of each other and immediately started to waste everyone’s time with lengthy group e-mail and phone conference arguments for things such as taking the term ‘controlled demolition’ out of AE’s presentations, and arguing for including the Pentagon in AE’s work, among other things. One of those individuals made illegal recordings of a strategy session for an upcoming key debate, a rematch between Gage and a so-called demolition expert, and it did not go unnoticed that the opponent appeared to have had a heads up on our strategy. I did background checks on those individuals that came back highly suspect, and after much struggle, part of the time including trying to get one of these people off the Board of Directors (where they had wormed their way in only 3 months after joining), they were finally dismissed from the AE team. Their presence and the subsequent aftermath of their departure caused a lot of disruption and AE lost some very good people. We had a phrase, “If they’re not agents, they might as well be.”
And that is what I’m seeing, at Blogger, and with people like you (after reading the few mentions of you on google, none of which point to anything productive for the truth movement).
I liken the various factions in the truth movement (the CIT followers, September Clues followers, Judy Woods followers, nuke followers, concrete core followers, and yes, the nanothermite followers, etc.) to various religions. I am an atheist myself, and while I’ve looked into the “evidence” produced by all these and more, I am not a firm believer in any of them, at least not in their entirety. And as with atheism vs. religion, none of these factions has absolute proof of their position.
I look at them instead as theories, which they are, not facts. And of course, some theories come with better evidence than others, for instance nanothermite, which was found. I have done a lot of research on nanoenergetics, and I do believe it was used, but I don’t believe it was the only thing used to take down the towers.
One thing I think most truthers CAN agree on, is that those towers did not come down from plane impacts and fire, or, in the case of WTC 7, fire. Or any combination of natural consequences. I think all truthers can agree that nothing should have hit or otherwise damaged the Pentagon.
I think all truthers can agree that all of the evidence taken into account, such as PNAC, the military exercises, changing the procedures for hijack protocol, behavior of Bush and others, prior plans to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., plus the previously mentioned areas of agreement show overwhelmingly that we were not told the truth in any way, shape or form.
And I think these areas of agreement, presented to the otherwise ignorant general public population, are key to gaining more support for truth and justice, rather than the constant infighting, which is completely unproductive and serves to weaken and fracture the truth movement.
That said, I believe we, not Cass Sunstein and crew, are winning this battle, but it would be a hell of a lot easier without the distractions and division. Since I became awake, back in early 2005, I have seen the truth movement grow massively worldwide. And being out on the streets talking to everyday people, total strangers, I have seen a massive growing awareness, whether they become ‘activists’ or not. I know many are sharing their thoughts and concerns with their family and friends, and I know the thousands of DVDs handed out daily/weekly/monthly by activists throughout the world get passed around. I know because I have seen it within my own circle of family and friends, and through meeting total strangers that strike up a conversation based on a message shirt I wear, whether it is 911, chemtrails or Bradley Manning. I wear these shirts every day. Sometimes I have a dvd to hand out, but in any case I engage them in conversation and point them in the right direction or provide my contact info. And the people in the truth movement who scoff at the ‘black shirts’ can go to hell. They spend all their time behind a computer instead of getting out there and talking to strangers.
We are not as ‘fringe’ as duhbunkers and MSM would like us to believe, but it would help if people stopped claiming as fact that which is theory. And stopped the infighting and started to work together. And got off their computers and got out in the streets. And talked to people outside the truth movement instead of trying to convert minds within, who are (presumably) already on our side. There are many out there in the general public who have their own suspicions, but are afraid to broach the subject with family, friends or co-workers for fear of being ridiculed or worse, but gain confidence after speaking with someone in the truth movement who is knowledgeable and has done their research and can present evidence in a clear, calm, rational manner. Or simply listen to the other person without judgement.
Ultimately, whether it was LIHOP or MIHOP makes no difference. Either way, the people responsible need to be brought to justice. Either way, they are murderers, which is a capital offense. And all the subsequent deaths, from war and from the health effects, are on them. Those are the people we should be going after, not eating our own.
Dear Ms. Burik, you wrote:
Actually, Screw Loose Change [SLC] is alive, and just as irrelevant & irreverent as ever. Brian Good under the alias “snug.bug” is active there. Yes indeed, your question regarding why Mr. Good is active there at all is valid. (Me? I’ve never posted there, although my name has been smeared there and I have engaged one its main participants in another forum, where he employed similar underhanded tactics.)
I think I’ve discovered the main purposes of SLC.
First of all, SLC serves as a Google repository of smears on people or projects (videos, books, presentations, etc.) of note in the 9/11 Movement. No, Blogspot isn’t the Google search engine, but it gets searched and indexed by Google. SLC allows dirt and lies to be published about people — whether or not they are aware they’re being smeared. This way, if a normal web surfer decides to google that name or project, SLC will appear in the search results as an unflattering reference. With Google being a regular part of the job application & background process, such smears are a gift/harm that keeps on giving/harming.
Secondly, SLC serves as a mini-echo chamber and NSA Q-Group training forum. Without controversy or conflict (in movies, novels, or internet forums), it isn’t interesting or compelling. Without Mr. Good on SLC, they’d have little to say except “I agree, bro. Ditto. What you said.” When all else fails, Mr. Good is sure to show up with a “truther” perspective and be their foil.
I don’t want to repeat the slurs and accusations against Mr. Good by the likes of GuitarBill, who proved himself to be an A-class disinfo Q-Groupie in places like AlterNet. On the one hand, I think Mr. Good has gotten a very raw deal by the immoral antics of the SLC regulars, and their internet echo-chamber fabrication, linking, and trumpeting of slurs. (The slur is created in some place at some time; later in a new forum, they’ll link to the original smear as some form of factual substantiation: “See the skeleton’s in Mr. Good’s closet?”)
On the other hand, given those slurs and unfounded accusations and their persistence over a very long time, it questions Mr. Good’s rational self that he would continue to participate. Going back repeatedly for more of the same gutter abuse as if it will result in a different outcome?
Laurel, anyone can sign up here under any name they want. I could register as “William Rodriguez” with a hotmail account of W185R449@hotmail.com. I have been had people try to scam me by email, by telephone, and in person by claiming that they are people they aren’t.
Why do I spend time at Loose Change? Because the bullshit they throw at me is exactly the same bullshit John Q. Public throws at me when I do tabling gigs, and it’s good to develop the one-liners that deflect it.
Dr. Kevin Barrett (the bigot, liar, and advocate of violence) has a vendetta against me because I have humiliated him so badly so many times. Try to source his claims and you’ll see that they go back to his own writings or documents that don’t exist. In his most recent mainstream media interview (2009) Barrett lied 4 times in the first 4 minutes. He’s a credibility-killer.
I don’t fight truthers, I fight liars. Some people who claim to be truthers are liars. You’re right to characterize CIT, September Clues, Judy Woods, nuke, concrete core, and nanothermite as theories. I don’t go for theories myself. I think they’re all distractions from the fact that the government investigations have been coverups and we need new ones.
I disagree that infighting is unproductive. There are some people in the movement who present repulsive, unbelievable, and kooky theories to the public. They make us look like nuts. Slamming those people down is the right thing to do IMHO. We need to have more credibility than the officials do if we want to prevail. The people who insist on lying after being repeatedly asked to stop are not “our own”. They are hurting us, and I am not going to apologize for doing my bit to take them down.
Mr. Once, GuitarBill is nothing but an A-class idiot who discredits himself, his ideas, and the ScrewLooseChange forum. He says really really stupid things and then denies that he said them.
As to gutter abuse, only the truth hurts. Lies from lying liars I take as a tribute.
Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:
The ScrewLooseChange forum is discredited with and without the help of GuitarBill.
You may under-estimate GuitarBill. Yes, at times, he is an A-class idiot who does indeed sometimes say really stupid things that he then later denies. Other times, he has very crafty postings that take some effort to locate the deception and counter. He is intelligent and educated particularly in things IT related, although his intimate IT knowledge seems to come and go. Of course, among the stupid things he’s written include his educational background given in his profile (now deleted) in blogger, on AlterNet, and in Community Hall of a San Francisco escort and massage website that he calls home (as Algorithmx). Why stupid? Because they contradicted each other.
I haven’t dealt with GuitarBill directly in a long time (1/2010). But I guess my encounters with him rattled him so much, he went through half a year jumping at shadows and accusing his opponents-du-jour of being me. Another stupid move.
But the above to me are clues that GuitarBill might be really “Team GuitarBill.” The difference in tenor, tone, and tactics — those postings that juxtapose goats and sex acts compared to those postings that are somewhat researched re-posts from his database — hint at multiple people, if not in the posting action then in the authoring of the content.
“Team GuitarBill” might have even deeper roots within a certain NSA Q-group. Both the team aspect and for whom the team plays suggest caution and to not under-estimate. Afterall, he seemed to have sleuthed your IP address in one thread.
I hear you, and on SLC, you are probably safe from getting hurt, because nearly all of the participants there have this military combat buddy aura in their me-too-ism’s and echo chamber re-iteration of govt talking points followed by ignorant gutter slams.
As I have experienced, the lies from lying liars have more sting in other environments and when executed in a more subtle manner. The most important other environment is google, when its searches brings such lies forth and towards the top of its search results.
Do the site and its visitors a favour, ban the troll Brian Good from commenting here. Unless you mistakenly believe he is sincerely contributing something of worth, you are doing free speech a disservice by enabling and empowering Brian Good in his attempt to smear and degrade the contributions of genuine truth activists. He is obviously tasked with damaging the truth and those who seek it. His ilk are damaging and contaminating the honesty, the sincerity and the integrity of your site.
Mr. Good was banned from this site a long time ago.
I will not get into a shouting match over this but i will relate what i saw that day , i saw what everyone else saw on tv that day ( what they wanted us to see ) that said cbc news station in DECEMBER showed the foundation of the wtc running with molton metal ???? I do know JET FUEL does not burn that long nor cause molton metal to run three months after the event . I am not stupid and i resent the bull crap over this , 9/11 was planed by who ( not sure ) why ( again not sure ) and i think that is the way THEY want it . I will say i PVRed this cbc segment and go figger my PVR took a crap 1 day after i recorded it and talked about it on the cbc news web site . I hope people will set their crap aside and TALK about this …. because as i see it divided is how they want us . tc all .