Can largest 9/11 Facebook forum rise above ridicule, insults, and contrived controversies?

January 25, 2015

By Craig McKee

Under the right conditions, a 9/11 forum can be a great place to share information, test hypotheses, and learn from other truthers. But under the wrong conditions, it can provoke divisions, spread disinformation, and suppress essential evidence.
The 9/11 Facebook group “9/11 Truth Movement” – the largest of its kind with nearly 40,000 members – can be both. It has some great people posting there on a regular basis, and it has some sincere and hard-working truthers helping to moderate the discussion. But at times it can also operate like a cliquish “club” that applies astounding double standards to enforcing its own rules.
My expression of concern about this, outlined below, is not for the purpose of rehashing past arguments or responding to past slights, nor is it my wish to reduce this to a clash of personalities. It goes much deeper than this. What it does show is how the Truth Movement’s efforts can be undercut by certain thuggish behavior and baseless positions that are given seeming credibility through endless repetition.
If we don’t challenge these repeated fallacies loud and clear – through an honest and direct discussion of the evidence, not bullying attacks – then the less critical thinkers in the movement will end up allowing themselves to be persuaded by inferior arguments. And when that is allowed to happen, some of the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is relegated to the “too controversial” or “too inconclusive” files.
An introductory message on the 9/11 TM page from the administrators states: “In respect to all our members and all Facebook users, we will not tolerate nor endorse spam, personal attacks, or attacks against any group of people in this group. Thread hijackings, troll invasion or defamation are also not welcome here. Any post falling in these categories will be subject to immediate deletion and ban without notice. We certainly respect your personal opinions and we encourage you to share them in a civil manner and in accordance to the Facebook code of conduct, terms and policy.”
To say that these rules are enforced unevenly would not do the situation justice. Some of the more active moderators tolerate and even celebrate the most extreme attacks and ugly insults and then accuse those who challenge this of being the problem. This double standard was demonstrated when I was banned a few weeks ago for challenging the behavior of a couple of the group’s favored insiders.
I learned later that my banning was due to my own use of “personal attacks.” I found this ironic as I will explain. The ban was reversed a couple of days later after some members expressed disagreement with the decision. Moderator Joe Haley, who was responsible for the ban, called the whole thing “the McKee fiasco.” I’ve always wanted something named after me, I just never thought it would be a fiasco. Oh well.
Things took a real turn for the strange after my reinstatement when Mike Collins, the most toxic contributor to 9/11 TM, who I had complained about getting special treatment, was handed a 30-day suspension because of his aggressive behavior. This was odd because moderators Haley, Amanda Sedell, and Dany Carmady had defended him at every turn when I was calling attention to his behavior. Rather than being told I had even the slightest point, I was told to “grow a pair” or to simply block the person in question. But of course that wasn’t the point. I was talking about Collins’s effect on the whole group and on any chance for a productive discussion of the evidence.
To give you just a taste of how Collins operates, he said I looked like “a Down Syndrome Conan O’Brien.” Classy, eh? I was not angry or hurt by this because there is nothing that this person could say to me that I would take to heart (and I’ve heard the Conan comparison before). But it does reveal a deeper problem.
The reaction from the moderators to this obvious breaking of their rules? Not a peep.
When Collins is insulted by others, Sedell and Carmady rush to his defence like groupies. At one point he referred to this blog as a “disinfo blog” even though he didn’t really believe that. He clearly has as little respect for the readers of the page as he does for those with Down Syndrome. But what else would you expect from someone who regularly calls people he disagrees with “retards.”
Every statement I made questioning the double standard, whereby Collins could insult anyone he wanted while others were scolded for lesser transgressions, was met with condescending lectures and sarcastic “apologies” from Haley and Carmady. In their minds, there was not a shred of validity in anything I was raising. As it turns out, Collins’s suspension (which only resulted from pressure on the main administrators) showed that I had a legitimate argument.
Now I know this may seem petty to some, but I believe this bullying behavior has to be called out for what it is, so that it is not allowed to drive honest and sincere people from the movement in disgust. A very small number of participants can set a very negative tone for an entire group if they are allowed to do so. And moderators who do nothing to address this (or even encourage it) do a real disservice to the very forum they’ve put so much time and energy into making a success.

Muddying the waters on the Pentagon

The group’s leading admin, Ken Dockery, said it was with great regret that it was necessary to suspend Collins, who he described as being “valuable to the movement.”
I have no idea why any regret would be involved. I don’t think Collins is valuable, I think he’s poison. My regret is that he was given a 30-day slap on the wrist and that he’ll be back to his poisoning ways very soon. Collins may be sincere and not an agent, but his behavior towards others is so destructive that he might as well be an agent. I’ve been told that he was previously banned but then allowed back into the group. Bad move. He is apparently responsible for turning the group from an open one to a closed one (where only members can see posts and read discussions) – but that’s another story.
One destructive claim that gets the “constant repetition” treatment is that there is a real controversy over whether a plane hit the Pentagon. But this controversy is entirely contrived. Past informal surveys on this very Facebook page have shown that the vast majority of truthers believe that no plane crash took place. But it seems the majority of the moderators of this page either believe the part of the official story that a plane did hit or they think that the evidence is so inconclusive, the subject so contentious, and the movement so hopelessly deadlocked, that we can never resolve this impasse.
This, of course, is nonsense.
The only reason there appears to be an impasse is that some don’t recognize compelling evidence when they see it – or they haven’t been exposed to the strongest evidence. Instead, they repeat how we have to wait until the government releases the 85 videos to really know what happened. Comments are posted that offer baseless speculation about what hit or didn’t hit, with missiles seeming to top the list. This speculation is not helpful especially when we have so much hard proof of a faked crash. Collins and his supporters choose to ridicule this wealth of evidence in a way that is disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst.
Back on October 8, 2014, I made a comment in response to moderator Amanda Sedell:
“Amanda, since you’re all about the evidence, perhaps you could answer some of these questions: What happened to the wings? What happened to the tail section? Why didn’t the tail section break the windows above the main part of the hole in the wall? Why weren’t there holes where both engines would have hit? Given that the plane is supposed to have hit at ground level, why were there no trenches where the engines would have dragged along the ground? How can you explain the obvious faking of the government video (two videos are incompatible in the frames that allegedly show the plane); and how can the highly credible witnesses interviewed by CIT be explained?”
I didn’t get answers from her, but Collins responded:
“Craig, why do you come in here every week, and repeat the same stupid questions every single time, after multiple people have proven you wrong? Are you hoping that one simple minded person will agree with you, so you can believe you are finally justified? lol. How could the engines drag on the ground, before the fuselage? This question alone just proves you have absolutely no fuckin clue what you are talking about. Do the engines drag on the ground when planes take off from airports? lol…. Jesus, will somebody tell me why the least-educated, most gullible people in this group are ALWAYS the most stubborn and the most confused.”
When people read things like this, it’s no wonder they’re confused. They may indeed think they’ve come across an ardent defender of the 9/11 official story. Collins mocks and ridicules, but he doesn’t provide answers to any of these questions, despite his claims. In fact, no one favoring a plane impact has answered any of these questions to any satisfactory degree.
Here’s one of my favorite Collins pronouncements. See if you can follow his engineering reasoning as he explains the damage to the Pentagon wall:
“But what you would expect (these are my engineering degrees talking) is the heavy parts of the plane to break through the concrete into the building as they get shredded, and the lighter parts to only do minimal damage to the exterior of the building as they were shredded.”
This guy has two engineering degrees? Wow. You can’t read any of my responses to Collins at the time because they were removed by moderators. No reason given.
Collins explains why most of us just aren’t smart enough to get what he’s saying:
“It just sucks trying to discuss the Pentagon because none of the “no planers” have taken physics, so any explanation they hear, they simply cannot understand.”
“No planers.” See what he’s doing there? He’s equating people who think no planes hit the WTC towers with those who don’t believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon. He and others will ridicule the idea that the “crash” scene might have involved staged evidence. Here, Sedell dusts off her best sarcasm to comment on this:
“The Feds were rolling around with vans full of plane parts too to scatter around and in the building. But no one witnessed these plants because they were invisible to the onlookers and massive media presence.”
Then we have the contribution to the muddled debate from moderator Haley. He contends that the best way to advance the 9/11 cause would be to pursue an indictment against Donald Rumsfeld for “leaving his post” and going out to the Pentagon lawn when he should have been defending the country. But then he somehow relates that to the Pentagon evidence itself – including my contention that the five “downed” light poles were planted.
“How are you going to propose to get an indictment for murder against Rumsfeld when you propose that the light poles were placed there by guys in black hoods and AA77 flew over the Pentagon. It’s a serious question, Craig.”
Is it really? Haley knows I don’t claim that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon – although a large plane clearly did. And the bit about the black hoods is typical of the kind of flippancy that Haley and Collins force the group’s members to endure on so many threads. (Collins also stated that I was claiming that the light poles were planted in “rush hour traffic.” I don’t think that either, but it makes a better quip, doesn’t it?)
There is another bone of contention that leads to toxic exchanges – the idea Collins and moderators Dockery, Haley, Sedell, Carmady, and others seem to have that it’s their job to purge the movement of believers in no planes at the WTC and Judy Wood. Collins actually believes that by calling those people names and attacking their intelligence, he can reduce their number. What it does instead is focus MORE attention on the alleged disinformation. If a real agent is being paid to bring up no planes or Judy Wood, they aren’t going to go away because they are called names. Instead, they’ll succeed in setting the agenda. This point is continually missed by those listed above.
If you dare to support the no planes position, you will find yourself being called such clever labels by Collins as retard, dumb ass, fucking idiot, and stupid fuck – sometimes he even uses all capital letters, so you know he really means it. When I pointed out to Haley that this approach breaks the group’s own rules, he countered with, “Well they are FUCKING IDIOTS!” What I don’t understand is why the group’s administrators don’t simply enforce their own rules and prohibit the topic if that’s how they feel.

‘Twoofers’ and other toxic terms

My banning followed a comment I made about Haley. He and Collins seem to think that conspiracy theorists are a group to be ridiculed. They use the language of the perpetrators of 9/11 and countless other deceptions to ridicule our opposition to the official story. Collins says he doesn’t want to be labelled a conspiracy theorist so he piles on the ridicule – the very definition of “unclear on the concept.”
He uses terms like “twoofers” (a term that official story defenders sometimes use to essentially call truthers wackos and kooks). He also uses “conspiracy sheep” to describe all of those who dare to disagree with him and mocks those who get information from “random online conspiracy blogs.” Am I the only person who finds this incredible – that a supposed truther would use the very terms that our opponents use to marginalize and discredit us?
Collins writes:
“Stay logical and only use statements you can absolutely explain and prove. Once you do this, the more simple minded twoofers will think you are a government CIA illuminati agent” and this is when you’ve succeeded at distancing yourself from disinfo trolls.”
On another thread:
“Lol if you think I am ‘hopeless’ because I said you should look at the hard data, instead of only conspiracy blogs, then you are just a typical arrogant conspiracy sheep who thinks he is “spreading the truth” by memorizing disinformation….lol”
The final straw before my own banning came after Haley said that I sound “just like a conspiracy theorist.” I responded that any truther who mocks conspiracy theorists is either an idiot or deliberately trying to harm the movement. I guess he didn’t like that. I stand by that statement.
Carmady advised me to be more constructive in my criticisms: “Go with the flow! Help don’t hinder. Applaud don’t whine. Praise don’t criticise. Thank don’t request. [???] Watch things change like magic.” It never occurred to me to applaud.
One thing that makes forums like this one almost unbearable at times (for me, at least) is the incessant use of “lol” at the end of every other sentence (Dockery is the worst offender with Collins a close second). This is actually code for “this sentence is not the least bit funny, but I am laughing in advance to head off anyone who wants to disagree with me.” Most of the time, lol is thrown in at the end of a sentence that stands perfectly without any artificial condescension. Whatever happened to being sincere and saying something funny when there was something funny to say? Maybe it’s a generational thing…
Having said all of that, I have to give credit where credit is due. Haley made a post recently where he called on members not to jump on newcomers to the movement who may put forward discredited information. I completely agree. Going on the attack can easily discourage someone who might just be getting introduced to the evidence.
This happened to me in 2010 when I joined 911blogger shortly after creating Truth and Shadows. Someone else had posted a piece from my blog in which I reproduced a satirical article by Gerard Holmgren. But his piece mentioned missiles at the Pentagon, so I was attacked pretty viciously for promoting the missile position, which was the last thing on my mind. Had I been less stubborn than I am, I might well have become discouraged and left the movement. Instead, I gained some valuable insight into what was happening at 911blogger.
I responded to the attacks and got banned there just 10 days after joining. But I’m in good company. Many supporters of Citizen Investigation Team and their position that no plane hit the Pentagon were purged from that site – including the members of CIT themselves. This overt disinfo behavior by those running 911blogger did a lot to destroy the credibility of that forum.
Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that we’re supposed to be spreading the word about how the official story of 9/11 is false and impossible. Instead, some of our most prolific and condescending “personalities” devote puzzling amounts of time to trying to discredit those who offer the best evidence against that official story.
While I appreciate the work they do, my hope is that those running this page – and other similar pages – will consider the damage they risk doing to our cause by what they allow and encourage. What we need from them is leadership and solid, fair “moderation.” And when their page falls short of that, it should be held accountable.
As I said early in this article, it’s not about personality clashes or whether contributors have poor manners; it’s about the poisoning of the discussion at the expense of the truth. I think these points are worth making because a page with 40,000 members is a very valuable thing, and it’s worth fighting for.

TRUTHERS WHO TELL LIES: A FACEBOOK FOLLOW-UP

It’s ironic when supposed 9/11 truthers write things they know are false. It is also troubling when those running 9/11 forums do it. And more disturbing still is when reasonable and intelligent members of the movement are purged from a site without having broken any of the site’s rules.
I had really not intended to do a follow-up to my last post about the destructive practices at the largest 9/11 Facebook page, “9/11 Truth Movement.” I figured they’d call me some nasty names, and that would be the end of it. But what has happened since my article came out in late January has given me no real choice.
Lead administrator Ken Dockery, clearly unhappy that I had expressed all that negativity, announced a “zero tolerance” policy for insults and, well, negativity. Of course, what he means by this is that those challenging his authority will not be tolerated while privileged insiders like fellow admin Joe Haley and venomous provocateur Mike Collins stay privileged.
Right after the article was published, Dockery produced this self-important rant (it’s more effective if you imagine it being read by Charlton Heston).
“… I will no longer tolerate nor endorse anymore infighting in this group … personal insults and negativity will no longer be allowed here … There are a few people with a different agenda that love to argue and cause infighting. These people will be removed and filtered out. … The division is destroying us and it’s making me sick to my stomach. We either work together as a team or you don’t work with us at all. … If this is too much to ask for, then I will quit this movement. … If anyone wants to bash us, then there’s the door. … If anyone says anything negative in this group from this point on. You will be removed. No warning, just gone. Do I make myself clear? …  I’m on my last legs here and this is my final solution. I’m as strong as they come in this movement but I will not waste my time with trolls, shills, or anyone else that wants to start bullshit in this group.”
Shortly after announcing that insults were forever banned, he called me a hypocrite and made three statements about me that he knows are false:

  • “Why did Craig McKee publicly bash this group for no longer entertaining Judy Wood here but then writes an article debunking her theory???” (I didn’t bash the group, I sharply criticized Dockery, Haley and Collins, primarily. The group and its members I praised. And my criticisms were not about the group “no longer entertaining Judy Wood here,” they were about the ban on this topic not being enforced when it was convenient – such as when Collins wanted to call Wood supporters or no-plane supporters “retards” or “stupid fucks.”)
  • “Craig claims we don’t allow disinfo threads in this group. He couldn’t be more wrong…” (Again, I never claimed any such thing.)
  • “Craig also claims that we here in this group won’t discuss the Pentagon. Again, he is wrong.” (Of course I don’t think this; many of the ridiculous statements made by Collins and others were on threads about the Pentagon.)

So either Dockery knew what he was saying wasn’t true, or he has a serious problem with reading comprehension. It could be both, I guess.
Following my article, I was banned from the page for the second time in a month. Fine with me. But what concerns me is that Dockery (or another admin operating with his approval) followed that up by banning three more people who broke no rules other than defending me. These include Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, and Michael Cook – all of whom are supporters of Citizen Investigation Team and the position that no plane hit the Pentagon. Sheila Casey, who also fits this description, later asked to join the group, and this was denied. One can’t help but think back to the wholesale banning of CIT supporters from 911 blogger, which occurred primarily in 2010.

Then things got really good…

After my article, things got really outrageous when Collins wrote to Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to warn him that he should dump me as a “main interviewee of AE.” I have no idea what that means, but I assume he was trying to convince Gage that I should dropped as part of the AE writing team (I’ve been with them since spring 2014).
From his message to Gage:
“Some of these people think ‘hologram planes’ hit the Pentagon, some think ‘space beams’ vaporized the towers…. I’m aware that YOU do not advocate these theories, yet the people who adhere to your groups do. Please be aware that Craig McKee is one of these people, and his blog is all about the ‘no plane’ theory at the Pentagon….”
Of course Collins knows I don’t advocate space beams or holograms being used at the Pentagon or anywhere else. That’s a lie. He also slips in a less obvious lie claiming I believe in a “no plane theory at the Pentagon.” He knows that I believe a plane was indeed involved but that it did not hit the building. By the way, I know about what he wrote to Gage because Collins sent it all to me. For some reason he actually seemed proud of writing this.
And then this incredible statement that is not only another lie but doesn’t even make sense:
“Without any technical knowledge, people like Craig assume ALL theories are equal, which is why he discusses nonsense like space beams or “no planes.””
Is there really anyone who thinks all theories are equal? Apparently there is one person who thinks there is. He thinks my view that no plane hit the Pentagon is disinformation that threatens the credibility of the movement. But then he contradicts himself by saying we can’t know either way in this brilliant exchange on the “9/11 Truth Movement” page:
Collins: Until we have the video footage of the pentagon’s impact, it could have been Santa.
Haley: I am going with the stay puft marshmallow man.
Collins: Actually, with the lack of video footage, I think this proves it was a Gabriel 3 with a thermite tip made from holograms.
Dockery: It’s very possible and most likely that a plane did hit the Pentagon…… the problem is no one has seen it.
Collins This is why we SHOULDN’T waste time debating the pentagon…there’s no way to concretely back up your opinion and it turns into a shit-throwing festival.
But in the middle of all of this absurdity, something happened that left me feeling optimistic that reason can prevail. One of the admins of the group who was very upset with my article was Dany Carmady, but what she did was unexpected. She sent me a Facebook friend request, which I accepted. I was touched by the gesture and encouraged by our subsequent communication. I should also mention the generosity and fairness of two other group admins, Joshua Froze and Kimberly McLaughlin.
But to Dockery, who ultimately runs the show and sets the tone for the site, I say this: Ken, if you want to be respected and supported, you can start by denouncing Collins for his blatant lies. And you can correct the false statements you made. And please don’t try to tell people I’m bashing the group again. I’m not. I’m criticizing you. And it’s not because I like in-fighting, it’s because I’m holding you responsible for encouraging it while claiming you want to get rid of it.

191 comments

    1. The JFK research community is like this —- on steroids. I’ve – literally – researched JFK since I was told about it by my father at age 9, 30 years ago! BUT. Because I haven’t written a paper or a book (though I did cover the 2008 JFK Lancer Conference for the Nation – article scrubbed because they thought I was going to depict researchers as wingnuts).
      I interviewed Beverly Oliver and her quite, ummmm, “protective” daughter, for 3 hours over two days. I came to the conclusion that IN NO WAY was she the “Babushka Lady.” The existing photographic evidence CLEARLY shows the woman on Elm St. to be much older than 17. The Babushka Lady wore glasses (Oliver indicated she did not – her daughter interjected and said, Yes she did; mom what’s your problem?(!!!)” Oliver then chuckled and “corrected” herself). The woman in question never wavered as she filmed despite the fact that she was filming a human being getting his head blown off no more than 10 feet from her with clearly audible gunshot sounds ringing around her!
      However, I have battled with every prominent JFK researcher on this topic and been banned from multiple forums, though I’ve amply proven that I am well-versed on the subject. And this is just one of many observations I have that differ from, even the most “progressive” of researchers. Then when I begin conveying thoughts about the connections and meanings of the spate of very public assassinations that took place with JFK’s killing —- whew… “pariah” much!
      ——————
      With 9/11, there is a very specific event that occurred that allows us to know, with certainty, that no plane hit the Pentagon. In fact, we know exactly what did hit the Pentagon.
      In 2002, Ashleigh Banfield, then of CNN, embarked on a public, CNN-sponsored – at least – tour across America, aptly named, “Ashleigh Banfield Across America.” I watched Banfield jingo(ist) her way from Seattle to NYC. On 9.11.2002 Banfield and her bus landed in D.C. There, she performed interviews in the early morning, then rode to NYC for the one year anniversary stars and stripes and Giuliani, et al. no tears sob-fest.
      While parked in D.C. Banfield told viewers of an interview coup. She had a special interviewee who was directly effected by the Pentagon event. The person in question was an Air Force lieutenant who, at the moment of impact, was in the Pentagon in an office next to the unfinished wing that was hit. When prompted by Banfield, the man described what he saw (I have to paraphrase to some extent, as it’s it’s been 12.5 years since…) “I heard a huge noise outside my window. I was in an office with another member of the Air Force. I SAW AN F-14 screaming at us at a level just above our heads. I yelled to my friend to, “Hit the deck!” Then I heard the SOUND OF A MISSILE and a huge BAM that threw me to the ground. I then heard the fighter fly just over the top of the building.”
      Now, when the interview took place, the man was in Afghanistan. The lieutenant was so moved by this he signed up for another stint in the war! Banfield said it was noon where he was; I quickly checked the shadows where he was, then checked for the time difference between D.C. and Afghanistan; sure enough, this was no green screen event.
      Banfield was most definitely stunned. She stuttered something inaudible and suddenly CNN cut to commercial. When Banfield reappeared, there was no lieutenant, no Afghanistan, and definitely no mention or hint of an acknowledgement that a, damning to the mainstream Pentagon/commercial plane story, interview just took place. In the space of a commercial break, Banfield had gathered herself and was moving onto something jingoist-cheerful.
      The Banfield Across America tour had its own CNN webpage and each on-air interview was transcribed on the sub-site; this interview was, too. The following morning I bookmarked it. Two days later it was ———- GONE, never to be seen again. Yes I rue that I did not screenshot the page.
      However, I know of exactly ZERO people who even know of the Banfield tour, and less than zero (hat tip to Jay McInerney, though I dislike him intensely) who know of her interview with the AF pilot.
      For retelling this event I have been called a “disinfo agent,” and a ” government shill” by members of the 9/11 research community. Interestingly, NONE of them even knew of Banfield’s tour, that at each stop she was interviewing at least one person directly impacted by the events of 9/11! Oddly, the chance of, in a moment of candor, catching someone bailing from the accepted 9/11 script never occurred to even one of these intrepid 9/11 researchers of age to have been news aware enough, to watch Banfield’s tour interviews.
      Finally, what the 9/11 and subsequent false flag event researchers have, largely, proven are the following: that they are, perhaps, even more than the average Jane and Joe, influenced by the powers that be and have become slaves to the very 24-7 news cycle type of research/reportage of the media for which they allege to have a distaste. For the well-meaning of them, in their rush or quest to be first with “new” info and to get the most You Tube views and most webpage hits, and become known as so-called experts, they sacrifice producing the BEST info, and mostly unwittingly, become disseminators of disinformation.
      And until very recently, absolutely none of them have glimpsed upon this obvious fact: the powers that be, or their minions in high and low places, execute the SAME magickal spell on the public EVERY event. A repeatable spell is at the very essence of successful Magick.
      It has often been asked why the CIA and the myriad intel agencies copiously record EVERYTHING about every moment of their involvement in a given event; so much so that, every once in a blue moon, someone unrelated to them errs and releases an important page or a few, an original paragraph that was redacted in later versions of a given report, a folder filed purposely out of order, but released accidentally by an unwitting minion.
      There are two essential reasons for this: 1. you cannot consistently tell the public a history preferred by you unless you know EXACTLY what occurred in the first place and, 2. it is the Way of the Magickian to do so. Every act in a spell must be meticulously documented to avoid the type of gross error, no matter how seemingly superfluous, that WILL lead to personal disaster and perhaps in, at the VERY least, figurative death.

      Reply

      1. She (Banfield) had a special interviewee who was directly effected by the Pentagon event. The person in question was an Air Force lieutenant …”~dwil
        Of course you realize that it is essential to identify who such critical game-changing witnesses are. “unidentified sources”, like unidentified commentators come a dime a dozen.
        And pardon my memory of you “dwill”, I do recall your attendance here quite some time ago, and some of your argumentation that I found to lack even a basic grasp of physics.
        \\[[//

        Reply

        1. To the wholly, anonymously self-monikered “hybridrogue1” –
          My comment was not in any way, directed toward you. Why you would respond at all is a mystery.
          However, since your comment consists of a statement meant to nullify what I witnessed , “Of course you realize that it is essential to identify who such critical game-changing witnesses are. “unidentified sources”, like unidentified commentators come a dime a dozen,” followed with an attempt to mute discussion of my comment by creating the core of a Fallacious Argument, as, “And pardon my memory of you “dwill”, I do recall your attendance here quite some time ago, and some of your argumentation that I found to lack even a basic grasp of physics,” has absolutely no relevance to my comment, your objectives can only be to negate meaningful discussion of Craig’s commentary.
          I indicated that due to the nearly 13 years between then and now, I can’t remember the lieutenant’s exact quotes, though key phrases within his statement, the type of jet, where he said he stood, and what he saw an heard, I will always remember. But to claim it has no relevance? To insinuate the event did not exist?
          Screw you.
          YOU do the footwork and search Ashleigh Banfield Across America, which you made baldly apparent that you had and have no idea existed as an on-going CNN event in the late summer of 2002.
          YOU call CNN and ask for the complete transcripts for her Across America show on 9.11.2002.
          Interestingly, citations of my writings from my old sports blog can be found in a, at the time, best-selling book on sporting team owners and the leagues that act to validate their mal-behavior. I can also be found as the only undergraduate ever mentioned by a, now professor emeritus archaeology scholar, who was the most well-known author of books about archaeology written for the public. The book in which I am mentioned gave the public a glimpse of 13 sacred archaeological sites around the world. And in each book I am cited and mentioned for telling truths when other writers or archaeologists slinked away from the truth, preferring to maintain the mainstream status quo.
          With known bona fides, you attempting to challenge the veracity of my statements, particularly when it comes to challenging accepted lies, is beyond the pale.
          And it’s “dwil”, a shortening of my name – D.K. Wilson – used when I began a sports blog on WordPress some eight years ago; not “dwill”. And you?
          This is the only response you will receive from me relative to whatever you’d like to term the sentences you typed. If you cannot discuss the various statements and perceptions within my original comment and, instead, further attempt to obfuscate my comment I can only conclude that you are a part of the “Shadows” in this blog’s title.

          Reply

          1. “To the wholly, anonymously self-monikered “hybridrogue1″ ~DK Wison
            Willy Whitten is my name, this is well known by the regular commentators on this thread.
            You go on to complain:
            “My comment was not in any way, directed toward you. Why you would respond at all is a mystery.”
            The answer to this “mystery” is within my first comment, it is because you have a story that does not identify the source. You have replied again, and have again not identified this source, this unknown “Air Force lieutenant”. But you do offer a steaming pile of empty complaints. If you think that it would be worthwhile for any of us to go through the trouble of digging through all of the materials you suggest that we look through to find this name, then do it yourself! You are the one responsible for backing up your commentary – no one else.
            \\][//

  2. As you know Craig, I do not do Facebook, so I really cannot relate to the situation there. I have been on YouTube forums, which of course are attended by millions and has absolutely no moderation. One certainly can get a sense of the common general ignorance of humanity on social media such as this,
    As it has been so quite on the T&S front for a while, I have spent quite a bit of time at JFKfacts.com where the topic of the Assassination is still debated in full furry by the Warren Commission defenders and the critics of the WC Report. That event was 51 fricking years ago, and still nothing is settled! And like 9/11, we know that the vast majority of people simply don’t give a shit one way or the other anymore.
    Solutions? There is really no solution to human nature. It is what it is, and that is what it’s always been.
    \\][//

    Reply

    1. Regardless of whether readers frequent Facebook forums or not, I think my observations of this forum are indicative of many of the issues that get in the way of people seeing evidence and understanding what it means. I won’t go over the implications again here but I think (and hope) that this piece identifies some deeper problems within the Truth Movement.
      By the way, it has been three-and-a-half weeks since my last post. A while, yes, but not unprecedented.

      Reply

      1. I don’t want to appear a “nag” Craig, but I don’t want to see your forum fade away. I only have the best intentions when I prod you like I do. But I know gadflies are rarely popular.
        \\][//

        Reply

  3. This is a comment re-post from FaceBook:
    “Another great article Craig and now I understand completely why Amanda Sedell refuses to respond to my very polite contact. She may have unfriended me as well but since I do not use FB much I do not know how to verify that. Censorship on that 911 FB forum just like on 911Blogger is a mask for some very deep and troubling issues having to do with the true intentions of those at the top and someone does not want to face those issues. I just find it comical really that so called “truthers” will ridicule those of us who know the crime scene at the pentagon was staged but those same so called truthers will not debate any of us on the subject. Seems to me a debate would be an ideal showcase for them to expose our position as faulty and thereby advance the cause by purging the faulty information once and for all. To put it bluntly (something I am good at doing I am told) I personally believe that refusing to debate is a strong indicator that you are dishonest (at least with yourself) and perhaps dishonest on purpose.”
    And this:
    “I will add that if anyone on that 911 FB forum or that cess pit of Stalinist censorship 911Blogger wants to debate the pentagon issue I would be more than happy to do so on the one condition that it is moderated by a neutral third party and that it is all public.”

    Reply

  4. Great article Craig. By the sounds of it, the moderators are controlled opposition agents. They pull people in, then waste their time and turn them off at the same time. Good on you that you are calling them out.
    If a moderator can say this: “The Feds were rolling around with vans full of plane parts too to scatter around and in the building. But no one witnessed these plants because they were invisible to the onlookers and massive media presence.”, what gives? There are so many problems in that sarcastic statement, it just beggars belief that this is a serious 9/11 truth site.
    Your article is an important one in that it exposes tactics that are used to discredit the truth movement. Thanks for writing it. Maybe you can post it to their page, and it can serve as an explanation why you would like to quit their group!

    Reply

    1. Yes, but if the powers that be really want to discredit truthers, their best tactic would be to ignore all of them and say nothing. Instead they draw attention to themselves, using disinformation and trying to discredit alternative theories and ideas. They are a dead giveaway now and I block them immediately

      Reply

      1. They tried ignoring us in the early years when then numbers were fewer and we lacked the professional degree of support we have now. By the 5th anniversary in 2006, the truth movement was becoming so visible and loud that the establishment felt it HAD to attack.

        Reply

  5. I’m sorry you had to go through that Craig. From the sounds of it, Carmady, Sedell and Dockery could well be agents. They operate very much like 911blogger used to, using their forum to push their own pet positions, no matter how poorly substantiated.
    (Note: I have no idea how 911blogger operates now, I haven’t been a regular in years.)
    And, their agenda is very similar to 911blogger, which also made a mission out of demonizing Judy Wood and WTC no-planers. Blogger also bashes CIT, Pilots and their supporters.

    Reply

    1. To me, the biggest giveaway that Doc, Sedell and Carmady are not sincere truthers is the whole schtick about “our main role is to cleanse the movement of disinformation.” What that really means is that they are attempting to cleanse the movement of truth and neuter it. They are working against the truth, not for it.

      Reply

      1. i agree – those who are most against truth like to spout how much about truth they really are.
        i joined/liked this page (the 9/11 page) because i don’t believe the “official” story is the truth – i think there are a lot of questions and a lot of common sense things that it just couldn’t have happened the way they say it did.
        i hadn’t seen ANYTHING for a good long time from the page, and then it started popping up in my news feed all of a sudden. i don’t remember if i commented on or simply read one of the posts when it started popping up on my feed again – but i do remember i saw some of the rudest most off topic comments attacking others on whatever post i saw. it’s sickening, really.
        and i got the link to this blog through a post that popped up.
        i’m going to unlike/remove myself from this group/page/whatever.

        Reply

          1. Well Craig I tried to view this debate but it seems that I must be a member of the group to see the conversation so I joined. Now my membership is pending. I guess I will have to be cleared by the authorities over there before I can even see the conversation let alone comment, God forbid!

          2. Well I was granted clearance and got into a long discussion over there and it seems to have ended up fairly well. I will say that at least one of the moderators over there was reasonable with me and we had a productive discussion which ended in a friend request. I think there is room there for improved relations and productive exchanges. We will see how it develops but I have a more positive outlook on it than I did before I went in.

          3. I don’t think I can share your positive feelings since I have been banned once again by that page. And the kicker is that it’s not for anything I said there. Someone didn’t like me saying, “these people are insane” right here in this comment section. Incredibly childish. They care more about their egos than the truth. Sad.

          4. Now after a long discussion I had last night with one of the moderators there the “content is not available” when I click on the link to look at the latest comments. Does that mean the whole conversation just got flushed down the memory hole? I really do not know and at this point it would not surprise me at all. It is a sad commentary on the group itself though if indeed the whole thing was flushed down the toilet. We will see I guess.

          6. i left, i don’t even care what they have to say. that’s the problem with the human race – get 5 people into a room and they’ll have 10 different theories about an event….

  6. I’m one of those sparing users of Facebook for reasons that would essentially be outside of the mandate of T&S. But it seems to me that it’s a tribute to Facebook’s usefulness to millions and its potential as a democratic forum that the psywar planners within the iWar cybermonolith of the Empire would plant saboteurs in Facebook 9/11Truth forums. I find it difficult to agree with hybridrogue1 in this particular case that just “human nature” is at work here. Bullying and name calling carried out within an obvious strategy of tension don’t look to me like the fruit of cranky ill-mannered people out of their depth. Ditto for blatantly unfair “moderators” who countenance the destabilizing bullying and name-calling. They would have a hard time persuading me for one that it’s just their “human nature” at work. Craig is more than even-handed in reporting his Facebook experiences. That’s his human nature. I daresay most of us wouldn’t have the patience or fortitude to persevere to the extent he has. He has rendered a service to truth and civility by sharing an account of those experiences. This will be valuable testimony for a future history of iWar.

    Reply

    2. Hi Barrie, I just want to clarify that my comment on human nature was not specific to 9/11, or the truth movement, it was a general statement about the silly human race.
      No doubt that on FB, and even YouTube there are agenteur. Lets face it, the reason psychological operations work is the psychological frailty of human beings. And as we all know, simple 1-2-3 reasoning doesn’t reach those who are entranced by systems of regimentation.
      It should be obvious that such general statements as I made, are not meant to apply to those who can rise above the maddening crowd and see past the indoctrination. The fact that there are such people who can see beyond the BS, regardless of it’s systemic pervasiveness is a positive sign that struggle against tyranny is worthwhile. I certainly do not partake in this enterprise because it is EASY!
      So I agree with the body of your post Barrie, I just don’t think it applies as an answer to my comment.
      \\][//

      Reply

    3. This commentary by Barrie, that both Craig and I agree to, gets into the thorny issue of identification of “agent provocateurs”. We are at once encouraged here to keep this issue to the forefront of our minds while dealing with the commentators here, and at the same time are held back at times in pointing out the clearly drawn profiles of some of these people.
      I am speaking now of my “contempt” of one James Fetzer. Yes, I suppose “contempt” could well describe my view of Fetzer, but will also point out that such contempt is plainly justified within the long list of threads burdened by Fetzer’s participation.
      Here we have a person who is at the forefront of attempting to extinguish the visual evidence of not only the 9/11 case, but also in a very recent article here on T&S, was given a forum to do the very same with the JFK assassination. While I do not object to having the opportunity to rebut such nonsense as Fetzer and his cabal proffer. I wonder at the leash oft times put on me when making such points when Fetzer makes an appearance on T&S.
      I do not present this as an end-all argument here, but as a point of departure for further discussion if there are those with opinions on this matter.
      \\][//

      Reply

        1. Well, that would be fine with me Craig, other than the fact that we have a commentator here who is a Fetzer defender. I have made more commentary to that. If you wish to have this discussion about Fetzer nipped in the bud, I suggest a warning to Dwil as well.
          \\][//

          Reply

          1. COMMENT REMOVED. I understand that it continues a side topic that had already started but it is nevertheless off topic. I don’t want any discussion here of Jim Fetzer unless it relates to the subject of this article. Feel free to resubmit. Thank you.-CM

  7. Well since it fits here so well I am going to post a “conversation” I had with Amanda Sedell on FB. I quote the word “conversation” because she only responded VERY briefly once during the whole thing. So I basically got what I am used to getting from what I refer to as “so-called truthers” which is the stone wall of silence. Be sure to note the dates on each post. Anyway here it is below:
    Conversation started October 13, 2014
    Adam Ruff
    10/13, 2:25am
    Adam Ruff
    Amanda I have been following your argument about the pentagon. Parts of it have been posted on Truth and Shadows blog and I would like to speak to you about it since I gather that you are a real truther who only wants to promote the best evidence no matter what. I have been active in the truth movement since early 2002 and was a co founder of We Are Change Los Angeles. I have worked with Richard Gage before and produced a video for him. In short Amanda I am one of the most knowledgeable truthers there are and I would like to explain to you in a calm and rational way why the Pentagon is so important. I am not interested in an argument nor will I engage in one I would simply like to explain why this issue is so important. My Videos on youtube are under my channel Unspun Newz and centrino105 so you can verify who I am before you decide if you want to talk about this with me or not. Interestingly one of my videos is an interview with Craig Ranke of CIT. Remember Amanda that the truth is what is important not our own ego’s. It is all about the truth. I hope you will talk but if not good luck to you in the future.
    10/14, 6:59pm
    Adam Ruff
    Amanda thanks for accepting me as a friend. I would like to talk to you about the pentagon but I do not want to do it in public because it turns into a bad situation as others join in the conversation who are not necessarily looking for the truth like you and I are. If it is ok I will start off with my thoughts and you can reply when you get time?
    10/14, 7:52pm
    Adam Ruff
    OK the short version boils down to this. There are over a dozen eye-witnesses who were interviewed by CIT who saw the aircraft coming in from North of the Citgo gas station. These witnesses are highly credible because they are interviewed on video and they all independently corroborate what the others say about the trajectory of the plane they saw. These witnesses are the only ones that could be found that were in a position to observe the final few seconds of the plane as it came towards the pentagon. All the other witnesses were out of position to see the critical last few seconds of the flight path. Not only that but most of the other so called “witnesses” amount to little more than quoted statements taken from third party articles or interviews. These so called “impact witnesses” have been scrutinized individually and found to be either taken out of context or self contradictory or worse. (Yes I can back up that statement with a detailed analysis on each so called “impact witness”). In truth Amanda the whole thing comes down to one very simple fact. If the plane came in (NOC north of citgo) it is physically impossible for it to have knocked down the light poles and created the documented directional damage path inside the pentagon. In other words if the plane was NOC the pentagon crime scene had to have been staged and the plane must have flown over the pentagon. There is no physical way a plane on that NOC trajectory could have caused the physical damage observed and documented. It sounds far out and unlikely but that is the same thing they used to say about controlled demolitions of the towers. By the way Amanda not one single witness has been found or confirmed to have seen the plane come in from the official story South of Citgo trajectory, not one! Also Amanda all the CIT interviewed witnesses also gave the same testimony on tape years earlier to the government. So these witnesses amount to iron clad verified proof that the plane came in NOC. Since they all corroborate each other independently without the knowledge of the others in detailed in person video interviews they are far and away the most reliable witnesses of the pentagon incident period.
    10/14, 8:09pm
    Adam Ruff
    If you will take the time to watch National Security Alert by Citizen investigation team all of what I have just said will become very clear and you will see the obvious implications. Also Amanda please watch Lloyd England and his Taxi cab for further proof. Both videos are available free on youtube. You will not regret it and you will be on the cutting edge of the truth movement. Please feel free to ask me any questions you have. I certainly hope you will take this seriously and not dismiss it flippantly since you would be doing yourself and the truth movement a disservice.
    10/14, 8:12pm
    Adam Ruff
    Good luck to you and I hope you pursue this with the same gusto that you have the demolitions of the towers.
    10/15, 2:57pm
    Amanda Sedell
    thank you . i will watch what you suggested when i have enough time .
    10/15, 4:06pm
    Adam Ruff
    Fair enough Amanda that is all anyone can ask. I look forward to talking to you about it. Once you have seen the revelations and evidence in the videos you will be blown away by it truly. I hope you do watch them they are the “red pill” for truthers for sure.
    10/27, 5:43am
    Adam Ruff
    Have you looked yet?
    11/6, 3:22am
    Adam Ruff
    It seems to me Amanda that you are not going to watch National Security Alert which would give you the best information about the pentagon. It is a shame that you haven’t seen it but hey sometimes we have to pick and choose what to spend our precious time on. I would ask you though to not promote bad information about the pentagon since you have not looked at the good information. It is difficult enough to deal with government loyalist trolls on 9/11 issues without also having to address truthers putting out bad information on the pentagon. I wish you well and I hope you will choose to become informed on the pentagon but that of course is your choice to make. Good luck.
    1/17, 5:42pm
    Adam Ruff
    Plenty of time for you to have reconsidered your position on the Pentagon Amanda. Have you even watched National Security Alert yet? If you haven’t you should ask yourself if you are really a truther or not? Real truthers do not censor themselves and they do not avoid the truth just because it might make them unpopular in some circles. Just a tip Amanda but the stone wall of silence is not really honest either. You are going to do what you are going to do but you and I will always know the truth about the pentagon issue and the truth is you refused to inform yourself with the best evidence yet you still spoke against people who have done so. Some soul searching is in order I think. Of course you will most likely just dismiss my comments and go right on believing you are a real truther standing up for the real truth. Well concerning the pentagon you are not. Hopefully you will be someday but that is up to you.
    Now I assume since I can no longer send any messages to Amanda or bring up her FB page that she has unfriended me or blocked me or whatever the hell people do on Facespook.

    Reply

  8. As to the topic at hand I want to say that in my experience Craig is the best and most just moderator I have ever encountered on the public forums.
    And as is par for the T&S course, Craig has again written a provocative and intelligent piece that can stand as a more general critique of a pathological society addicted to violence and warfare.
    Noting that Eastwood’s new film AMERICAN SNIPER is just the sort of mindless celebration of this mad society, this site becomes an island of sanity in an ocean of madness. This new film by Eastwood follows in the jingo tradition of the propaganda of ZERO DARK THIRTY, and a slew of other garbage “blockbusters” from schizo Hollyweird.
    Uhh…gawblesmurka!
    \\][//

    Reply

    1. I appreciate the compliment, HR. I think you are being too kind, however. I am trying to be better, though. I think that I get more inspired when there is a possibility of awakening a new potential truther than I do debating with us insiders. But I do very much enjoy sharing thoughts, sources, and information with my truther brothers and sisters.

      Reply

      1. Accusing me of being “kind”? Lol… No just kidding. I do mean it though, I have been on a lot of blogs in my dissenting career. As far as fair and even handed you top them all by far.
        Yea, I get annoyed at times, but that is the case with anyone who is strong minded and assertive with their opinions.
        \\][//

        Reply

  9. Craig-
    I’ve subscribed to Truth and Shadows for I don’t know how long, now. Reflexively, for some time I stopped reading comments here and only read your entries.
    The response to my comment after your above commentary reminded my why. I remember the incredibly heated 9/11 discussion in which I defended Dr. James Fetzer’s perceptions and resultant reasons, based on the knowledge he gleaned at the time, for the towers falling. That the well over 100 comments devolved into a stream of ad hominem attacks and wholly false and baseless accusations I feel, was no accident.
    Those comments after that 9/11 entry and the response I received today are perfect illustrations as to why no forum of any sort of appreciable size can “rise above ridicule, insults, and contrived controversies.”
    Having, quite literally, been blacklisted from writing for any mainstream or so-called independent large sports or socio-cultural/political media outlet, I understand game played by those in positions of power. Being told that, when it time for my name to be brought forth for consideration for a staff position at a progressive magazine, a female editor stood up and said, “I will not have that Black Nationalist writing for our magazine!” I laughed but also felt uneasy. Besides not at all understanding from where such a reaction arose, that the woman felt it so easy to use race-centred hyperbole to voice her objections, gave me pause. Taking a step back, not only are decisions made based on whether or not a potential peer or work mate will parrot prescribed and preformed opinions but decisions are substantiated and agreed upon using little more than tired tropes, snarky asides and not-at-all subtle innuendo to substantiate them.
    The 9/11 research community is no different; no major national or global event research community is different. To continue to haggle over how and why the towers fell now is senseless. If it is not senseless, then we must answer how and why it further informs our understanding of the cabal of people involved with the event, how it informs our understanding of their methods of action, and how it leads to us being able to see the signs foretelling of events to come.
    There was a reason Mae Brussell gleaned information only from mainstream newspapers and periodicals; it was then the only way to fully understand The Language of Lies and to watch the powers that be in preparation for future acts.
    We have the ability to take in more information at our finger tips, but the game is the same. Staying off the spinning to nowhere carousel is what’s needed more than ever. Nothing will change unless “their” hand is forced.

    Reply

    1. “That the well over 100 comments devolved into a stream of ad hominem attacks and wholly false and baseless accusations I feel, was no accident.”~dwil
      Yes I can agree that it was no accident. The problem here is that you fail to recognize that Fetzer himself is the world champion at resorting to ad hominem attacks, and anyone here who has been through these comments knows this to be true.
      Fetzer has proven himself utterly devoid of any grasp of physics despite his continuous claims to Newton. Your defense of Fetzer puts you in the same boat. If you agree and defend Fetzer then you do not grasp even the fundamentals of Newtonian Physics. And again, anyone who does need merely go through those arguments you make reference to above.
      And I expect you again to complain that your comment was directed at Mr McKee. I am sorry dwil, this is an open forum, and we can address anyone’s commentary here as we choose.
      \\][//

      Reply

  10. Dear Mr. McKee,
    I empathize with your bad treatment, and applaud you for escalating it here to show them that you are not without an internet voice, despite your banishment. I enjoyed reading your article.
    I’ve waxed about the inadequacies and misusage of Facebook before (2014-10-10), so I will refrain from posting a repeat except to summarize that: Facebook is not the place for reasoned debate.
    I had a minor run-in with Mr. Mike Collins in 9/11 Truth Movement as well, but on my hobby-horse Neu Nookiedoo (of course). Readers with Facebook access and group permissions will note that the start of the discussion was an April Fools prank in bad taste by Mr. Ken Dockery that included a photoshopped portrait of Dr. Judy Wood and had one participant using the alias “Judy Woodster.” Ms. Amanda Sedell and Mr. Joe Haley also made token tag-teaming appearances.

    Mike Collins [SEO], after youre banned from this group and you wanna go troll some other groups to trick gullible people with misinformation, make sure to skim this first!
    Mike Collins [SEO], the only problem with your copy and pasted nonsense is that I actually spent 8 years studying and working my ass off to get 2 degrees in engineering. so when people start talking about nonsense shit that goes against what is physically possible, or begin to use terms which are opposite of what they actually are, its hard to debate you.
    Mike Collins you aren’t going to graduate with a Master of Science Degree in Youtube videos and Conspiracy Blogs my friend.

    I was banned as well. Today my request to join the group was granted, though, and I can now get to the permalink for that discussion again.
    Facebook is such the perfect memory hole. All it takes is four comments in a row to push someone else’s comment into the “Previous Comments” realm and out of sight even if the discussion itself remains at a top level in your of Facebook’s News Feed. And all it takes is coordinated activity elsewhere (e.g., like posting and/or re-posting fluff discussions) to push a whole discussion down in the News Feed and way out of sight. You have to be observant to links in email notification (that have to be turned on and then filtered in your email client so as not to overrun and flood) if you want to snag the permalink. If you’re not observant as most participants aren’t, it can be very difficult later to get interested lurkers to powerful discussions that have been pushed down.
    I don’t want to rain on your Facebook parade, Mr. McKee, but I truly believe that your talents are better spent writing articles for your T&S blog (than Facebook), because your blog has a greater probability of permanence and legacy. A wise spiritual leader from two centuries ago gave the advice to “never enter an unhealthy environment unless in an effort to purify it.” These may have been your worthy motives for playing in Facebook.
    But if you aren’t taking steps to preserve your interactions yourself — that might include re-publishing those interactions to your blog, your book, or a private journal –, then your reasonable Facebook efforts might be in vain in the long run, lacking any public legacy whatsoever [exceptions are the Facebook database and what the NSA vacuums up that can and will be used against at your trial.]
    P.S. If you have email notifications turned on in Facebook, I suggest that you mine the permalink from one such email notification and update your posting accordingly. This way, those of us with access to Facebook (and membership in that group) can quickly get to source dirt.
    //

    Reply

    1. I think that Facebook is geared to the lowest common denominator. It’s as valuable as the thousands of yesterday’s loosing lottery tickets. Facebook is a 3rd grade playground. It is the perfect illustration of the dumbing down of Amerika. It is a gathering of juvenile mentalities.
      I want nothing to do with it.
      \\][//

      Reply

      1. hybridrougue1, Facebook can certainly be perceived as you state, but it has become quite useful in contacting many people from my past. I moved around a lot as a child, and for reconnecting it is amazing. It is also a great place to share photos and information with relatives who all live in different parts of the country. Much of what I see is useless trivialization of time, but it is a tool nonetheless, and thus, the manner in which many use it is not to be blamed 100% on the tool. It even has advantages as a free business tool. This thread did spur my interest. I joined the 9/11 group and that Collins guy is back, and is a severe idiot. He likes to tell people to play by his rules or leave.

        Reply

        1. Hi Steam Engine, I use YouTube for listening to and posting music videos. It is not YouTube in itself – it is the “forum” here that attracts psycho trolls who need to vent their spleen that is the juvenile pond of vile scum.
          \\][//

          Reply

  11. Craig, I had a run in with Joe Haley myself. get this, I simply explained that IMO the death count has been fabricated ( I don’t know the actual number) but it is ridiculous that ken feinberg has managed all the victims compensation funds for these events (9/11, Aurora, Virginia tech, sandy Hook, etc) . IMo there is probable insurance fraud with manufactured identities. I mentioned sandy hook where we have overwhelming evidence of a false flag event and he says “my ex bosses grandaughter died at Sandy Hook” and he removed me from the group. Whole system is mired with controlled opposition.

    Reply

    1. Yes Ed it is a tyranny over there where you either agree with Ken Doc and Joe or you get silenced. It is the same tyranny at 911Blogger which has devolved now into a cess pit of censorship and controlled opposition. Sad but some people just cannot handle losing an argument and must protect their fragile ego by preventing the argument from ever happening by gagging anyone who disagrees. Even pre-gagging some people like myself.
      This video is a great example of what you get under a tyranny like that. Here we have an important Chinese government official who missed his plane and therefore throws a tantrum like a spoiled child. Notice the police do nothing to stop him because in a tyranny it is the bosses way or you get a bullet to the brain. Enjoy:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skNvkieF0RA

      Reply

  12. Jacques Ellul speaks to ‘compartmentalization’ as far as the language aspects of this in The Technological Society, in his dissertation on “Specialized Lexicons” in various technical fields.
    The specialized meanings of words, often those with a completely different definition in the general lexicon, can prevent not only the lay public from deciphering their works, but also experts in other fields who have divergent meanings of their own for some of these terms. As Ellul points out we end up with a veritable ‘Tower of Babble’ in a high tech society where people are literally speaking in different languages. This problem is exacerbated by the continued arc of specialization as science and technology advances, along with the advances in technocratic perception manipulation.
    Do not think for a moment that this techno-lingual phenomena is something new for the 21st century. Ellul wrote this tome THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY in the 1960’s. Of course each decade the situation exponentially worsens, And it’s effects are clearly on display on this and many other forums in the confusion we see in getting points across to one another.
    \\][//

    Reply

  13. Well here is my conversation with Ken Doc which I am publishing because he banned me from his forum for no reason whatsoever and I don’t particularly like being gagged.
    Conversation started Monday
    Adam Ruff
    1/26, 12:33pm
    Adam Ruff
    So now I am banned from the 911 truth group?
    1/26, 12:39pm
    Adam Ruff
    Hard for me to see what you said or respond don’t you think? Oh well good luck to you Ken I guess a conversation is not possible after all. Too bad because Dany and I were actually starting to make some headway towards resolving this “fiasco”.
    1/26, 12:51pm
    Ken Dockery
    The Pentagon issue has nearly destroyed this movement while wasting soooo much time. Not to mention dealing with all the other disinfo. Ive had enough of it Adam. Sorry.
    other disinfo, I mean Judy Wood and Holograms
    Monday
    1/26, 6:40pm
    Adam Ruff
    We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments. Censorship doesn’t work Ken it just makes you look weak. I did not break any of your rules yet I am censored so whatever man I don’t need to be part of something like that. P.S. You guys who do not know the pentagon evidence are the ones making the issue divisive by the way not us and it is you guys who make it seem complicated too which its not. Anyway have a good life.
    1/26, 8:31pm
    Ken Dockery
    Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.
    For you to say that I haven’t debunked Judy Wood or Holograms, means you know nothing about me.
    Anyways, peace out.
    1:15am
    Adam Ruff
    Ken did it ever occur to you that if you are so willing to ban me even though I broke none of your rules that your rules are meaningless? Think about it because it is true. If you are willing to silence me for no cause other than I disagree with you on a few issues then aren’t you a dictator imposing a kind of tyranny? In this case a tyranny where only your ideas and those who agree with you get to be heard. Another consideration is that if you silence all those who disagree with you have you really won the argument? I do not think so but perhaps you consider it some kind of victory I don’t know.
    BTW: I never said you have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.
    As to the relative size of the two forums I can say with pride that T+S is far better than your forum because it isn’t a tyranny and we can and do talk about anything we want. It is the very definition of freedom of speech while obviously your forum is the definition of well… you get the picture.
    Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
    1:56am
    Adam Ruff
    As to the pentagon issue “nearly destroying the truth movement” the answer is no Ken. What the pentagon issue has done is expose the fake truthers and separate them from the real truthers. Fake truthers refuse to inform themselves about the pentagon choosing instead to follow cults of personality such as Kevin Ryan or David Chandler. You simply trust that those “leader hero’s” have done the research and come to the right conclusion because you are too lazy to do the research yourself. Well Chandler and Ryan both are dead wrong about the pentagon and have been thoroughly debunked as far as the pentagon is concerned. So you are following the pide piper literally. This is why neither of them will debate the issue in public because they will lose that debate BIG! Real truthers look at the evidence (as much as they can get their hands on) and draw their own conclusions. This is why I can win a debate about the pentagon with anyone who thinks it is too complicated or too divisive. It isn’t complicated at all the problem is you, for whatever reason, simply do not want to face the truth that the plane observed flew North of the Citgo gas station thereby proving the light poles and other damage was staged. It also proves the plane flew over the pentagon and away. It is quite simple really you just don’t want to face the truth for your own reasons. To you it is “divisive” because you do not understand the evidence very well and perhaps you do not want your hero’s (Chandler and Ryan) to be proved wrong (too late because they have been). You are stuck in cognitive dissonance and hero worship. I am not stuck and I can therefore explain rationally and calmly what the evidence is, what it proves, why it is simple, and how devastating it really is to the official narrative of 9/11. I can say with confidence that the pentagon evidence is just as important, perhaps even more so, as the controlled demolitions evidence. Simply put, who else but insiders could plant evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon? That is why it is important Ken, very important! That is also why we cannot just drop the issue because some uninformed or misinformed truthers such as yourself don’t understand it and don’t want to do the research. By your logic we should drop the CD evidence as well because some so-called truthers out there do not understand physics. We don’t want to be divisive right? They think other evidence should be focused on instead of CD. Don’t believe me Ken? Look up Jon Gold then and see for yourself. Anyway I have the very strong suspicion that I am wasting my time talking to you. I hope to be proved wrong.

    Reply

    1. “Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.” ~Ken Dockery
      Dockery is making the false argument of Ad Populum. Is this clown supposed to be a scholar? What is someone like this doing moderating a forum? He can’t even moderate his own mind.
      If you want to prove it by he numbers then buy the bullshit on TV Dockery. Obviously he’s almost there. His appeal to the mob is an obvious indicator.
      \\][//

      Reply

      1. A valid point indeed HR1. It seems clear to me that Ken thinks the number of people who are subscribed to his group prove that what he says is true and correct. A classic logical fallacy. The truth is he is a tyrant and has no compunction about stuffing a gag down the throat of anyone who disagrees with him.

        Reply

    2. Mr. Adam Ruff re-posted what he wrote on a Facebook thread or message about his banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum:

      We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments.

      If this is the case, I await post-haste the reasoned analysis about why a certain [name known to participants] hobby-horse pony is a discredited theory and bogus. To avoid derailing this thread, Mr. Ruff should publish it or re-publish it — if we are to believe his prior stellar efforts in this regard exist — on his blog or Facebook page, and then friend us and publish here on T&S advertising links.
      Readers should note that discussion on that [name known to participants] hobby-horse was ~not~ stopped because the opponents offered reasoned analysis as to why it was bogus. No, it was stopped due to the Mike Collins-ish deja vu bad behavior of various participants here.
      Mr. Ruff’s boasting of his personal exploits continued:

      I never said you [Ken Dockery] have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.

      I have no intention of cranking a new Dr. Wood discussion. But as the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood’s work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
      In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I’m not saying that I’m convinced of space beams on these other towers. What I am saying is that a trick in steering the 9/11TM is to show where X doesn’t apply to A, and then to falsely imply or extrapolate without proof that X also doesn’t apply to B or C either. The exposed agenda is that any discussion of X in any valid context isn’t permissible.]
      Further, Mr. Ruff should give us the text to “some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend.”
      To my recollection — unless Mr. Ruff is some other participant’s sockpuppet here on T&S — Mr. Ruff has not participated in any Dr. Wood discussion to a convincing degree where he hasn’t turned tail and run, bragging how he “doesn’t read my [SEO] comments, skipping right over them”. Makes him very deserving of the ridicule that I impose upon him.
      Also to my recollection, Mr. Ruff has never personally debunked holograms.
      I did, though (starting around 2012-02-24). I followed Dr. Fetzer’s rabbit hole and found it lacking in supportive scientific documentation to prove holograms could real-world achieve what was observed. [And the 9/11 hologram argument involved grossly misrepresenting and misinterpreting two sets of radar data.]
      I do not expect Mr. Ruff to read — much less step up to dutifully answer — my rhetorical challenges for him to cough up his work in debunking all nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood’s work [and support my hobby-horse].
      I suppose it is one thing for Mr. Ruff to make boastful and dubious claims in other forums, but quite another for him to drag them back here and have us, who lived it, believe them true as if we were just like his rare-earth customers.
      The whole point of the above exercise in pushing Mr. Ruff’s buttons was to chide Mr. Ruff into being not quite such a hypocrite and to champion truth at all times. Otherwise, his less than truthful endeavors will bite him back.
      //

      Reply

      1. SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.

        Reply

          1. Señor, This latest comment is just as out of order as the much longer one that preceded it. If you want to connect with ruffadam in another arena I could put the two of you in touch with each other privately – if both wish this. But I don’t want any more discussion here about Judy Wood or the prospects of discussing her.

          2. Fine with me Craig you have my permission to give my e-mail address to SEO or to suggest a venue for this “discussion”.

          3. COMMENT REMOVED
            Señor El Once, it seems that I need to be more specific about what I don’t want discussed on the blog. Not only do I not want Judy Wood brought into the discussion, but I don’t want any updates on a discussion of her on another blog. I don’t want the fact that she isn’t allowed to be the subject of comments. Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here.-CM

          4. Do we really need a ‘progress report’ on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread?
            Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.
            And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
            \\][//

          7. COMMENT REMOVED – See explanation for removal of Feb. 16 5:50 p.m. comment. While there may be a couple of points that were on topic in this 1,356-word comment (I didn’t feel like editing it), most of it was a repeat of themes that I don’t want to see. These include anything related to discussions of Judy Wood, whether here or on another site. When you “relate” your “hobby horse” to a point in the article, it appears to just be a disguised way of slipping it in.-CM

          1. Let’s see, HR. To make something clear once again. I work during the daytime and can’t deal with comment moderation until I get home. As it is I am blowing my lunch break to deal with this. I really don’t appreciate the implication that I am not enforcing my own rules, particularly when comments, as you know, go up in real time and unmoderated (unless the person posting has never posted here). Are you recommending that I return to having all comments sit until I can approve them? Please let me handle my job, okay?
            Dwil’s comment is indeed off topic (at least part of it). I will look at it when I have time. Dwil may choose to send another version without the Fetzer stuff. Perhaps I should impose a permanent word limit as I did on a previous thread.

    3. Ken Doc replied one last time and then blocked me so I guess he can be assured of getting the last word. Here is what he said:
      Ken Dockery
      Adam, you have me all wrong and I don;t feel like getting into it right now.
      I have never said your theory (CIT) is wrong. Thats not the issue. The issue is you force it down peoples throats and do not listen to what others say. So basically it always turns into a huge debate of fighting back and forth.
      Not only that but you CIT people do it EVERY SINGLE day and it’s getting really old.
      I’m done with the Pentagon and the infighting it causes.
      Peace out.
      As for Jon Gold, I could care less, he removed me as a friend years ago.

      Reply

      1. The irony in this last statement to me from Ken Doc is so thick it would take a bulldozer to push through it.
        Ken Doc has the nerve to say: “The issue is you force it down peoples throats and do not listen to what others say.”
        Well Ken I think banning someone for no reason whatsoever is a severe form of “not listening to what others say.” It is also the most extreme way I can think of for “forcing your own opinion down peoples throats.”
        Alas Ken Doc fails to address the fact that by censoring people for no reason whatsoever he has become a petty tyrant imposing his views on every member of the group at the point of a gun. In other words it is Ken Docs way or he will shoot you in the face – figuratively speaking.
        Ken also laments the fact that the pentagon issue: “always turns into a huge debate of fighting back and forth.”
        Well in my world debating 9/11 evidence is what 9/11 blogs are for in the first place so I do not really understand why debating evidence is such a bad thing in Kens world. As to the fighting back and forth I would say that it is probably more like debating back and forth not fighting in most cases. I find that the people who fight and act like trolls or a-holes such as Collins do so because they lost the debate and their position is untenable so they throw a tantrum and act like idiots and try and shift the blame for the conflict to the person who won the debate. Classic troll strategy. I have news for you Ken I do not need to be rude or insulting or angry to win a debate about the pentagon because I know what I am talking about. The guilty party for making a discussion into a fight is you and people like you who cannot handle being proved wrong. Simple, you are creating the division Ken, not us, you are the one trying to suppress the important evidence here, not us. You are the problem Ken because you do not know the evidence very well yet you want us who do know it intimately to “agree to disagree” and stop presenting the evidence to others so you can save face. in other words you want us to just drop this incredibly important evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist I guess just so you don’t look bad? Ah NO!

        Reply

        1. It is really simple Ken if your position on the pentagon held any water whatsoever you would be able to debate the subject effectively. If your contention that the pentagon evidence is “too complicated” or “too ambiguous” or isn’t clear or is not strong enough, was true you would be able to articulate why. You cannot articulate why because the pentagon evidence isn’t complicated or ambiguous and because it isn’t unclear or weak.
          What is weak and ambiguous is your reasons for attempting to dismiss this key evidence as being too contentious. All the counter arguments I have heard from Frank Legge, David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and others are weak and unclear and is some cases do not even make any sense. Those arguments have been utterly debunked yet people like yourself still want to proceed as though those arguments were not exposed as false. To save face? To save face Ken? Isn’t that why you want us to just drop it Ken? So David Chandler and Kevin Ryan, your heroes, can save face?
          NO! It is way to important for us to drop it! You drop your phony excuses for not standing up for this important evidence and for the people who worked so hard to uncover it. You drop your excuses for not supporting CIT 110% Ken and for not helping them get this evidence out into the world more. You and Chandler and Ryan need to man the hell up and admit you were wrong and help the truth movement instead of protecting your fragile ego’s. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD KEN DOC, KEVIN RYAN, AND DAVID CHANDLER, AND ANY SO CALLED TRUTHER WHO THINKS THIS IS GOING TO GO AWAY.
          IT IS NEVER GOING AWAY! WE WILL NEVER STOP TALKING ABOUT IT! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SAVE FACE! YOU WERE WRONG AND YOU SHOULD FACE IT NOW BECAUSE SOONER OR LATER EVERYONE IS GOING TO KNOW THAT IT WAS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO HELD BACK THE TRUTH MOVEMENT! GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD!

          Reply

  14. FIAT
    Most assume that he who writes the law makes law.
    Hamilton corrected that, it is he who interprets the law that makes law.
    But the tyrant proves that it is the enforcer who makes law.
    \\][//

    Reply

    1. I cannot believe what has happened since my article came out. Dockery has completely lost it. He “read the riot act” to participants at 9/11 Truth Movement about infighting. He is blaming me for causing infighting even though the whole reason for my objections over there was to stop people like Mike Collins from causing dissension by verbally assaulting people and twisting the Pentagon topic. Now, he has also banned Adam Syed for no reason (that I can see) other than his association with me and with the Pentagon evidence. It really does make one think about the 911blogger experience, even more than when I wrote this article. Unfortunately I’m off to work and can’t provide more detail about what is going on over there until this evening. Un-freaking-believable.

      Reply

      1. Dockery is no different than the thousands of tin horn tyrants holding positions of power in trivial situations. Control freaks like this little shit are always small minded, that is the core of the authoritarian personality. Just give him a bullwhip and the position of the straw-boss on a southern plantation in the 1850’s and you’ve got your template for this goon.
        \\][//

        Reply

      2. Well then, it sounds like you must be doing something right Craig!
        How can a proper truther believe the official pentagon story? If it really was true they would have shown us video of the impact instead of confiscating it.

        Reply

  16. Ken Doc apparently said to Adam Ruff in a private message:

    “Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.” ~Ken Dockery

    Yet, it’s a prominent enough blog within the truth movement that Richard Gage likes it, hence his asking Craig to be a writer for A/E. This blog also has the respect of David Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, and many others… If we’re going to start going down that road.
    I am amazed, though not surprised, at the reaction from the several admins who were named in this article. They’re basically screaming “Judas Kiss” and how they feel like they’ve been “badmouthed” and “kicked in the teeth.” That this article is an attack. Let’s see how well that claim stands up to scrutiny.
    FIrst, let’s have a look at the passages in the article where Craig gives credit where credit is due.
    It has some great people posting there on a regular basis, and it has some sincere and hard-working truthers helping to moderate the discussion.
    In case you missed it: he not just praises regular users who post good stuff, he even praises the admins as “hard working truthers.” He then goes on to say:
    But at times it can also operate like a cliquish “club” that applies astounding double standards to enforcing its own rules.
    This doesn’t sound like the tone of an attack or back stab to me. This sounds like constructive criticism.
    Craig also gives Haley credit where it is due later in the piece:
    Having said all of that, I have to give credit where credit is due. Haley made a post recently where he called on members not to jump on newcomers to the movement who may put forward discredited information. I completely agree. Going on the attack can easily discourage someone who might just be getting introduced to the evidence.
    The admins reacted to this article by saying that Craig has “badmouthed” the admins on a “public” blog. Yet Ken is more than happy to try and dismiss the blog as an obscure blog with 5 or so regular posters. But what was Craig doing in this article? He was expounding on an occurrence that took place on the VERY public, VERY visible 40K member group.
    As for the whole bullshit about the Pentagon being “divisive,” this is only the case because, as you said in the article Craig, some people don’t seem to have the ability to recognize strong evidence, or they’re easily misled into believing bad arguments are actually legitimate ones.
    I personally haven’t had any major problems with the admins mentioned in this article, but I do echo Craig’s sentiment that “Mike Collins” is pure poison to the conversation. Those who are defending him are saying that he contributes so much valuable stuff to the movement. Perhaps one of them can message me and enlighten me, because I’ve been in that group for about 5-6 years, and I’ve never seen his name except in the instances where, both behavior- and arguments-wise, he acts like a high school sophomore on the Pentagon. I personally haven’t seen Collins contribute one positive thing.
    Finally, I know Craig McKee is open to being corrected. If there are indeed any specific factual details that Craig got wrong (or incomplete) in his article, he should be contacted and told what the specific falsehoods are, and I’m sure Craig would amend accordingly. I do believe Joe Haley when he says that it was his idea both to unban Craig and instigate the 30 day ban on Collins.
    Over my years in the TM (in general, not just Ken Doc’s page), I have been amazed at how poorly some members of the truth movement are able to accept criticism. Kevin Ryan accused me of being an agent after I wrote my critical review of his book. David Griffin said to me, “That’s too bad” and then added, “Kevin has never been good about accepting criticism, but this seems extreme.”

    Reply

  17. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    Ken Doc probably thinks that I’ve lately been haranguing him on the Pentagon. Ken Doc has his own WordPress page on 9/11; he’s stated he hopes this serves as a one stop shop for 9/11 research needs. However, in this endeavor, he ends up putting a lot of unsourced, unverified material on the shelf right alongside the good material. I have been urging him, by way of unapproved WordPress comments on his page, to correct some of these errors.
    At the top of one of his URLs, he says:
    The citizen’s investigation team (CIT) have put forth a “Flyover theory” after interviewing 14 witnesses at the Pentagon. All of which who claim they saw a plane hit the Pentagon and none of them saw it fly over.
    This is not true. While none of the witnesses are under the impression that the plane flew over, and while all of them are firmly of the belief of the official story, it is simply not true, it is a falsehood, to say that all those witnesses saw the impact with their own eyes.
    Anyone who has studied the evidence (interviews) in any depth at all will immediately know that almost all the witnesses (1) wouldn’t have had an unobstructed view of the Pentagon even if their eyes were glued to the plane every second, and (2) in any case, they were flinching, ducking, running the other way for cover etc. Especially given that they knew what was going on in NYC.
    A number of witnesses SPECIFICALLY state on film that they did NOT see the plane hit, merely deduced it.
    In fact, I even pointed Ken to the minute/second mark to a couple such admissions.
    Nonetheless, in one of the last friendly private messages he sent me (about a week ago?), he said he “stand[s] by” the statement that all of the witnesses say they saw the plane hit.
    Certainly, this is pretty disingenuous for someone who claims to me to have seen National Security Alert three times.

    Reply

  18. I’ve pointed out one other thing to Ken Doc re his Pentagon WordPress page. This is one example of DOZENS. He can’t even acknowledge this. On a page that he entitles “Pentagon Debris,”
    https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/the-pentagon/pentagon-debris/
    he pastes a lot of links regarding “light pole witnesses” (or a true lack thereof).
    Here is now Ken’s link reads:

    John McWethy, pentagon, witness, lightpole, ABC, 12:16, 9/11

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSUJKq7MMQ0
    Most people scrolling down Ken’s page but not bothering to click the link would get the impression that John McWethy is a witness to light poles being clipped. But what happens when we click on the video?
    At 0:15 in the interview with Peter Jennings, he says that he’s relaying what someone allegedly told him.
    “One eyewitness I talked to…” He didn’t even get the person’s name so that independent investigators could try to track him down and confirm independently first hand the details of the event. This is not evidence of anything.
    2:23 “I was sitting in the Pentagon when the, uh, attack happened…”
    So, not only is McWethy not a light pole downing witness, as the title of the video suggests, but this video truly shouldn’t be posted as evidence of anything at all.
    But to especially frame him as a light pole witness is truly damaging in that it perpetuates the muddying of the waters. By definition, a light pole downing witness, if genuine and if the official story were true, would have to entail an official SoC flight path.
    People like Frank Legge deceptively and knowingly seize on names like McWethy as “proof” that “there are SoC, light pole downing witnesses.”
    They do this KNOWING that the average Joes of the movement won’t put the microscope on this any further and point out the kinds of things I’m pointing out in this comment.
    Bottom line, McWethy is not a witness to anything, let alone light poles being clipped. As I said to Ken, “You need to edit this portion of your page.” Of course, he has not done so.
    How many people looking at that page would actually click on the interview, or the dozens of other links Ken provides? Most would scroll down the page and get the impression that there is documentation of light pole downing witnesses.
    In sum, on the subject of the Pentagon, Ken is not a researcher. He’s an excellent copy-paster. As revealed by the fact that in this case at least, he takes a YouTube title at its word! He does not vet his own sources. The result? He pastes some good links with good info (particularly to the CIT research forum where they break down the alleged light pole witnesses) and then right along side them, posts links to non-info or bad info.
    (For everyone’s interest: there was only one quoted witness in the media who said she saw the plane hit the light poles with her own eyes; that was Wanda Ramey. CIT did track her down and interview her; she had no recollection of the detail about the light pole. She also said she was traumatized by the event and has deliberately put the details out of her mind, so she’d hardly be admissible evidence in court of light pole clipping. The other purported witnesses to light pole clippings merely deduced it because they saw the poles on the ground, or because they “saw it on the news” in the case of Penny Elgas.)
    I’ve privately tried to get Ken to correct both this error and the error about “all saw the plane hit” but he’s not interested. When I messaged him specifically regarding this John McWethy video and how the man is not a witness, his only response was “dude, I made that page years ago.”
    WTF.

    Reply

    1. Adam, Have you ever inquired if Ken Doc has ever actually read the Pages on T&S concerning the Pentagon?
      I just posted a comment on the page you gave to his Pentagon ‘analysis’ … I couldn’t tell what his position is according to that page…???
      I did suggest he debate us here on the issue.
      \\][//

      Reply

      1. I know he’s read some T/S articles; don’t know about the Pentagon or if so, how many. I know he’s been aware of the blog for at least a year, maybe two, but some of Craig’s best Pentagon articles date from before that, from 2010-12.

        Reply

    2. Dear Mr. Syed,
      I sympathize with Mr. Ken Dockery’s statement regarding potential errors in an old page:

      “dude, I made that page years ago.”

      But that doesn’t excuse him from ~not~ making corrections or updates through simple comments under the discussion, if he doesn’t create a new page as well.
      It appears that more than one realm of 9/11 Truther speculation can trip-up gatekeepers, both the unwitting and official ones. It is a fine and difficult line when it is permissible to say “my bad”, “my mistake”, “I don’t know”, “that might well be a possibility but outside the scope of my interests and knowledge”.
      For all the dings that I’ve given the near cult-heroes of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the focus was their work and deficiencies therein. Their reputations could be saved with a simple:

      “In light of new analysis that exposes data points that were near hidden in plain sight in many official documents, purposely never connected, and purposely skewed or omitted to give false impressions to downstream efforts (e.g., me and my work), I change my opinion and see where such-and-such is just as plausible — if not more so — than that in which I have been promoting with a vested interest these last N years. I apologize for the oversight and for any misinformation that I might have spread. I amend my views accordingly…”

      Personal honesty and integrity.
      //

      Reply

      1. Dear Mr. Syed,
        I sympathize with Mr. Ken Dockery’s statement regarding potential errors in an old page:
        “dude, I made that page years ago.”

        The reason I’m bringing it up to him is because in recent months, he’s been promoting his WP page as a “one stop shop” for all things 9/11 truth. I was actually under the impression that the page was created recently, hence my surprise that he said it was created “years ago.”

        Reply

  19. Craig,
    It’s not the first time someone has been banned for saying something elsewhere. Furthermore, in the past, people have been purged not even for saying anything, but for associations. Back in 2008, 911blogger owner Reprehensor did a mass purge of everyone known to have an account at wtcdemolition.com/blog. Rep took exception to several things that Gretavo (the wtcd creator) had blogged about. He then did exactly what Ken has done with us: “Anyone who is a friend of Gretavo and WTCD is not welcome here!” [1][2]
    911blogger also banned Kevin Barrett, without explanation, on the very day he decided to run for Congress. Apparently they didn’t like some topics outside 9/11 that was blogging about, or speaking about on his show, etc. [2]
    [1] http://911blogger.com/news/2008-07-18/responding-libel
    [2] http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1295
    [3] http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-may-2008-i-announced-i-was-running.html

    Reply

    1. This first part of Kevin Barrett’s blog is really worth reading – and a trip down memory lane for me, I hadn’t seen the name “Col. Jenny Sparks” in years.

      Tuesday, September 1, 2009
      In May 2008 I announced I was running for Congress on a 9/11 truth and “end aid to Israel” platform, and that I was calling for the prosecution of DHS chief Michael Chertoff and the whole Israeli lobby as unregistered agents of a foreign power. And all hell broke loose.
      Upon announcing my candidacy, I was banned from my main internet outlet, 911blogger.com, ostensibly because the owner of that website did not like ONE of the hundreds of people I had talked to on the radio. All of my posts at 911blogger were removed, and other users at 911blogger were forbidden to mention me or post news of my candidacy upon pain of expulsion. In eliminating my base of communications, fundraising, and support, Alan Giles, the owner of 911blogger, crippled my candidacy on the day it was announced. Though I had more google news hits than anyone else in the 911 truth movement except David Ray Griffin, and regularly brought 9/11 truth into the mainstream media in rhetorically effective ways, my congressional campaign and I had suddenly been erased from the biggest 9/11 truth news site.
      In the weeks following the announcement of my congressional run, a tidal wave of slanderous sewage washed over me and my family, much of it facilitated by Alan Giles and a cabal of operatives at 911blogger: the anonymous attack entities “Arabesque” and “Col. Jenny Sparks,” the 9/11 truth sex stalker Brian Good, pugnacious Zionist LIHOPper Jon Gold, Jim Hoffman’s wife or CIA/Mossad handler or whatever she is Victoria Ashley, and a half-bright jealous rival radio host named Michael Woolsey…more or less the same clique Webster Tarpley had outed as cointelpro operatives or dupes back in mid-2007.

      It’s important to notice that at the end, Barrett says “operatives or dupes.” In other words, he’s not accusing every one of those names of being agents.
      Now, for those whose ego would be bruised at being called a “dupe,” guess what? Look at why you’re being called as such. Maybe there’s a good reason you’re being called a dupe. Smart people can be duped by skillful propaganda. “Dupe” is not a synonym for “idiot.” For a little while between 2007 and 2009, I was duped into believing that Jim Hoffman was maybe on the correct side of the Pentagon issue. It was the way he dismissed the NoC evidence harder and harder the more such witnesses were uncovered, that convinced me that he and/or his wife were agents. When THEY say there are lots of witnesses to the official SoC flight path, they are consciously lying, I have no doubt. But when Kevin Ryan and David Chandler repeat this falsehood, they’re doing so having been duped, genuinely believing it. They aren’t stupid people, and most likely aren’t operatives, but just haven’t put the microscope on the issue enough to see which evidence and claims are strong and which don’t hold water.
      Mike Collins reminds me of some of those names above that Tarpley and Barrett named and shamed in 2007 and 2009 respectively. With him, it’s pretty hard to tell whether he’s doing it out of pure immaturity and ignorance, or getting paid.

      Reply

      1. Hey, I’m just kinda curious (and keep some discussion kicking, I know you live for this blog HR 😉 ) What would people consider to be more insulting if on the receiving end: being called an agent or an idiot? Or a dupe?
        For me, probably “idiot.” If someone tells me I’ve been duped about something, I’ll open my ears to the possibility that I was wrong or misled.
        I myself have been explicitly accused of being an agent several times on public forums over my decade in the movement. (I’ve just about never been called an idiot.) Some people, when accused, will respond with extreme anger, or they might feel so hurt that they want to walk away from the cause. Not me. As I said before, Kevin Ryan called me an agent simply for writing a critical review of his book (which several high profile members of the movement privately emailed me and praised me for writing). It didn’t hurt my feelings; rather, in a perverse way it kind of stoked my ego.
        http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/7301/n8ib.jpg
        http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/123/05fw.jpg

        Reply

          1. Well now that the stew has already boiled over I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.
            As you will note, again this anonymous nutjob has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion. We, that is Mr Ruff and I, are his targets. I don’t think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit. What he gets off on is defaming those who have shown him for what he is, an agent of disruption.
            As is such I hope Mr McKee will stand to his “requests” that this crap come to an end.
            \\][//

        2. Yes Mr (ma’dam – Lol) Syed, I remember this reaction by the Ryan crowd, as you referenced it pretty much while it was happening.
          As far as being called an “idiot”. Well that one doesn’t faze me, If I were George Bush it might get under my skin.
          A “dupe”? Well that has a specific meaning, and can be argued against with reason.
          Being accused of being an “agent”, now that one can tighten my jaw. Especially if the person get’s serious behind the assertions. And especially so because I despise the agents of the state, because I despise the agenda of the state.
          There was a time that such assertions were made against me that echoed down the halls of T&S for months, if not years. I am sure Adam, that you are quite aware of this. And lest this turn into another one of those reverberation chambers, I will leave to what I have said here.
          \\][//

          Reply

        3. Ah yes there is our old “friend” Cheri there to defend Kevin Ryan yet offer no substantive reason for disputing your review. Just a yes woman groupie for Ryan? Apparently so. Does she or Ryan have any substance behind their issues with CIT? No. If they did have any substance they could articulate what it is don’t you think? They could debate the subject effectively too, that is if their arguments had any merit. Ken Doc could debate it too, if only his stance that the pentagon is too controversial were backed up by something real. Alas.

          Reply

  20. Déjà vu all over again!
    How many times have we sat stunned and dazed like this after the spook storm passes?
    “where have all the flowers gone…?” and et cetera …
    \\][//

    Reply

    1. To everyone: I do not want to see any more of the attacks that have popped up on this thread. No more name calling and no more off topic “side” discussions. If I think someone is deliberately derailing the thread, and testing me to see what they can get away with, I will get very annoyed. The article offers many opportunities for on-topic comment. Adam Syed, for example, has made numerous comments that are right on topic – so let’s all follow that example, shall we?

      Reply

  21. Well I can only say, which I suppose is a reiteration of what I have said before here, that; no I do not think that the largest 9/11 Facebook forum can rise above ridicule, insults and contrived controversies.
    Facebook seems to be a venue especially created for the vast majority of Amerikans who have been dumbed down into a collectivist mindset by the Prussian so-called “educational model”. Those here familiar with Gatto, Iserbyt, and Antony Sutton, should have a grasp on what I speak to here.
    As I have termed it, we are dealing with TVZombies as the greater majority of the population in the western world. Even here in what I would deem a small island of sanity surrounded by a sea of such mentally and emotionally incapacitated peoples, finds the tides lapping at our shores.
    Gawblesmurkah!
    \\][//

    Reply

  23. I am on Facebook and I’m working to spread the truth about 9/11. But I’m sneaky about it. I joined the Facebook group “9/11 Truth Movement” and lasted less than an hour.
    It was infantile.
    I pity any newcomer who goes there looking for legitimate information to see if there is anything legitimate about the Truth Movement. They only sing to the choir and manage to post a lot of garbage memes in the process.
    In my own way I have been somewhat effective in getting people to question 9/11. Most of my posts are political – but 9/11 is a subject that comes up often and I jump on it in order to spread some info.
    A little bit of info at a time. And always truth. And lots of offline explaining. I mail out DVD’s every week or every other week to FB “friends” when they express interest. A lot of people unfriend me and get angry when I talk about 9/11. It is a waste of time to argue with them. But some people stick and over time begin to ask me questions (one woman took two years to begin to see it). Facebook is a tool that can work, I think, to overcome cognitive dissonance a little bit at a time.
    Some truth groups are dominated by idiots and I’ve even had to block some fellow truthers because they dump info on my page, nobody reads it and it clogs up the works. They also make some pretty wild statements and without logical explanations, they get angry and abusive when people don’t “buy it”.
    In all of this, what I am really trying to say is that I have found it more effective to work independently and stay out of truther groups.

    Reply

  24. I guess after a little time now dealing with the FB group this article is about I can answer the question: “Can largest 9/11 Facebook forum rise above ridicule, insults, and contrived controversies?”
    Answer: Apparently not.

    Reply

  25. My whole experience with those who run this FB group left a very bad taste in my mouth. A taste that is familiar, a taste that I have had before, from another so-called truth blog 911blogger. Yes I remember it now as a very sour and bitter taste.

    Reply

  26. It seems to me that the page you refer to is in no way trying to disprove anything the government has said. Just the reference to the fuselage of an aircraft not allowing the engines to make grooves in the grass is enough to show this one person for what he is, a spreader of misinformation. He either has no qualifications in engineering or has a very short memory. I have worked in one form or another of engineering for nearly forty years, although I am not an aircraft engineer, I know enough to be able to state categorically that the engines of an aircraft are a hell of a lot harder than an aluminum can, such as the fuselage is.It seems to me that this is not a place to discuss, but a place to entrap people and then convince them they are wrong, why else prevent viewing from outsiders, surely the idea is to spread what you say and attract newcomers,, not to restrict it to members you can control, as they appear to be doing. Personally I would advise people to be careful with this page, it does not seem to do what it claims.

    Reply

      2. Craig, that was a very good interview you did with Niels Harrit.
        But I suppose discussing it on this particular blog is out of bounds…Lol
        Don’t get me wrong, I am well satisfied that it is already established as out of bounds, and agree with your former ruling on that.
        Of course this leaves a conundrum; will this interview be presented here on T&S at some future date? And if so, are you going to be prepared for what would surely be a huge battle?
        And an addendum to that is; would this actually end up being a productive debate should it finally occur?
        \\][//

        Reply

        1. Thank you. And, yes, it will probably find its way here although the focus will be somewhat altered. But for now I want to keep it exclusive for the benefit of the brand new 9/11 Questions web site.
          So, no, a discussion of that article isn’t appropriate right here. But the discussion could take place once the article is posted here. But to tell you the truth, I don’t look forward to it. I think controlled demolition has been established, and I don’t see the benefit of continuing to discuss Judy Wood (even though this article does just that!)

          Reply

    2. @Michael Evans There were no grooves made by the engines in the lawn in front of the Pentagon, which means that the engines didn’t hit the lawn. If they had there would have been grooves there. That’s how you tell the engines didn’t hit the lawn. Why would there be grooves in the lawn if the engines didn’t hit the lawn? There was a piece taken out of a low concrete wall where one of the engines hit it.

      Reply

      1. Ah long time no see A.Wright. Welcome back. I agree with you that the engines didn’t hit the lawn. I agree 100%. I think the reason the engines didn’t hit the lawn though is because the plane didn’t hit the pentagon. You probably disagree with that statement? Well if the plane actually had struck the pentagon not only would those 12,000 lb engines have smashed through the facade of the pentagon leaving visible holes in the wall but they also would have been found mangled inside the pentagon. These engines could then have been inspected for serial numbers and shown to be from flight 77. However A.Wright as you know these two 12,000 lb engines were not recovered from the pentagon and no holes in the pentagon facade were made by them. It is easy therefore to conclude that the engines at least did not damage the lawn of the pentagon or the facade of the pentagon. Now perhaps you can account for this discrepancy? Perhaps with a picture of a small fan allegedly from one of these engines? I look forward to your explanation as to how this small fan (small enough to be places there by a single individual) accounts for two 12,000 lb engines. Oh also does is this fan stamped with a serial number which can be traced to flight 77? Hmmm curious isn’t it that although tens of thousands of parts are stamped with serial numbers on airliners that not one such identifiable part has been recovered at the pentagon. How do you account for that A.Wright? I will be holding my breath in eager anticipation of your thorough response and careful precise answers to these questions. Since you never dodge or deflect questions such as these I look forward to learning something new.

        Reply

        1. Very well summarized. And may I add that the 90-foot “gash” that is supposed to have been made by the wings was right at ground level. So if wings hit at ground level, how could the engines NOT have gouged the lawn and the building foundation? The answer, as you stated, is that there was no plane impact.

          Reply

          1. Ah, the refreshing nature of logic and reason.
            I’ll be interested to see how the 911questions group and associated website play out in terms of being able to have a civil and reasonable discussion of the Pentagon. The tone will be determined by what the admins allow.

          2. As one of the admins for the site, I am quite optimistic about its future. The creator of the site, Seb Nord, is committed to fair and open discussion. And the site is growing very rapidly. In less than a year it has accumulated more than 10,500 members.

          3. Well I cannot log into this new site because it will not accept Google or WordPress ID’s.
            \\][//

          5. Because the comment box has no “SEND”, but asks that I “log in” via FB, Twitter, and a couple other options that I do not have associations with.
            \\][//

          6. Craig,
            Have you as yet any indication of the ‘911Questions Group’s” attitude towards the Pentagon issue?
            \\][//

          1. You mean the 90 wide area where some of the facade facing came loose? Yeah that is not a hole A.Wright. So no the engines did not pass through the hole you described because it is not a hole.

          2. @Ruffadam What do you mean ‘the facade facing came loose’? What ‘facing’ ? The entire reinforced wall was removed. It’s a hole 90 feet wide on the ground floor.

          3. There are columns still standing in the “hole.” And they are bowed out. But more than that, your suggestion that it could have accommodated the engines is impossible. If the engines had entered through this opening then the wings would have hit above it. They would have been left outside the building.

          4. @Craig McKee How many columns are still standing? And what is between the columns? If the columns that you are saying are bowed out are the ones highlighted in National Security Alert then they are not columns, they are parts of the upper floor slab hanging down. The left wing was low so that would go into the first floor area and the damage from the right wing is obvious on the facade at the right.

          6. “The left wing was low so that would go into the first floor area and the damage from the right wing is obvious on the facade at the right.”~A. Wright
            Your problem is obvious right there Wright. The damage you cite is a horizontal line from one edge to the other, yet the damage to the right facade is at an upward angle, meaning the aircraft would have been tipped R-wing up, L-wing down. If the right wing was at that angle, the engine would have left a distinct hole higher than that horizontal wound.
            \\][//

  27. I love it how the grasping at straws just never ends from people such as A.Wright. Oh the engines were not recovered from the site “well there was this picture of a fan though!”. Oh there was no holes in the facade for the engines “well what about the 90 ft “hole” couldn’t the engines have gone in there?”. Oh there is no broken windows even where the tail must have hit “ah well it must have folded down and got carried inside.” Blah blah blah bullshit blah blah blah more bullshit blah blah.
    Let’s see one God damned engine then with serial numbers stamped on the parts inside it.
    Explain how it is that on the one hand the official liars claim the engines melted away yet they found viable DNA of the hijackers. Yeah right titanium melts but the DNA does not, suuuuuure that makes sense and is totally believable.
    Tell me how the hijackers took over the plane when the cockpit door was never opened according to the black box data they released?
    Tell me how all 15 of the eye witnesses that saw the plane come in north of Citgo all got it wrong and all got it wrong the same way independently of each other?
    In fact A.Wright answer a question for once in your life instead of asking your own questions. I notice you do not answer any of my questions above all you do is ask your own questions. ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS then I will answer yours. Never again will I answer you until you prove you are capable of answering us. No more A.Wright. Not one more question from you until you provide some reasonable logical answers to our questions. You think it is OK to just ignore everything we ask you and keep asking all your own questions? NO MORE!

    Reply

    1. If I were admin of a 9/11 truth group, I would eventually drop the ban hammer on a person if they repeatedly show that they are not debating in good faith.
      These people are like the high school student who bullshits his way through a paper; taking up space on the page in an attempt to create the impression of saying something.
      People who engage in verbosity and obtuseness in order to create the impression of “dissent” from “within the movement” over the Pentagon evidence, or for that matter any 9/11 evidence, would eventually be shown the door.

      Reply

    2. @ruffadam
      That’s a pretty good example of the ‘ridicule and insult’ tactics practiced on that Facebook page, which you are obviously unable to rise above. You asked about 3 separate questions in your original post and I thought I’d answer them one at a time.
      The first one was where were the holes made by the engines. The plane with it’s engines made a hole 90ft wide and one storey high in the facade of the Pentagon. That’s where the engines would have gone into the Pentagon. You are either unaware of the damage to the Pentagon caused by the plane or you think the engines ,or what was left of them ,couldn’t fit into a huge hole of that size.
      You don’t need to respond and please ignore any questions you are asked as I know the idea is that I answer your questions, giving answers you agree with , and you have a special dispensation that means you don’t answer any questions yourself. I’ll address your questions in other posts, even the ones I was quoted as answering already using quotes that you made up.

      Reply

        1. @Craig McKee How does it not explain it? What is there to explain , or rather what do you think is so inexplicable? A plane hits a wall punches through it and the debris from the plane ends up at the other side of the wall.

          Reply

          1. Quote Adam Ruff “Explain how it is that on the one hand the official liars claim the engines melted away yet they found viable DNA of the hijackers. Yeah right titanium melts but the DNA does not, suuuuuure that makes sense and is totally believable.”
            ——
            They don’t say the engines melted in the fire at the Pentagon after the plane crashed, as illustrated by the photos of the debris from the engines that you refer to, including the photos of the ‘fan’ ( which is not a fan). They are not saying the engines melted if there is engine debris. If as you assume there is planted engine debris then they are not saying the engines melted.
            —————
            Quote: “Tell me how the hijackers took over the plane when the cockpit door was never opened according to the black box data they released?”
            ——
            The FDR data has a list of parameters and it shows the cockpit door as a non-recorded parameter on the FDR. The FDR contained records of many previous flights and the cockpit door was never shown as open on any of them, because that was an unrecorded parameter.
            —————–

          2. Quote Adam Ruff “the two12,000 lb engines were not recovered from the Pentagon”
            ——-
            Who said the engines were not recovered from the Pentagon? The only way to determine what debris was in the Pentagon is to go in and recover it. Where did any of the people who had to do that, and pick their way though dead bodies and body parts, say that they didn’t find debris from the engines of the plane? Is that a statement from the people who went into the Pentagon after the event and recovered all the debris and moved it outside? Did they say ‘We did not find any parts of the engines.’? There are photos of heavy engine parts piled up outside the building. Statements I have seen from recovery workers were that they spent almost an entire shift removing the remains of one of the engines from where it was embeded in one of the internal columns of the building.
            ——————————————
            Quote ” Perhaps with a picture of a small fan allegedly from one of these engines? I look forward to your explanation as to how this small fan (small enough to be places there by a single individual) accounts for two 12,000 lb engines.”
            ————
            Is this the only piece of engine debris recovered from the Pentagon? Or is it the only photograph of a piece of engine debris you are aware of? What are all the other pieces of heavy debris piled out outside the building?
            You can look up diagrams and photos of RB211 engines and see the size of the centre rotors of the engine. You can even see videos of engine builds. They are about 30″ in diameter. It is a high bypass engine with core discs of much smaller diameter that the overall diameter of the engine. Blades are attached around the centre discs and the air passes through the blades. The disc in the photo is sold metal. If that is a ‘fan’ , where does the air go? The discs of smaller engines would be half the diameter of that disc.
            ——————————————
            Quote Adam Ruff “Oh also does is this fan stamped with a serial number which can be traced to flight 77? Hmmm curious isn’t it that although tens of thousands of parts are stamped with serial numbers on airliners that not one such identifiable part has been recovered at the pentagon.”
            ——–
            What is the serial number on this part, or on any of the other parts recovered from the Pentagon? How can you say no parts from AA77 were recovered from the Pentagon if you don’t know what the serial numbers are?
            Have you ever seen a serial number part from any plane crash? Of the hundreds of plane crashes that you are aware of have you ever seen a serial number part or a reference to one from any of these plane crashes? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a reference to a serial number part in relation to any plane crash. I have books on plane crashes and I’ve read NTSB reports where there is no mention of serial number parts. And these are NTSB reports where they are going through the debris trying to discover the cause of the accident. The plane that hit the Pentagon was deliberately crashed and was being investigated by the FBI who were not trying to discover some fault in the plane.
            If the FBI released a list of serial numbers from parts recovered from the Pentagon, would you take that as evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon? Is that all they have to do? There were DNA identifications of the planes passengers. That is as definitive an indentification as the serial number parts of the plane. Do you take that as evidence the plane hit the building? -or is it just ignored and dismissed as a lie , fabrication etc. In other words the idea is ‘show us the evidence but if it is produced we will say it is false.’

          3. Well A.Wright here we are again huh? So you said in reply to my comments about the engines not being recovered from the pentagon the following:
            “Who said the engines were not recovered from the Pentagon? The only way to determine what debris was in the Pentagon is to go in and recover it. Where did any of the people who had to do that, and pick their way though dead bodies and body parts, say that they didn’t find debris from the engines of the plane? Is that a statement from the people who went into the Pentagon after the event and recovered all the debris and moved it outside? Did they say ‘We did not find any parts of the engines.’? There are photos of heavy engine parts piled up outside the building. Statements I have seen from recovery workers were that they spent almost an entire shift removing the remains of one of the engines from where it was embeded in one of the internal columns of the building.”
            So basically you are engaging in a twist on the prove a negative logical fallacy. You are essentially saying that since the people recovering whatever from the pentagon did NOT say they didn’t find the engines that they must have been there. Bravo that is some high level bullshit A.Wright I mean really high level.
            This of course brings us back to why we need verifiable wreckage from flight 77 in the form of parts with serial numbers. Should not be difficult if flight 77 actually crashed at the pentagon to produce a part or two with those serial numbers huh? Hey why not get the parts from “the remains of one of the engines from where it was embeded in one of the internal columns of the building.” huh?

          4. @ruffadam
            The people who went into the building said they did recover engine debris. Which also means they didn’t melt, or that anyone said that they melted.
            The serial numbers of the plane components have not been presented to the public. Agreed? You haven’t seen them and I haven’t seen them. Correct? You draw an inference from that. The inference you draw from it is that the identifiable numbers on the parts removed from the Pentagon are not those from AA 77. If that’s the case then there is some major deception involving faked damage , explosives mimicking a plane crash . lying operatives involved in a mass murder conspiracy etc but you think they wouldn’t just release a few plane part numbers? If that was so important to convince people to believe this deception why wouldn’t they release a few numbers? The numbers are there in the planes maintenance log book.
            I don’t think I would be wrong if I suggested that if the FBI published a list of part numbers saying they were part numbers from plane debris recovered from the Pentagon ,and a matching set of numbers from the maintenance log of AA77, that you would accept that AA77 hit the Pentagon. In that sense I don’t know why you say you need to have these part numbers because you would just dismiss them as you dismiss the identification of the passengers and crew on the plane,( and basically all the evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon.) That identification evidence is the same as having part numbers from the plane but you find reasons to ignore it and dismiss it. There must be scores of plane crashes that you are aware of and you have never seen a serial numbered part from any of them so it is not the fact that you haven’t seen serial numbered parts that make you think the plane didn’t hit the building , it is other evidence.
            The reason I think AA77 hit the Pentagon is also because of other evidence. The serial numbered parts of the plane is evidence I don’t have, and it’s evidence you don’t have either. I have never seen numbered parts from any plane crash. That has never prevented me concluding that these planes crashed and that people lost there lives.
            In terms of the identification numbers of the plane you draw an inference from it that I don’t draw at all and I think the inference you draw is an illogical one. It would mean having to ignore all of the evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon which is unfortunately what you have done and continue to do. It is not a tenable hypothosis and it is not one logically arrived at and I have said it to you before why that is obviously the case. If you present people with flawed arguments and illogical evidence assessments you can’t expect to convince them.- the flaws will be recognized in the long run.

          5. I’m almost dizzy from trying to follow your incredibly convoluted “logic.” It’s very simple: the government is claiming that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and yet they have not provided proof that any of the parts that they supposedly found are from that plane.
            So what is the proof that Flight 77 did crash there? All that we have is “evidence” that the government says it has but that cannot be independently confirmed. The most ridiculous claim is that passenger DNA was retrieved and it confirmed that this was the flight. We also don’t have a serial number that connects the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found in the rubble to the plane in question.
            If the best you have is simply believing what the government tells you, then you haven’t got anything.

          6. @Craig McKee ‘m not sure what you find confusing or illogical , you have confirmed at least some of the things I said
            To sum up what I said
            -there isn’t an available list of part numbers from the debris recovered from the Pentagon
            -you infer something from that. (On the other hand Hybridrogue1 and Adam Syed, apparently, don’t infer something from it )
            -the passengers and crew were identified , but you don’t believe it and dismiss it because it comes from the government
            -if there was a published list of part numbers you wouldn’t believe it and would dismiss it also since it would have to come from the government.
            quote “If the best you have is simply believing what the government tells you, then you haven’t got anything.” i.e. a list of part numbers would mean nothing.
            -you have never seen part numbers from any plane crash and have never needed to see them to accept that a plane has crashed
            -a lot of NTSB reports don’t even include part numbers
            -the NTSB didn’t do a report on the Pentagon crash
            -you and the others here think a plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon, not because you haven’t a list of part numbers, but from other evidence.
            -if there was a big deception and cover-up then logic says the list of part numbers from AA77 would be more likely to be released, and not that it would be withheld.
            -the conviction you have that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon is based on a flawed and illogical assessment of the evidence – I have explained that before and you would disagree but I think it’s demonstrably the case.

          7. “The serial numbers of the plane components have not been presented to the public. Agreed? You haven’t seen them and I haven’t seen them. Correct? You draw an inference from that. The inference you draw from it is that the identifiable numbers on the parts removed from the Pentagon are not those from AA 77.”~A. Wright
            No inferences drawn whatsoever Wright. The whole pile of bullshit you continue to stack up here is moot. The plane simply could not hit the Pentagon at that trajectory. This is the bottom line to this whole issue. All the rest of your arguments are just pure nonsense.
            The same nonsense for years Wright! You are a bullshit peddler.
            It is my opinion that T&S is a high value target, and that Wright gets extra points and pay for his word count here. I don’t like the idea of us helping this shill make his living off of us by entering into dialog with him.
            \\][//

      2. I know for a fact that all of these elemental questions have been gone through time and again with A. Wright, and I know it is futile to go through it all yet one more time.
        The bottom line is all of this discussion is irrelevant as has been gone over in great detail; because the trajectory of the plane’s approach makes the point of impact and damage path in the building impossible.
        \\][//

        Reply

  28. “Can largest 9/11 Facebook forum rise above ridicule, insults, and contrived controversies?” Probably not, but not because of the working patterns of moderators. Assuming, hypothetically, that the forum would run well, with much courtesy, agreements to disagree, understanding for those who seemingly don’t understand, it would become a problem to the Master 9/11 conspirators.
    Since the Master 9/11 conspirators hold in their tentacles just about every bully pulpit that exists, from Muslim governments to leading anti-war intellectuals to Amnesty International to etc., it stands to reason that they are quite capable of disturbing a hypothetical well-run, successful, effective Facebook forum. How they will do this is anyone’s guess, but whoever can stealthily persuade state governors and the Iranian theocrats to censor 9/11 undoubtedly can stealthily disturb a highly-frequented forum.
    I have been preaching and trying to practice a few rules that mollify these kinds of disturbances:
    * always be very respectful of anyone who affirms the twin towers’ criminal controlled demolition and its self-evidence, irrespective of her/his bizarre beliefs on other issues
    * mistrust and invite people to mistrust anyone who does not affirm the twin towers’ criminal controlled demolition as an established scientific truth
    * call others to follow the above rules
    * avoid arguing over anything that is not closely connected to the twin towers’ conspiracy (the self-evident criminal controlled demolition, the transparent cover-up by Osama bin Laden’s fantastic aerial show, and the deadly effective censorship thereof by a myriad of watchdogs who have consistently failed to bark), because the twin towers’ censorship conspiracy uniquely leads to the demonstration of the mother conspiracy of http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com
    * argue at the level that your opposing party can understand, for instance do not discuss Ron Paul’s failure to denounce 9/11 with somebody who claims that Building 7’s video record obviously proves its destruction by an office fire
    Love,

    Reply

    1. ” always be very respectful of anyone who affirms the twin towers’ criminal controlled demolition and its self-evidence, irrespective of her/his bizarre beliefs on other issues” ~Daniel Noel
      Ridiculous! Bizarre untenable beliefs should always be denounced, and I denounce this “belief” by Daniel as untenable.
      This is again seeking a consensus so generally drawn, as to dilute the truth to a matter of the opinions of the lowest common denominator. I object most strongly to this tepid idealism.
      \\][//

      Reply

    2. I have to disagree with Dan on this one. I know many so-called truthers who will say the towers were blown up yet they will not acknowledge the importance and devastating nature of the pentagon evidence. Many so-called truthers even refuse to review the evidence yet want those of us who have reviewed it to just drop the pentagon evidence because it is “too controversial”. Well it is only controversial to people who don’t know what the real evidence is or what it proves. Dan you yourself consistently attempt to steer people away from the pentagon evidence and toward the CD evidence. I don’t mind showing people the evidence for CD, in fact I do it all the time, but I do object to this BS meme that the pentagon evidence is too controversial or too complex. For me the litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon issue. Those who know the evidence realize just what it is: Damning proof of an inside job that cannot be wiggled out of. With CD it could still be argued even at this stage today that some patsies or fall guys placed the bombs and somehow did it without high level insiders helping them. Granted I would never believe such a thing but the point is the real perps have a little wiggle room with the CD evidence, they could deflect blame and possibly escape trial and punishment. Staging the crime scene at the pentagon though!!! No way in hell you can blame that on anyone except high level insiders who have control of the pentagon itself.
      So Dan if you really want to be on the cutting edge of the truth movement you need to get up to speed on the pentagon evidence and start promoting it along with the CD evidence otherwise you are just half a truther in my opinion. I will also add that we all need to get fully informed on Shanksville too because if we don’t we are only 2/3 of a truther. I intend to contact Dominick DeMaggio and start getting myself informed, really informed on Shanksville.

      Reply

      1. Dan Noel,
        You received two replies to your comment above yet you have said nothing in response to either one. I am just curious why that is that you do not seem to want to respond? Is this not a conversation were we disrespectful somehow? Are you just posting your point of view and refusing to engage in a discussion? It just seems to me that so many people here and on other blogs too post their thoughts and opinions but steadfastly refuse to respond to rebuttals of those posts. That is not a conversation at all.

        Reply

        1. Trying to practice what I preach…
          I did not mean to snub Willy (hybridrogue1) and Adam (ruffadam) by declining to answer their replies to my Feb.-2 comment and I apologize if I gave that impression. I harbor much respect for them, since they have steadfastly and unequivocally affirmed a criminal controlled demolition as the mechanism of the twin towers’ destruction. Their disagreements with my “disturbance mollifying rules” appear to be largely driven to diverging goals:
          * Willy’s perspective is a search for truth and its corollary denunciation of bizarre untenable beliefs.
          * Adam’s perspective is a search for a 9/11 conspiracy scenario that necessarily blames high level insiders.
          * My perspective is a search for an end to the mother conspiracy of the global Platonic theater.
          As long as many people and virtually all opinion-makers live as an absolute truth the superstitious attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers, I humbly prefer to change their minds than Willy’s or Adam’s. As a case in point, if our resident 9/11 fanatic Wright had the nerve to pick an argument with me, I would mercilessly goad her/him into ridiculing her/himself in such a way that even readers who believe in good faith the official 9/11 myth would immediately recognize who is the rationalist and who is the idiot.
          Going back on topic, if I were to participate in the Facebook group and based on this page, I would probably spend much energy respectfully urging several principal contributors to show more respect to promoters of a 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy. When prodded about the Pentagon, I would respectfully advise to decline to argue or counter-argue and advocate instead a focus on the 9/11 censorship conspiracy. But educating 9/11 skeptics, undermining 9/11 censors and ridiculing 9/11 fanatics is much more productive.
          Love,

          Reply

          1. @Daniel Noel Not to pick an argument with you for the sake of it but since most of my comments on this forum have been confined to what I regard as the untenable theories about what happened at the Pentagon, can you tell me why I’m described as the ‘resident 9/11 fanatic’, which I presume is based on comments I’ve made here.

          2. Wright: don’t bother answering comments that are not directly addressed at you. You are generally incapable of understanding them. You just confirmed this rule with an exception. You correctly presume that I have based the conclusion of your 9/11 fanaticism on the comments you’ve made here.
            Building on your point, your comments have not been confined to the Pentagon. In particular, you have exposed more than once your inability to draw intelligent conclusions from Building 7’s video record, as the elementary http://www.911babystep.com has consistently appeared to elude you. This qualifies you as a 9/11 fanatic.
            Love,

          3. @Noel. Thanks for the polite reply. I didn’t realise how much I had offended you by asking you about a comment about me that you directed to others. Since you think I don’t understand your comments about me, you shouldn’t really be surprised that I asked you to clarify them. I presume I can make critical comments about you to other people and you won’t reply to them.
            I didn’t say my comments here have confined to the Pentagon , I said most of my comments here have been.
            I don’t think building 7’s collapse was caused by explosives, I think that is a foolish idea. If that offends you then all I can say is you are easily offended. But if you think looking at the videos of the collapse that it was obvious caused by explosives then you think there was a plan to carry out a controlled demolition of the building that would be obvious. But at the same time it wouldn’t be noticed. And the planners would then ask engineers to write a report to explain it knowing that it couldn’t be explained and knowing that the engineers involved would then all know it was caused by explosives and that they wouldn’t be able to explain it. And then the engineers who would obviously know that it was caused by explosives – since anyone , such as themselves , just looking at the video could see that it was- then wrote a fraudulent report and signed their names to it ,knowing that it was fraudulent and that anyone could see it was fraudulent.
            Those would only be some of the reasons I think it is a foolish idea and if you think it’s elementary that I should believe otherwise , then that just further undermines the idea of some secret controlled demolition theory.

          4. Wright: 9/11 fanatics do not offend me. They amuse me. I have made it a practice to make them amuse their audience, including 9/11 skeptics. You are no exception.
            To your point, of course you should believe that the idea of Building 7’s explosive destruction is foolish. This idea, if true, would shatter your worldview and drive you crazy. And I would be foolish to try to prove it to you, as I would only feed your fanaticism.
            Instead, I hereby challenge you to deny any resemblance between the motions of Building 7’s destruction and of a controlled demolition.
            Readers: to get back on topic, I would try to not use such a harsh and condescending language on people who understand the twin towers’ controlled demolition, including the Facebook folks the article complains about.
            Love,

          5. I don’t find this joke of a person funny in the slightest Dan, pathetic is not funny. In the case of Wright, it is disgusting, vile and criminal; an accessory after the fact.
            \\][//

          6. Willy: I wish to not argue with you, but I propose that Wright is not criminal. (S)he actually believes the official 9/11 fairy tale with the same fervor as (s)he believes that 2+2=4. 9/11 has traumatized her/his brain so deeply that the mere idea that someone can dissent from the official myth makes her/him very uncomfortable. Hence her/his drive to pursue a quixotic fight against 9/11 Truth.
            You are, understandably, not amused yet. You may be if Wright bites the hook I threw at her/him earlier. I’ll press her/him to provide rational reasons to justify her/his probable affirmation of some video resemblance between the motions of Building 7’s destruction and a controlled demolition. After a few iterations, the false-is-true essence of her/his logic will be blatant. Maybe (s)he will understand it and become afraid of pursuing the exercise. Maybe (s)he will argue and unconsciously make a fool of her/himself. The probability that (s)he starts contemplating the possibility that (s)he is wrong is low enough to be neglected.
            The 9/11 fanatics are, paradoxically, 9/11 victims. They will carry the 9/11 myth to their graves and in the meantime suffer at every progress of 9/11 Truth. Alas, they can be very effective at frightening 9/11 skeptics away from 9/11 Truth. Hence the need to publicly expose them for the puny and despicable middle school bullies that they are, challenging them over elementary 9/11 notions. Sadly, they necessarily experience pain in the process–yet another 9/11 victimization. But as the French say, you can’t make a omelet without breaking eggs.
            To get back on topic, I humbly suggest that 9/11 Truth progresses more by crushing Wright and her/his fellow fanatics than by arguing in a more advanced forum. Once the 9/11 fanatics find themselves mocked so intensely that they become afraid of expressing their twisted logic, the 9/11 Master conspirators will have lost an important line of defense and 9/11 skeptics will feel more secure venturing into 9/11 Truth.
            Love,

          7. “Wright is not criminal. (S)he actually believes the official 9/11 fairy tale with the same fervor as (s)he believes that 2+2=4. 9/11 has traumatized her/his brain so deeply that the mere idea that someone can dissent from the official myth makes her/him very uncomfortable.” ~Daniel Noel
            I think your presumed innocence applied to Agent Wright is misplaced. I think that Wright is a paid toadyboy of the Sunsteinian kind, a professional shill.
            But our opinions matter little, the fact of the matter is what you propose; arguing the facts with Wright and showing him/her the error of it’s ways has already taken place here – COUNTLESS TIMES!! It is a futile operation with no effect whatsoever. Wright is incapable of being embarrassed, because it is not a personal issue for this creature – it’s business.
            If you want to waste your time and the forum’s time squabbling with this provocateur, and help provide work minutes to his/her paycheck, there is no way to stop you. So go for it!
            \\][//

          8. “And the planners would then ask engineers to write a report to explain it knowing that it couldn’t be explained and knowing that the engineers involved would then all know it was caused by explosives and that they wouldn’t be able to explain it. And then the engineers who would obviously know that it was caused by explosives – since anyone , such as themselves , just looking at the video could see that it was- then wrote a fraudulent report and signed their names to it ,knowing that it was fraudulent and that anyone could see it was fraudulent.”
            ~A. Wright
            That is exactly how it happened. So your contention that it is a foolish idea is not foolish, it is scurrilous and disingenuous. You’re a shill Wright, and everyone here knows your a shill.
            And Mr Noel is correct that you are a fanatic. You have been up to this same bullshit for years, lying in the face of the obvious, defending the indefensible in the face of overwhelming evidence.
            You and your kind revolt me. I am quite sure I am not the only one here with those sentiments.
            \\][//

          9. I have to say I agree with a lot of what Craig McKee says in this article about the kind of abusive bullying on some Facebook forums, where the idea is to subject unpopular views and those who present them, to personal derision and ridicule. In response to fairly to-the- point and I think reasonably polite posts here about the Pentagon and also Building 7, I have since in the space of only a few posts been called a revolting liar, a paid toadyboy, a professional shill, a puny and dispicable middleclass bully and a disgusting vile criminal. Obviously the art of reasoned debate is not dead. And @Noel if you want to take up any of the points I made about WTC7 feel free to do so. You can also refer back to the previous comments I made about it on some other threads that you must be familiar with. And if you want to have a disingenuous debate with someone , don’t be foolish enough to tell them beforehand.

          10. Not so fast Wright,
            You have only been subjected to ridicule and accusations of being a shill after being disingenuous yourself and never standing to reason.
            You have the MO and profile of a shill, there is nothing unreasonable to pointing out the obvious. You expect to come back here mewing after all the bullshit arguments you have made here, and expect any of us to get back on your absurd carousel of nonsense yet one more time!
            If Daniel, who has not had “the pleasure” of going through your cognitive deficits with you, wishes to engage in such rupture, let him. But don’t whine to me about it.
            \\][//

          12. A.Wright. You are indeed a shill and a liar and a denier of the obvious and I tend to agree with HR1 that you probably get paid to do it. I hope it is not very much that you get paid but I have no control over the maniacs in charge of our countries money.
            The way to tell that you are a disingenuous troll by the way A.Wright is that you consistently avoid answering questions put to you and instead respond by asking your own questions. You avoid like the plague the substance of our arguments, feign confusion about what we are saying, change the subject, and do virtual cartwheels to confuse the issue. These are obvious maneuvers to control the conversation (they are disinformation techniques).
            Because you do this it is actually quite impossible to have a rational discussion with you in the first place. Since you will not answer our questions you are not engaging in a legitimate discussion at all but rather you are simply pumping out your own (dis)information and ignoring all of our counter points.
            I don’t choose to play your sick game and I do think you are a despicable toady for the very people who executed 9/11.
            Now the difference is that you are still free to speak here at T+ S while at that FB 9/11 forum (which this article is about) anyone who disagrees with Ken Doc is gagged and banned instantly illustrating the fact that they, like 911blogger, are a cess pit of Stalinist censorship.

          13. @ruffadam
            I knew i shouldn’t have bothered trying to answer all of the questions you asked , in detail and pointing out how ill informed you are about even the basic evidence of what happened at the Pentagon. Your ignorance about aircraft and about plane crashes is also obvious and your pompous self-serving bluster doesn’t disguise it.

          14. Readers:
            * I didn’t notice Wright’s follow-up on my Feb. 6 challenge until now. Wright has invited me (see her/his Feb. 7 comment above) to forget about my Feb. 6 challenge to her/him and instead work on her/his own arguments on Building 7. This gives a clue that her/his mind is twisted enough to believe that I could be stupid enough to give up an argument I just initiated. This is typical of a 9/11 fanatic, who actually believes the official myth. Her/his failure to jump head first into my challenge, presumably by arguing and making an obvious fool of her/himself, is an indication that (s)he is lucid enough to understand that any non-foolish answer to my challenge necessarily corners him into formulating doubts against the hypothesis of destruction by an office fire. Wright appears to be a 9/11 fanatic-lite, although (s)he could be, to Willy’s point, a 9/11 censor, i.e. an individual who understands 9/11 much better than we do but is committed, presumably for some egoistic purpose, to the promotion of the official fairy tale.
            * Either way and to get back on topic, it is much easier to get Wright to ridicule her/himself into silence and oblivion than to persuade Facebook moderators to be more tolerant of affirmations of a 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy. Behold…
            Wright:
            * Discussing any fundamental or advanced 9/11 concept with you is a waste of energy, since you are incapable of understanding even elementary 9/11 concepts. I hereby reiterate my Feb. 6 challenge for you to deny any resemblance between the motions of Building 7’s destruction and of a controlled demolition.
            Love,

  29. Great article Craig. You said in response to a comment: “They care more about their egos than the truth. Sad.” and I believe Hybridrogue reiterated that point about human nature. It seems to be truer than ever that information dominance (and the recent nod toward the British contribution to internet psyops in the news recently) will continue to pluck the VERY sensitive egos in order to ensure maximum in-fighting. There continues to be enormous leverage in creating divisions in these movements and it seems SO easy to do, I suspect without any disinfo. agents and trolls!
    Even when we consider ourselves outside the fray, we still battle with it of course. It IS sad indeed but inevitable I suppose. On that basis, I do think it’s going to need a huge collective shock to reset our thinking on what is truly important on this issue. The vast majority of human beings living under what are essentially pathological social constructs – to which technology as it stands, undoubtedly contributes – means that most just aren’t capable of going beyond that wily ego whose job it is to bolster self-importance.
    Still, I guess we all have to keep plugging away highlighting these unpleasant truths, just as you have done so well. All the best.

    Reply

  31. I’m happy to announce that I’ve been made an admin of the FB group 911questions. While I can’t allow 9/11 to take over my life (I have a new life here in Seattle I need to get off the ground!), I do hope that any power I might have could contribute toward a sane, non-toxic environment for those who do want to discuss the evidence regarding the Pentagon. Or Shanksville for that matter.
    People who inject nothing but poison will be shown the door.

    Reply

    1. But Adam, the Pentagon is so divisive. And we don’t really know what happened. Kidding!
      I’m delighted that you are getting involved with this page. You will be a welcome addition.

      Reply

    1. You know if you look at the light pole in this video it is completely obliterated and gone while we are supposed to believe that at the pentagon 5 light poles were basically severed bent a little bit and fell on the ground a few feet away from their base. I have always felt that was a smoking gun physical impossibility for the light poles to survive so well being struck by the wing of an airliner going so fast. In my opinion it is physically impossible for those poles at the pentagon to have survived in any kind of recognizable form had an airliner actually struck them. Years ago I posed that exact physics problem to Steven Jones and asked him what would happen to the light poles if they were actually struck by an airliner traveling that fast and if it were even possible for them to have fallen over so close to their base? He did not respond to me but I am VERY confident that it is a physical impossibility for those poles to have survived the way they did and not be hurled 100s of feet and mangled horribly had an actual airliner struck them. Any physics experts want to dispute that? I would love to have that conversation and learn something in the process.

      Reply

      1. Good point, Adam. I vaguely remember at the time when you tried to contact Dr. Jones with physics questions re the Pentagon plane and the light poles.
        Notice also how when the wing slices the taxi, as well as when the pole is downed, parts of the plane break off and leave a trail of wreckage on its way to the river. So, I’d say this Taiwan video does prove something, and imo it is yet another thread in the rope against the official story. At the Pentagon we see absolutely no plane wreckage over the highway; one would expect this after hitting 5 poles at 400-500 mph.
        The apples-oranges aspect of this crash vs. the Pentagon event is that this plane was failing and going to end in a tragic crash no matter what, whether it hit light poles or a taxi, because due to engine failure it was a plane going into a stall and falling out of the sky. By contrast, the official narrative of the Pentagon 9/11 event is that the plane was flying both low and level, with the evil Muslim hijacker Hani Hanjour locking the plane straight onto its target (“like a missile”) of the west wing of the Pentagon wall. During that process, the plane supposedly hit five light poles and downed them like pieces of a play set, as illustrated in the (in)famous proof-through-computer-animation from Integrated Consultants.
        http://i58.tinypic.com/2rqkmlt.png
        The question is: could a plane smash through five light poles like that and still keep the absolutely straight line trajectory required? I could imagine the plane hitting one pole and not being thrown off course, but five??? With each wing hitting multiple poles? I would have thought that hitting so many obstacles would cause the plane to crash before reaching the building. Of course, the eyewitnesses show that the plane wasn’t in a position to hit those poles, so from that perspective it’s all a moot point anyway, but still a very instructional avenue to explore from a physics point of view.

        Reply

          1. “the impact with the light pole breaks off the tail of the airplane!”~Adam Syed
            No, not just with the light pole, the tail section impacted the structure of the bridge at that same moment. That whole rear section split into pieces. I think it would be an added conjecture to pose that hitting the pole only would have in itself knocked the tail off.
            In other words, I don’t think we can take that for granted with any real certainty. I suppose more specifically yet, I should say; I don’t think I can take it for granted.
            \\][//

          3. I’ve seen it be proposed before that a couple of replica WTC buildings be built somewhere in the world, and a couple of remote controlled 767s flown into them, so that the world could settle once and for all if the truthers are right.
            That sounds like an expensive proposition, but perhaps a cheaper proposition would be to have some breakaway light poles set up somewhere out in the open, and remote control a plane to fly straight through the poles’ path…

          4. I agree Adam, some actual physical tests should be made to settle these issues. The funding would most certainly not be forthcoming from the state, and the system would work to obstruct such tests from coming about.
            It could happen elsewhere than in the US influenced parts of the world. Like some of the trials that have been had abroad.
            \\][//

          5. To any lurkers here, particularly anyone from Ken Doc’s 911TM group: See how in the right, non-toxic environment, it IS possible to have a civil and productive discussion about the Pentagon?

      2. I do not know about Taiwan but in the US all roadway light poles are planted to break-away structures to avoid dramatic damage on impact with cars. This would certainly have been the case on all the roadways surrounding the Pentagon.
        Having less resistance than even firmly planted poles, the dynamics of kinetic energy would surely have obliterated the pole for a good length of it and the remaining parts would impact other solids and deform them even more.
        This in no way matches the forms that we see as “the downed light poles”. These items seem to be mechanically wrenched off by vice mechanisms. Crimping the middle and folding that crease repeatedly would weaken it to breaking point.
        Another point is an object hurled with such force, certainly wouldn’t be stopped by the back seat of a taxi cab, it would have gone completely through the car, and the impact on the window and its frame would have collapsed that entire section. And these physics apply only if the pole would be on the proper trajectory to land so near the pole it is said to be part of.
        Compound problems arise when considering all of the evidence here.
        \\][//

        Reply

        1. Yes, I was surprised to learn that “breakaway light poles” was not a debunker talking point; at first I thought they were pulling this out of their asses to defend the Pentagon story when they said that the poles were designed to break away at the base.
          I still find it rather bizarre, for the simple reason that the pole could topple onto the opposite carriageway and hit an oncoming car. You’d think that firmly planted poles would be the minimizer, as they would limit the accident to just the car that crashes into the pole.

          Reply

          1. As per break-away light poles, I have documented the legislation establishing these. Unfortunately that documentation was lost in the crash of my last computer system near the end of last year.
            Any who wish to look into that issue are free to do so, I know the info is there.
            \\][//

          2. Yes,“breakaway light poles” – quickly found:
            Section 3: Breakaway Light Poles
            Frangibility Requirement
            The FHWA adopted Section 7 of the 1985 AASHTO publication entitled “Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals” for implementation beginning in July 1990. This section requires more stringent breakaway characteristics. TxDOT’s previous design of roadway illumination assemblies (based on a 1975 AASHTO specification) does not meet these requirements.
            Breakaway light poles rely on frangible transformer bases to provide the breakaway feature. The 1985 AASHTO specification provides for a maximum change in momentum of a 1800 pound car to break the pole away. The 1975 AASHTO specification provided for a similar change in momentum except that the test vehicle weighed 2,250 pounds.
            Structural Requirement
            While providing the necessary frangibility, the base must also be structurally adequate to support the illumination pole for design wind speeds. Transformer bases meeting the ’85 AASHTO specification may not adequately support some 50 foot steel poles, notably those designed to meet the ’75 AASHTO specification.
            http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/hwi/breakaway_light_poles.htm
            http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/ctrmeasures/breakaway/
            \\][//

    2. Yea Adam, I agree with it too. The speaker sure has his thoughts organized for a clear and lucid presentation.
      You know my motto: ‘Government is a Racket’!
      It is the “protection racket” writ large, with a monopoly on the use of force.
      The scam is blatant. One must be willfully ignorant to miss it.
      \\][//

      Reply

  34. Facebook’s new privacy policy lets it track you even when you are not on Facebook
    Posted: 03 Feb 2015 10:00 PM PST
    Facebook is making users sign up for new privacy policy that allows it to track users everywhere on the Internet. This is really bad news for privacy lovers. Facebook has just updated its privacy policy which allows Facebook to track you, the Facebook user activity even after you have left Facebook website to surf other pages. And more over you have already agreed to it without knowing it.
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/aWSp5yCbBxY/M.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
    \\][//

    Reply

  35. “Community Rights” defined properly is simply Individual Rights shared on equal basis with all within a community. The “Collective” of that community has no more authority over individual rights than any single individual would. However Collectivists of all stripes have asserted a higher value to the collected whole of people which they argue should give that whole authority beyond the aspect of an individual’s rights. They add to this claim that there is a collective right to impinge on individual rights for the benefit of the many.
    And here is the step onto the slippery slope that will by “necessity” lead to a monopoly of force held by not the whole of the people, but by ‘representatives’ of the whole, who are charged with faithfully executing the consensus will of the whole of the peoples. Now at this juncture in the assertions of this combined authority where the techniques of “governance” come into play in a nonsensical way. It is nonsense in that it insists on a degree of ‘trust’ in the integrity of those who have assumed this authority. ‘Trust’ is another word for “faith’, and faith is at its core a belief beyond rational reason.
    Faith is in its nature a matter of emotion and intuition, not empirical rationality. Therefore, all the wiles and human foibles come to play, a critical one being ‘charisma’, which becomes defined as a “leadership quality” regardless of the actual-known intents and motives of this ‘charismatic leader’. And the term “Confidence Man” is well known and defined sufficiently, but due to the emotional attraction of those to the con man, these well known attributes are ignored, because emotion side-steps reason.
    At this point we have slid all the way down that slippery slope and are mired in the quicksand in a deep abyss. The system erected by the smartest crooks has become an ironclad structure, a Panoptic Maximum Security State with the agenda of “Full Spectrum Dominance”, just a euphemism for totalitarian tyranny.
    And all of this stems from the very first mistake in the sequence this article begins with; the assertion and acceptance of the Collectivist argument that community has more authority over individual rights than any single individual could. Put plainly, giving up Individual Liberty for the good of the Collective.
    This medium we are caught in, this ‘quicksand’, and be defined and characterized with specific exactitude, beginning with an understanding of ‘Public Relations’, as defined by the person who coined the term, Edward Bernays. Once a fundamental grasp of what Bernays describes, as a prescription for a secret government, one is then compelled by self interest to look further and discover the techniques that Bernays and the regime he set in motion use, and how individual will is subsumed in mass by perception manipulation, indoctrination, and regimentation.
    When one realizes how thorough and efficient this System has become at this late date, the problem can seem insurmountable. But it must be borne in mind that the problem is the Collective, therefore the solution must be Individual. Each is responsible for their own choice to submit, or rebel, and to balance the two responses in a strategic and wise manner.
    The only advice therefore submitted here is to understand the breadth of your inherent rights to Liberty, by virtue of your birth as a human being.
    \\][//

    Reply

  39. I had read about this comment by Nixon years ago, when the BBC first reported on it. Just recently it came up on a JFK forum, and the Warren Commission groupies were saying it doesn’t really refer to the Kennedy assassination, that Nixon was referring to the Wallace shooting.
    I say this is a preposterous interpretation of this language:
    “Why don’t we play the game a bit smarter for a change. They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated. And I respectfully suggest, can’t we pin this on one of theirs?”~Richard Nixon – White House Tapes – the day Wallace was shot
    First, I think it obvious, and we all agree that Nixon is talking about the Kennedy assassination. That much is clear. But the vital sentence here doesn’t seem to add up. Let me try to illustrate what I mean.
    The vital sentence is: “It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
    So what is the hoax? That it was done by a Communist? It seems to me that this is the most reasonable conclusion. He certainly thought that his opposition were intimating it was done by Birchers, so they wouldn’t be the reason that it was a hoax.
    Something is left out in the thought Nixon was speaking to, and I think the single word “that” would make the sentence structurally sound:
    ‘That it was done by a Communist was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.’
    Pardon me if I waffle, because as I say, there seems to be a sort of hedge in Nixon’s manner of speech here. As we know he knew he was being recorded, and often used code words with his closest advisers. And here we have something that doesn’t really make sense as the sentence reads.
    I would like everyone’s thoughts on this if you will.
    . . . . . . .
    As a background on the issue I offer this:
    I still have Haldeman’s original hard bound book and that “bay of pigs thing” as a reference to the Kennedy assassination is in my edition. They are on pages 37 to 40. These deal with Nixon telling Haldeman to meet with Helms and deliver a personal message:
    “The President asked me to tell you this whole affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown…”
    Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair and shouting, “The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.”
    Silence. I just sat there . I was absolutely shocked by Helms’ violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story? Finally I said, “I’m just following my instructions, Dick. This is what the President told me to relay to you.”
    Helms was settling back. “all right,” he said.
    But the atmosphere had changed…
    . . . . . . . .
    THE ENDS OF POWER by H.R. Haldeman (1978)
    \\][//

    Reply

    1. I flag the above comment irrelevant. Doesn’t apply to Facebook. Doesn’t apply to 9/11. Doesn’t apply to this thread. Just another example of trolling and “intelligence-padding”, quoting extensively other people’s writings in the hopes of reflected brilliance onto the poster. Padding failed to improve intelligence rankings, because otherwise posting would have been made to an appropriate T&S thread.
      //

      Reply

  40. Nixon – “Greatest Hoax”:
    Dual context, set up by two separate predicates; one resolved by revelation, one resolved by submission for action.
    \\][//

    Reply

  41. I have been told that the king of all dipshit trolls, Mike Collins, has finally been booted from the 9/11 TM group. A few years too late unfortunately.

    Reply

    1. I’m going to hold off celebrating because he has been allowed back in more than once before. Also, he continues to be an administrator of the 1,000,000 for 9/11 Truth Facebook group. This, of course, completely tarnishes that group.

      Reply

          1. Thanks Craig, It doesn’t mean that much to me. It ultimately leads to the facebook page for Dunkin’ Donuts … you know the one I told you about in an email.. ?
            I’ll take a dozen glazed if they are fresh!
            \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *