Walking a Fine Line in the 9/11 Community - A Lesson in Futility

One of my personal desires in the new changes at 911blogger.com was to be able to find a personal voice via my own personal blog, to let me rant if you will. That is what this is, and perhaps by the end you will understand why finding a medium by which I could do so was of utmost importance to me.

When it comes to the 9/11 community today it takes walking a fine line to stay out of the line of fire, and is often a purely futile exercise. Those that wish not to be involved so much in determining the 'truth' about 9/11, but rather bringing focus to the questions surrounding 9/11, have a smaller and smaller place in which to dance.

To be accepted amongst one clique you must adhere to one belief, and to be accepted amongst another clique you must adhere to another set of beliefs. An agnostic 9/11 activist finds themselves fitting in with no one, as not deciding on an opinion is all to often interpreted as actually advocating the opposite belief of whomever is demanding your stance on a given subject. This struggle to be 'agnostic' in the 9/11 movement has become an increasingly more and more futile exercise.

It would only make sense to provide a couple of examples as to what I'm getting at. Seeing as how I am indirectly making this blog entry to highlight my own personal frustrations, it only seems right to include examples of how 911blogger.com has been judged by others in the community. This listing is by no means complete, nor is it meant to cast anger towards others - as such no specific details will be provided.

Example 1:
911blogger.com team member receives an email regarding an upcoming event. The team member posts about the upcoming event. A third party realizes that the time posted for the event is incorrect. The third party then posts about how 911blogger.com is spreading 'disinformation' regarding the given event by listing the incorrect time. No email is sent to 911blogger team members regarding the incorrect event time by the third party, and despite a correction within hours of the initial posting, the third party leaves the claims of 911blogger.com's 'disinformation'.

Example 2:
911blogger.com team member posts a news article from another community news site. The team member then receives a correction from the person or organization about whom the article is about, and requests the article is removed until they are sure of the details which we posted. Owner of community news site emails 911blogger.com team member asking for them to defend their desire to pull the given news story, accusing that we wont publish it because of an ulterior motive. The team member then receives word that the story's details are solidified and republishes the story.

Example 3:
911blogger.com links to a variety of 9/11 websites. 911blogger.com is labeled as 'disinfo' for linking to (or 'gatekeeper' for not linking to) certain websites, or for linking to websites that in turn link to other websites that espouse a certain theory. This one specifically comes from ALL sides, and a suggestion to add the site to our links almost never preceeds the accusation.

Example 4:
911blogger.com team member receives an email regarding a suggested news story. The team member is out of town, or takes a day off. The team member is then attacked for not covering the submitted story, even though they weren't around to post it in the first place.

Example 5:
911blogger.com team member asserts a given opinion. Heaven forbid this ever happens.

Example 6:
911blogger.com posts a news story which espouses a specific opinion. 911blogger.com is instantly labeled as 'advocating' the opinions stated in the news story posted.

Example 7:
911blogger.com receives a story which was written three years ago, and doesn't post it. 911blogger.com is instantly labeled as 'gatekeeping', despite the article not being news, nor timely news at that.

Example 8:
Users of 911blogger.com assert a position, that position is then espoused as though it is an opinion of 911blogger.com as a whole.

Example 9:
Using 9 examples in a blog entry is a symbol of the occult, and 911blogger.com is actually a part of the illuminati.

I feel as though I haven't painted the picture quite clearly enough, but hopefully you get the point.

Since the inception of this site it has been my position that it is ok not to be so hard line on any given subject. It is fine by me that a user believes in this over that, or that over this. Why? Because quite simply I couldn't care less what anyone's individual opinions are on any given subject related to 9/11. Why? Because at the end of the day these are just personal opinions, which are highly affected by individual perceptions, and have little importance to me as an individual - I want to find the truth, not anyone's specific version of what that is.

It is apparent that by dancing this fine line we often find ourselves under attack from both sides. One side questioning why we didn't do something enough, another side questioning why we did that same thing so much. One side questioning why we never cover a given subject, another side complaining on how we always focus on the same given subject.

In essence anyone in the 9/11 community, including 911blogger.com, which reaches a certain level of popularity is destined to come under attack for their opinions - whether stated or assumed. Right now I am unfortunately drawing a blank in trying to think of any person, site, or organization, that has not come under fire from someone or another. Differences of opinion are rarely deemed just that, and refusal to advocate a given position is almost always interpreted as an advocation of the counter-position. In effect everyone who builds a voice for themselves is "damned if they do, damned if they don't."

Counter to this issue are those who build a voice in the community and then use that voice to target others in the community, but that is another subject altogether.

Here at 911blogger.com things are a bit different. In reality I could care less about having any sort of personal voice in the community. In fact, a large part of the ongoing development of the site is to push the content creation, approval, moderation, etc. onto the community's shoulders, and off of those that run this site. Why? Because I've seen what comes along with having a large voice in this community, and quite honestly it isn't worth it.

Are we perfect here at 911blogger.com? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Do we sometimes give personal opinions in our postings? Sure. Do we ban users that disagree with any personal opinions we might make? No. Are some viewers quicker to judge than to give the benefit of the doubt? Sure. Do we feel our actions are more greatly appreciated by the individuals of the community over the big voices that are so quick to judge? Most definitely.

I am so glad that now I have a spot to voice my own personal opinions. Perhaps here I can better avoid the judgement that comes along with anything we do on this site, perhaps here I can voice my opinion as so many others do without any consideration to those whom they judge.

So, we will keep chugging along here doing what we've been doing for the last year and a half and 2 million page views, and as the hateful sentiments get thrown from all sides we will do our best to walk the fine line, despite the seeming futility in doing such.

The ultimate irony will come when this blog entry garners a judgemental response from opposite sides of an opinion, convinced that this blog entry is an attack on their position ;)

Thanks for all the excellent work...

... by you and the rest of the team.

Love the new Drupal format.

Free Truth

Thank you.

I hope you realize (and I bet you do) that for every freakasaurus truther-with-a-personal-agenda there are (10? 100?) people who read and/or post here who are simply grateful for the excellent, invaluable service you provide.

Most just misunderstandings, but a little COINTELPRO too

IMO, most of the time problems like those in examples 1-9 are just the results of misunderstandings. However, COINTELPRO-like agents probably do some of it deliberately to try & bollix things up on you & other truthers.

ya.. kinda the point i am

ya.. kinda the point i am dancing around here is the quickness to judge, or make assumptions.. the unwillingness of some to just be nice in general before immediately labelling others, etc. etc.

The irony, dz, is that a

The irony, dz, is that a site like 911blogger (and all of the pains it causes) is more what democratic speech is about than any of the forums of the elected government. Democratic speech is full of contradictions, spats, and "seeming futility," but without some form of democratic speech we would have nothing but all-lies all-the-time.

Your efforts are appreciated. Whatever happens "out there" as a result of all of this, well, in many ways that is out of our control.

I'm sure the people advocating for "JFK Truth," if you will, faced the same sense of futility. It's still difficult to measure what they accomplished. Maybe the real results of 9/11 Truth will be in 20 years? Of course, maybe nothing will come of it.

I know what you mean...

I started the site http://thepatriotparty.spaces.live.com 4 days ago to contribute to a movement that demands the truth on the events of 9/11. The focus has to stay on that.
While the criticisms are plenty, the contributions are not.
I'm going to try to keep it as simple as possible. I'd like to lend an ear and spread the word of this movement and not get caught up in a debate of whether or not my contributions are genuine. Your contributions are well respected in the 9/11 community. Stay the course regardless.

Example 9: Using 9 examples

Example 9:
Using 9 examples in a blog entry is a symbol of the occult, and 911blogger.com is actually a part of the illuminati.


Keep up the good work buddy.

911blogger.com is disinfo wake up people!


When someone is taking time out of their schedule just to attack you, "You have arrived."

I Do Try To Remember That...

If people are singling me out, it means I must be doing something right. However, man they can be pains in the arses.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

ha, careful how loud you say

ha, careful how loud you say that..

ironically a search for 911blogger links to an article claiming 911blogger is disinfo.. it was a copy of a posting about this site which i posted on yourbbsucks.. even way way back in the day this site was instantly targeted by some..

You're Not Allowed To Have Your Own Blog...

That's crazy. That's insane. It's like dogs and cats living together. Mass Hysteria.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Dz I agree, you shouldn’t

Dz I agree, you shouldn’t change the way you do things to suit others, especially if your way if doing things is successful. I think there's always been a bit of bullshit and beef kicking around, particularly when you’re dealing with a subject that so many people approach and deal with differently. The realisation that there might be something wrong with 9/11 is a long journey for most people, and it can be a tough thing to come to terms with because it challenges your worldview so radically. For example I thought on 9/11 when it first happened that Saddam had something to do with it. In fact I wasn’t even in the slightest bit political, I was like 16 at the time. So to go from believing…

I hope they get that Osama Bin laden in Afghanistan…. to why haven’t they got that guy yet?…. to I don't think I really agree with this war on terror…. to I think "the coalition of the willing" is actually benefiting from this war on terror…. to oh my god did they let 9/11 happen…. to yea right controlled demolition on the towers, that's crazy…. to wait a minuet that does look like a demolition, and that does make sense…. to this is outrageous and I want to do something about it.....

That for me took in terms of time about four years, and I'm sure that story has been repeated all over the globe. This type of process changes people's core beliefs about the way their world works. And so because of that new foundations of understanding get built, as people adapt to such heavy realisations. And so what your left with is a belief structure that has to defend itself, especially before the recent success of 911 truth, when to question 9/11 was actually unusual and taboo. And because people get to this realisation in different ways, e.g. for some people its "the pentagon was hit by a missile" and others its "the pentagon shouldn’t have even been hit at all". There are always, in such opinionated times, going to be stark differences of opinion.

The common ground though that most people meet on is the acknowledgment that little differences like this need to be put aside, so we can all work together on the shared goal of succeeding and getting justice. What happens it seems with people who push the idea that "no planes hit the towers" is that they don't seem to share in that recognition of a common ground. They don't seem to want to let go of their particular issue of contention, and so stupidly there's sometimes conflict.

I actually regret to a certain extent, taking on Nico and the no planers recently. Because it seemed to actually bring attention to it and distract everyone. I think if you look at it, what happened was Morgan Reynolds attacked Dr Jones, which puzzled, confused and disgusted people. And because he was doing it in part with the "no planes" idea, and because emotions were high and people wanted to defend Dr Jones, everyone decided to confront Nico and the no planers, who also were parroting Morgan Reynolds’ arguments.

It was foolish I now think, but the question remains how do you deal with this issue. I think almost everyone made a good argument as to why "no planes" is bullshit, yet the "no planers" didn’t seems to digest or consider any of it and just carried on. Which made a lot of people, myself included, feel that perhaps they are here purely to be divisive, rather then to debate and elevate understanding of what happened on 9/11 etc.

I think it’s probably best to ignore the issue if challenging it is fruitless. But the concern about it I think largely stems from a worry that people new to 911 truth, checking out the blogger are going to come across something as wild as "no planes hit the towers", and be completely turned off not just to that idea, but also to the entire subject.

And as for people using a “name they’ve built up to attack others”, that’s not me. I have never tried to build a name for myself, what I’ve done is come up with a stupid little name, and then start trying to do things calling myself that. I think the second you let your intentions get corrupted by a vanity or the idea that you’ve got a “name”, is the second you loose your motivations and reasons that got you doing something in the first place. If I did have a “name”, and I used it for something negative then that would be something that would make me feel ashamed. And if I’m going to be real here I think even Nico has a bigger “name” then me. People who have an influence are people like Chomsky. For 911 truth it would be people like Griffin and Jones. Morgan Reynolds has got a big name and he has abused it big time.

911Blogger.com is an

911Blogger.com is an excellent source, *especially with their new upgraded blogosphere, which allows to presents every kind of the argument.
I highly respect the way how dz runs this forum and it should not contain any kind of censorship.

That means also flagwavers like Terrence, ScrewLoose and their associated shills like skyking@ should have the chance to speak out to actually get other users here into the ring to let the flagwavers look weak where they are, i.e. Moseley + Co.

We have already one dictatorship, which sits in the white house.
If this *movement wants to suceed they should not be confused with it. Where it needs moderation, especially against 4-letter words (where DemBruce is a master), it should be moderated, but that's it.

However to accuse comic language or analysis of particular characters in this movement by describing it "calling names" doesn't sit well with me.

By this logic, every time when widely accepted labels like "hangouters" or "LIHOP" are used, a double standard appears, when it is argued, that our criticism of orwellianized truthlings or 'plagiarism' does match an 'insult', but others doesn't.