Who Should We Trust?

A friend asked me a great question:

"[In the last couple of weeks,] the whole 911 truth movement seems to have gone to the dogs; everyone is attacking everyone else and calling them names. How to know the genuine article from the counterfeit?"

Indeed, many people are calling other people disinformation agents, or untrustworthy. How can we figure out who to trust and who not to trust? Of course, if we can independently verify whether someone's statements are true or false, that would be very helpful. But if we don't have the physics or engineering or photographic expertise to be able to judge someone's claims for ourselves, then how do we know whether that person is trustworthy?

I don't have any definitive answers. But my initial thought is that we should ask the following questions about someone, which will help us determine whether or not they are trustworthy.

Are they Putting Things in Context?

First, ask whether the person is helping to put 9/11 in historical context. For example, are they educating people about the history of false flag terror in Western countries? If you don't know what "false flag" means, start here.

Brzezinski, PNAC and the Bush administration are all important topics also. However, in my opinion, they are solely recent manifestations of the ancient history of false flag terror, which goes all the way back to ancient Rome. Educating people about the big picture concept of false flag terror is key.

If they are frequently discussing the larger historical context of false flag attacks, then they are doing a lot of good by educating the public about this important "secret history", and thus making it less likely that future false flag attacks will be carried out.

Alex Jones, for example, speaks frequently on false flag terror by Western governments. Therefore, he is doing a lot of good in educating Americans and others about this vital issue. (These examples are meant as illustrations only, and are not meant to endorse some leaders or exclude others.)

Are they Pulling a Rove?

If someone spends more time attacking others within the 9/11 truth movement than "moving the ball forward" by doing original research, writing, or activism, then they are not being very helpful. Divide and conquer is an age-old strategy of those who wish to maintain the status quo.

If someone is spending most of their energy attacking others for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), their nationality, or other issues irrelevant to 9/11, then they are being more disruptive than helpful.

Karl Rove's technique is to attack and slime any messenger who is speaking the truth and saying something which criticizes Rove or his employers. Whether someone claims to be liberal, conservative or whatever, if they are pulling a Rove, they are not helping the movement.

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

The cheesy 80's song "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" should be one of the mottos of the truth movement. Why?

Obviously, we should judge people on their past work. Was their research accurate? Their writing or speaking powerful? Their strategies effective?

But someone might have done great work in the past, but then lost focus, gotten sloppy, burned out, or sold out.

So we should look not only at their past work, but whether they are becoming more and more helpful to the 9/11 truth movement (in which case they should be supported) or less and less helpful (in which case they should receive less support).

As one example, David Ray Griffin's work is only getting more effective, with one of his new books being published by the Presbyterian Church's main publishing arm, and other new books receiving wide praise.

Are They Doing Good In Other Areas?

If a 9/11 activist is doing good work in other areas, I am personally going to trust him or her a little bit more.

As an example, a good friend of mine is a pediatrician (a kid-doctor). Even she has heard of Professor Steve Jones' solar cookers, because they are helping to alleviate hunger in poor, third-world countries. Steve Jones was doing good in the world even before he got involved in 9/11 research. That's one of the reasons that I trust him.

Are They Empowering Others?

My final question is whether someone is empowering others to help spread 9/11 truth and to save America from anti-democratic forces which threaten it.

Do they inspire others to action? Or do they imply that only they have the power to do it, and so everyone else should just sit back and support them? Or do they imply that its all hopeless?

The best leaders inspire others to take action and to become leaders themselves, to spread 9/11 truth and to help re-establish of the ideals of our founding fathers.

For example, Colonel Bob Bowman really knows how to rally a crowd, stir up their commitment and passion for 9/11 truth and justice, and for restoring democracy to America.

The above are my off-the-top-of-my-head tests for determining whether or not to trust someone.

More importantly, we have to learn to trust ourselves. But we also have to learn to admit when we've made a mistake and then to correct it (we all make mistakes; admitting when we're wrong is a sign of trustworthiness). We've already learned that governments may operate based on power-motives, violence and deception. This is the trust issue we all have to focus on: THE GOVERNMENT'S STORY OF 9/11 IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.

Keep moving the ball of 9/11 truth forward yourself. This is largely a competition between those trying to wake up the American public and those trying to confuse, distract, scare, and intimidate the public into believing the official story about 9/11. So regardless of what the various "leaders" of the movement are doing, work as hard as you can yourself to promote the truth and demand justice. The power is with "we the people".

Very Good.

And it's nice to have you back.

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

Thanks George

for your strong and insightful posts. Welcome back, indeed.

All good points, but the

All good points, but the most important thing in this is to follow the evidence, use logic and reason, and don't back down.

The burden of proof lies with the government and NIST and the 9/11 Commission.

All that is required to rebut their argument is a single powerful anomaly. We all know that there are far more anomalies than that.

Since the government's argument has not met its burden of proof, the evidence must be re-analyzed. A new investigation must be opened immediately.

That is logic/science 101. In the end, from a scientific or logical point of view it does not matter who points out the anomaly or who discovers the evidence. All that matters is the truth, the evidence, and the reasoning that follows from these.

That having been said, it does help when prominent people speak up, or when websites like this one keep the information flowing.

"Burden of proof" means that the person or people making an assertion must prove that assertion before others are bound to accept it. If their evidence is lacking, contradictory, or contains serious anomalies, their argument must necessarily be deemed unacceptable on logical grounds.

Since the official conspiracy story lacks evidence, does not explain counter-evidence, and contains serious anomalies and contradictions, it simply cannot be held to be true by any rational observer.

That's it. That's all that is required at this stage. This has already been done many times.

A new investigation must be opened immediately.

The best way to be politically effective right now is to keep hammering away at the anomalies, contradictions, lack of evidence, and unexplained counter-evidence contained in the "official" argument.

The "official" story is a house of cards, and it is collapsing before our eyes.


Does that apply to Scholars for 9/11 Truth too?

Yes, if they make an

Yes, if they make an argument as to who did what, what happened, why it happened that way, etc.

So far, I find their assertions far more credible than the ones made in the official conspiracy story.

The main points in this context are:

1) The scholars, and others, must show that the official story does not meet its burden of truth.
They have already done this in many ways.

2) They must prove their argument that people within the US government orchestrated the attack.
They have gone a long way toward doing this, as their explanation fits the facts better than any other interpretation of them, but their case is not perfectly solid yet.

3) Due to point #1 above, a new investigation must be opened immediately.
During this investigation--when it is opened--the scholars and others will have the financial resources, subpoena powers, and human research resources to probe even more deeply into the facts of the case.

If this new investigation is open and honest, the truth will be discovered by following the evidence.

9/11 was the biggest crime in US history. To this day it has never been adequately investigated. Criminals make mistakes. It is through their mistakes that they get caught. This crime was so massive, there were many mistakes. With subpoena powers and decent financial resources, I am confident that many of the perpetrators will one day be brought to justice.

Here's an image that is burned into my mind, as I am sure it is into yours--the woman who stands near the hole in the tower where the plane struck. She is the victim of a crime, and victims speak.

How does she speak to us?

Her hair is not blowing in the wind, her clothing is still. This proves that little wind was entering through that hole. If the fires inside were really so hot that they were melting (or compromising) the steel columns, the wind coming into the building through that hole would have been very fierce. She would not even have been able to get near the hole to stand there at all.

The fact that she did stand there is an anomaly that is so poignant and so powerful it utterly demolishes the official story.

The next step is open a new investigation. Follow the evidence.


The problem Scholars for 9/11 Truth is that no one here is willing to question them and their theories. I believe the opposite of what you do - that Scholars for 9/11 Truth and other conpiracists have not presented an adequate, solid refutation of the massive amount of evidence from all sources that converges on the conclusion that the events happened as ALL of evidence - government and NON-government sourcves.

For instance, as I explained elsewhere, the thermate/thermite theory by Jones has been refuted - but no one here wants to believe it. In addition, the fact that wind may or may not have blown the woman's hair is based only on your belief - without evidence - that a forceful wind should have been blowing into the building at all or at the spot she was standing - an unprovable assertion from either point of view.

For the truth to be arrived at, all sides of the argument are going to have to be willing to acknowledge ALL the weaknesses, including the fact that Scholars for 9/11 Truth have to be held to the same standard of the scientific methods as you wish to hold the government to.

I completely agree that

I completely agree that anyone who makes an argument about what happened on 9/11 must be held to the highest logical and scientific standards.

The main point, which is of crucial importance in this context, is that the government has not met the burden of proof for its "official" story.

THEREFORE: a new investigation is called for. It should be opened immediately.

No rational person who examines the evidence could possibly conclude otherwise. At this point, we simply cannot say with confidence precisely what happened that day.

When there is a new investigation, all of the facts and evidence will be examined in great detail. There will be enough money and research resources to do this. The new investigative body will also have subpoena powers, so that lying to them will have real consequences.

As for the woman--the fact that she was standing there at all is a very strong indication that the fire was not drawing in much air. From the smoke we can also see that the fire was not giving off much exhaust. Ergo, the fire was not as hot as NIST claims. Another indication of this same point is this: if the fires had been hot enough to melt (or compromise) the steel columns, the windows on the involved floors would have blown out. This did not happen either. This "evidence" does not need to be conclusive to be devastating to the official story--it merely needs to place reasonable doubt in our minds about the heat of the fires. Add to these doubts the low combustion temperature of jet fuel, the short time the fires burned, the low combustion temperatures of office furniture, the thickness of the steel, and its fire-proof covering and you have an accumulation of very serious doubts about the "official" explanation concerning the temperatures of the fires.

This is what is meant by their not meeting the burden of proof for their argument.

Their "evidence" is simply not convincing on this point.

Then continue with all of the other points wherein the evidence supporting the "official" collapse story is simply not convincing--symmetrical collapse of all three buildings, the free-fall speeds of the collapses, the fine dust inconsistent with gravity induced collapse, the many witness reports of secondary explosions, the blown out lobbies of the towers (no smoke or grime from a fireball coming down all those floors, an impossibility for other reasons), the fact that the 9/11 Commission falsely claimed that the buildings' cores were "hollow shafts," etc.

Added together, these anomalies show with great force that the government has simply not proved its case. It has not met even the most basic requirements for its burden of proof.

People who question the scholars may try to "explain away" the facts mentioned above, but logically that technique proves nothing whatever. A weak argument cannot be supported by adding more weak arguments to it.

Then consider this: shortly after 9/11, the FBI claimed that it found one of the hijacker's passports on the street near ground zero. Surely, you must agree that it would have been virtually impossible for that passport to have survived the crash. Therefore, we are almost entirely bound to conclude that the passport got there because someone put it there. If someone put it there, we can be pretty sure they had a reason. They were trying to frame someone. This is a very strong indication that someone was working behind the scenes to mislead investigators about the attack on the towers. This fact places even more doubt in our minds about the "official" story.

Then add to all of the above the many other glaring contradictions about that day, almost too many to recount here. But here is a short list: no jets scrambled, the path of Flight 77, the fact that the government claims this flight disappeared from their radar, the small initial hole in the Pentagon, the fact that the plane was allowed to hit the Pentagon (its anti-aircraft defenses did not work that day), no videos from the Pentagon which is surely ringed with cameras, the FBI confiscating the gas station videos within some five minutes, the fact that the Secret Service knew Bush was safe in that school, the contradictory time-line set forth by the 9/11 Commission, Atta's suitcase filled with incriminating evidence being "found" at the airport, etc., etc., etc.

All of these facts, and many more, show conclusively that the government story about 9/11 has not met its burden of proof.

Therefore a new investigation must be opened immediately. I do not see how anyone who claims to be rational, logical, or reasonable could possible conclude otherwise.

Lastly, please remember that the scholars and others who are questioning the "official" story are brave individuals working with very limited resources. They are pitted against the US government, a passive US population, the $15 million 9/11 Commission report, and a complacent press.

Those are tough odds. And yet, they have already won the argument. The "official" story simply cannot be true as stated.

New DRG book

I'm reading David Ray Griffin's new book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11", and it is outstanding. I highly recommend it to everyone. I just finished Chapter 3, The Destruction of the World Trade Center, and Griffin's examination of why the official story cannot be true is elegant and damning. If each of us gained command of the information in this chapter alone, discussions we might have in the future with those not in the know could be conducted simply and effectively UN-debunkable.

Also, thanks, GW for your continuing contributions.

The Tao

The Tao Te Ching encourages us to "see simplicity in the complicated."
Who do you trust? is a very simple response to a very complicated matter. Well Done!
An interested person once asked a dedicated scientist, "How do you decide what to believe?"
The wise scientist answered, "I don't. I let the experiments decide for me."
We have physical evidence that is verifiable and falsifiable by the experimental method. If you want Truth, you really can not do better than repeatable experiments.
Here are what I consider to be "Red Flags" regarding trusting people in this movement. (This does not mean that folks who exhibit these behaviors are not trustworthy. They may come by them honestly, or not. But the fact that they exist is worthy of consideration.)
1) Doomsday Thinking. No Hope. Discouraging comments, attitudes, etc. There is a difference between being a realist and being a pessimist (sp?). That sort of thinking is exactly what "they" (the ubiquitous, evil "they") want people to think. So honest, well intentioned, people should be on the lookout for it. It is possible to be realisitic and optimistic at the same time. The future is unwritten. What we do in the here and now (the only time we actually "have" and the only time in which something can actually be done) directly effects what will happen. Therefore, it is correct to maintain a positive attitude, because that will promote positive actions.
2) Changing the subject when progress is being made. This is a very common tactic. If you are an actual, honest truth seeker and are having some sort of discussion with someone and things are headed in your direction, you feel the tide turn, etc. and the person you are discussing with changes the subject to derail the progress, something is wrong. Either they are more interested in "winning" a conversation (silly notion I think) than learning and growing, or they are fighting against the tide of truth. If the other person can marshal evidence, they should do so. To change the subject is suspect.
3) Failing to consider alternative explainations. If someone is not open minded enough to consider reasonable alternatives, they are not on the side of truth.
4) Being nit picky or arguing for the sake of arguing. Whether they come by it honestly or it has a malicious intent, the result is the same, a waste of time and energy. Steer clear.
Some Green Flags are the opposite of 1, 2, 3, & 4.
my 2 scents (nasty and nice, depending on when I last bathed :-)


Please be on look out for these (see link).
They will always be used in opposition to the truth.

Someone said...

In another thread that you should "Trust Yourself".

Don't depend on everybody to tell you everything... do your own research.

The same applies to your activism. Don't rely on someone else to start a group in your area. Do it yourself. Don't rely on someone else to call a newspaper, or a radio show, etc... Do it yourself.

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

Thanks--Good Insights, As Always

We at TruthMove are trying to do our part. As you can see from our site, we are all about putting 9/11 in context and encouraging people to action.

On the other hand we also believe that calling out obvious bullshit within the movement is an important service. Just because someone is speculating that something or someone is incompetent or disinformation does not mean that they are being divisive. The "big tent" approach is not effective when we have so many enemies and crazies within our midst. If we have damaging people, films, or ideas circulating in our movement, we must weed them out.

People must be critical thinkers for themselves, that is the whole point of this movement! It is about coming to trust your own judgement and ratiocination rather than look to authorities to think for you. The disinformation agents will be calling the authentic truthers "infiltrators" and vice versa. It is up to the individual to make the call.

International Truth Movement

truthmove.org needs to sort out the disinfo

"The "big tent" approach is not effective when we have so many enemies and crazies within our midst. If we have damaging people, films, or ideas circulating in our movement, we must weed them out...
The disinformation agents will be calling the authentic truthers "infiltrators" and vice versa."

I agree. Unfortunately, truthmove.org still links to some of the most damaging people and web sites of the 9/11 truth movement, such as


Jim Hoffman at 911research.com and Mark Robinowitz at oilempire.us are using blatent PSYOPS tactics to attack other good researchers in the 9/11 truth movement, and trying to discredit Loose Change - one of the best 9/11 videos that has been the most effective in spreading the truth. Particularly, they try to badjacket (accuse of being disinfo agents) all other 9/11 researchers who point out the the physical evidence disproves the government's claim that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the cell phone calls were faked.

I've already tried to point this out to you guys at truthmove.org several months ago, but you guys still are apparently duped by these destructive debunkers.

You guys really need to sort this out. Do your homework and understand why most credible 9/11 researchers reject the government's Pentagon flight 77 myth and the cell phone calls myths, because it is scientificly proved that flight 77 could not have crashed at the Pentagon and the cell phone calls had to have been faked, just as much as the controlled demolition of the WTC have been scientificaly proved.

Think about it: David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors, and others are all branded disinfo agents according to Jim Hoffman and Mark Robanowitz because they dispute the Official Government Conspiracy Theory regarding the Pentagon and cell phones! By any fair measure, Jim Hoffman and Mark Robanowitz are the most likely PSYOPS agents in the movement! Sort it out guys! If you need help, I can point you to some good reference material to help you do your home work on the physical evidence. But, at least start with using basic logic and understand that it is preposterous for anyone to badjacket all of the best 9/11 researchers in one swath, as Hoffman and Robinowitz do!

The Pentagon and cell phones

The Pentagon and cell phones are crap arguments. We have so much more solid evidence to promote. And you include Dave Von Kleist in your list of supposedly reputable researchers!?

I trust Jim Hoffman and Mark Rabinowitz. From what I've seen they are usually fairly careful not to call others outright disinfo agents. Instead they take issue with certain evidence or arguments that certain people are promoting. They both make a good case that some sources should not be trusted as much as others.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the rationality of TruthMove speaks for itself. Like I said before, it's up to the individuals to do the footwork and decide for themselves who to trust.

International Truth Movement

Think about it!

"I trust Jim Hoffman and Mark Raninowitz. From what I've seen they are usually fairly careful not to call others outright disinfo agents."

You are in incredible denial, delver. You need to go to Hoffman's and Rabinowitz's web sites and read their sections on disinfo. More than any of the other 9/11 researchers, it is THEY who are attempting to badjacket everyone. In one broad swath, they smear the majority of 9/11 researchers who dispute the Pentagon and cell phones OGCT.

Again, you need to use your head. Think about it real hard, delver. Who is more likely the disinfo agents? A small minority (Hoffman and Rabinowitz) who loudly uphold parts of the OGCT and smear the majority of the researchers - David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors? Or do you think that David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors and others are all disinfo agents, as Hoffman and Rabinowitz are contending?

Notice that Hoffman and Rabinowitz haven't backed up their arguments on upholding the OGCT on the Pentagon and cell phones by writing books or science articles or done any research on those issues, UNLIKE Griffen, Tarpley, Zwicker, and the others who HAVE.

Hoffman and Rabinowitz are acting like disrupters and shills, sitting back and badjacketing the majority of good researchers. I say Hoffman and Rabinowitz should put up or shut up! If they really do genuinely disagree with what the majority of 9/11 researchers have published and presented regarding those issues, then they should bring forward the counter evidence to back it up and stop the attacks!

Keenan - Why do you misspell the following names?

David Ray Griffen, Barry Zwicker

Even more importantly, how/why did you edit my quote:

"I trust Jim Hoffman and Mark Raninowitz. From what I've seen they are usually fairly careful not to call others outright disinfo agents."

to misspell "Rabinowitz" into "Raninowitz?" You have variously spelled that name as "Robinowitz" "Robanowitz," neither being correct.

So, is this a disinfo tactic or what? Please inform us with your deep knowledge of government psyops.

Well Keenan, it's been fun but I think you've wasted enough of my time.

Thanks for the laughs.

International Truth Movement

Oh paleeeze!!!

Oh paleeeze!!! All you can do is attack me for mispelling? You have not addressed a single question I have posed to you. In all my exchanges with you, you have consistently ignored my central arguments and points, and instead attack me for irrelevant issues.

By the way, you dishonestly edited your previous posting in which you mispelled Rabinowitz as "Raninowitz", and then falsely accused me of purposely misspelling it and missquoting you. In fact, I had cut and pasted your quote in whole without editing it.

Since you have demonstrated pretty clearly to everyone that you are not willing to engage in honest dialogue, you have no arguments to make, and can only see fit to engage in pathetic and childish distractions, I see no reason to waste any more time with you.

And, these tactics and behaviours provide me with plenty of proof about what is going on with your inability to sort through the 9/11 disinfo from Rabinowitz and Hoffman, and what the agenda of truthmove.org is really about. Thanks for making this crystal clear to me!

Upon further inspection,

Upon further inspection, "Mark Robinowitz" appears to be the correct spelling.


International Truth Movement

Hark! O champion of freedom!

Hey Keenan,

Here's some questions you might want to ask yourself.

Are YOU Putting Things in Context?

Are YOU Pulling a Rove?

Are YOU Doing Good In Other Areas?

Are YOU Empowering Others?

Just wondering if you were paying attention. The people you are criticizing deserve respect for having the courage to question everyone's assumptions, something that wins you no contests for popularity. In any active research community, debate is the lifeblood of progress.

Scientists rely upon their peers to question their reasoning, understanding that this could only increase their insight. Many scientific peers have huge disagreements, but work together toward the progress of the whole. In the physics community, when a scientist gets it wrong, they just used up some time or money. In the 9/11 community, when someone gets it wrong, the consequences can have a social impact.

As you know, the people that you are attacking, happen to have provided two of the movement's more valuable resources. I get the sense that both of them are making their best attempt to weed out the crap, something not enough a priority for many in the movement. Whatever your politics, or particular style of logic, it would be healthy for you to recognize the difference between propaganda and the work of those who demonstrate a sincere concern for validity. I don't agree with every assessment, however, I have some humility and respect for the contribution that they have made.

There are, however, some in the movement who do not appear to have very postive answers to the questions above, and those people should be vigorously challenged. We've all got to call it like we see it. But certainly while maintaining a view of our broadest goals. You can call me, delver, or TruthMove, names, but we intend for our actions to speak as loud as our words, and we welcome any informed criticism you have to offer.

You got anything on the table? I'm ready to be wowed!

Please respond to my question

Ok, I will respond to you guys at truthmove.org one last time here. Delver's assinine attitude in the above exchange really convinced me that you guys are not interested in honest debate, but you appear to be taking a different attitude, so I will give you a chance.

Look, jules, this is really frustrating for me that you and your buddies at truthmove.org are stubbornly sticking to a position and ignoring my questions and points I have already provided to back up the arguments I am making. Your posting above indicates that you have completely missed the points I am raising. I AM PERFECTLY AWARE OF "the difference between propaganda and the work of those who demonstrate a sincere concern for validity". I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE HONESTLY DISAGREEING WITH OTHER 9/11 RESEARCHERS.

If you guys genuinely are supporting the positions of Robinowitz and Hoffman in their attacks on 9/11 researchers/activists who dispute the Pentagon and cell phones myths, and assuming that me and anybody else (like the majority of 9/11 researchers) who dispute the Pentagon and cell phone myths are either engaged in disinfo or are dupes, then I am asking you to dig a little deeper and re-examine the arguments that Hoffman and Robinowitz are making. Please consider the possibility that you have been duped by this small minority, by using both a) logic, and b) examining the evidence.

Let's start with logic. Again, for the 3rd time, I ask you: Who is more likely the disinfo agents? A) The majority of 9/11 researchers - David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Dave Von Kleist, George Humphrey, James Fetzer, Michel Chossudovsky, Loose Change authors, Eric Hufschmid, and others, which is the accusation of Hoffman and Robinowitz? Or B) A small minority (Hoffman and Rabinowitz) who loudly uphold parts of the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy Theory) and smear the majority of the other researchers, accusing them of being disinfo agents?

AND AGAIN, notice that Hoffman and Rabinowitz haven't backed up their arguments on upholding the OGCT on the Pentagon and cell phone myths by writing books or science articles or done any research on those issues, UNLIKE Griffen, Tarpley, Zwicker, and the others who HAVE. Instead, Hoffman and Rabinowitz are resorting to Bull Shit PSYOP type of arguments, such as "don't dispute that part of the OGCT because you will offend the victims' family members", or "don't dispute that part of the OGCT because you will discredit the 9/11 truth movement." Where is the beaf?

I have read Webster Tarpley's book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror", David Ray Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor", Eric Hufschmid's book, "Painful Questions", Jim Marr's, "Inside Job", Barrie Zwicker's "Towers of Deception", Laura Knight Jadcyzk's, "911 The Ultimate Truth" (possibly the best), and others. All of these books lay out the convincing case against the OGCT on the Pentagon and cell phone calls using evidence and expert opinion.

Here's some more references for you to sort out the disinfo on the Pentagon OGCT:
September 11 Revisited ACT II: ADDENDUM 2 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757 http://abovetopsecret.narod.ru/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

If you do nothing else, please read at least these two articles above if you are still not sure about which side is presenting bogus arguments regarding the Pentagon. If you are willing to do a little homework, you can easily understand why Hoffman's and Robinowitz's arguments are bunk on these issues and how they are doing much harm to the movement.

I'll repeat what I said before: Hoffman and Rabinowitz are acting like disrupters and shills, sitting back and badjacketing the majority of good researchers. I say Hoffman and Rabinowitz should put up or shut up! If they really do genuinely disagree with what the majority of 9/11 researchers have published and presented regarding those issues, then they should bring forward the counter evidence to back it up or stop the attacks!

I have to go now, but I challenge you to answer the question I have posed to you above, and to really look at what I and others (like Tarpley, Griffin, et. al.) have put on the table regarding these issues, rather then just stubbornly siding with that small minority who are doing much damage to lots of good 9/11 researchers and activists.

What if?

What if the evidence does not support one's beleifs? Then what?

"What if the evidence does

"What if the evidence does not support one's beliefs? Then What?"

Then, the discussion must be to the evidence, not to the messenger. Notice the arguments of people like Hoffman and Robanowitz. They almost never discuss the actual evidence (and when they do they use very selective evidence). Instead, they use a litiney of ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs. Their energy is put to debunking and discrediting many good activists and researchers, not in helping the movement.

And, again, when a small loud minority attampts to uphold part of the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy) which the vast majority of credible 9/11 researchers have rejected, and smear all the other researchers as being disinfo agents, you are seeing a classic PSYOPS red flag right in front of your face. Badjacketing has always been a favorite tool of COINTELPRO and PSYOPS. We have to be smart enough to not be duped by them and to watch for the use of those kinds of tactics and notice when claims and arguments are using psycholical and emotional tricks while avoiding the evidence, which Hoffman his ilk use all too frequently (such as "don't dispute that part of the story because you will offend the family members" or "don't dispute that part of the story or you'll discredit the movement", etc.).

"They almost never discuss

"They almost never discuss the actual evidence..."

"you are seeing a classic PSYOPS red flag right in front of your face. Badjacketing has always been a favorite tool of COINTELPRO and PSYOPS."


Wow, Keenan, I think I got it.....You're the agent! Thanks for helping me learn to spot classic PSYOPS techniques.

International Truth Movement

Not sure why you are so confused about this

Huh? How does helping you to spot when someone is using classic PSYOPS techniques...make me the agent? Do you really not understand the difference? I'll try to explain it to you real simple.

Person A attempts to badjacket Person B because Person B disputes part of the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy Theory). Person A uses ad hominem attacks and psychological/emotional arguments against Person B, rather than discuss the evidence.

Person C alerts people to the fact that Person A is using classic PSYOPS techniques against Person B, such as badjacketing, and gives evidence to support it.

So, Person A is badjacketing (falsely accusing someone of being an agent to destroy their credibility), while Person C is alerting people to the fact that Person A is badjacketing and showing that it is more likely that it is Person A who is the agent.

Get it? See the difference? Accusing Person C of being the agent makes no sense, unless you can show that Person C falsified the information about Person A, i.e., that Person A was NOT "using ad hominem attacks and psychological/emotional arguments against Person B, rather than discussing the evidence".

Instead of just being an ass and asserting, "Wow, Keenan, I think I got it.....You're the agent!", why don't you discuss which specific evidence and facts I got wrong? If you can't do that then you have no argument.

One problem

One problem is that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 doesn't come from the government but from thousands of independent sources and evidence that converge on the most likely conclusion.

Another issue is that scientific truth is blind to "movements." Political movements, like Scholars for 9/11 Truth, are irrelevant in the eyes of science. Scholars does not have the luxury of making scientific claims and holding onto them when they are shown to be wrong, like Jones's thermite/thermate theory has been shown to be.

As long as one chooses to believe the goals of a "movement" and protect those who are wrong but part of that "movement", truth will not be served.

What If?

"What if the evidence does not support one's beleifs? Then what?"

You simple change your belief. Easy.

No one here has that I know of

Despite no evidence for "controlled demolition" people still cling to the belief that somehow the towers must have been blown up.

Funny, isn't it?


It being scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for it to be anything but Controlled Demolition idiots like you still spew such drivel.

not funny at all really.

Anonymous the liar

'no evidence for "controlled demolition"'?
How doth thee lie, let me count the ways:

1) Engineers' observations of molten pools of metals.
2) Eyewitness testimony of secondary explosives.
3) Photo evidence of explosions.
4) Video evidence of explosions.
5) Live news reports of secondary explosions.
6) Engineering analyses of the structural "collapses".

All are evidence of controlled demolition.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm...

Afghanistan Now Supplies "A Staggering 92%" Of The World's Opium

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

"war on drugs" on-line documentaries?

Can anyone reccomend some documentaries available for free on-line (Google Video, You Tube, etc.) that take a critical look at the US "War on drugs"? I was searching around, but haven't yet found much.

No movies, but...

Don't have any movies, but google for "Narco Dollars for Dummies" and the Congressional testimony of Peter Dale Scott. If those don't make your hairs stand on end and your anger get righteous, then you'll never understand what went down on 9/11/01.

Who Do You Trust

The answer to that question is hard to put into words. Personally I don't trust any one person. We are all fallible. We all make mistakes weather deliberate or not. I try to stay focused strictly on the facts. The demolition of the towers and WTC7, the put-options, the NORAD stand-down, the Pentagon hit, motives and means, the impossibility of the "Official Story" ect. Even a NWO dis-info. agent puts some truth out there even when they lie. The truth about 9/11 is self-evident. No government "plant" can change that........Changing the subject, I need an up-date on the Malloy situation. I am starting to miss his rants. I need a Mike Malloy fix.


If you can't trust any one person, then how can the facts lead you to the conclusions you have made when they lead the vast majority of experts in the different fields to opposite conclusions?

That's easy

Just look at which experts have bought a new house in the last six months and disregard those.

Welcome back George.  It

Welcome back George.  It seems a vacation, even if involuntarily, has given you a fresh perspective on the current trends with in the 9/11 Truth Movement today.

Keep it up!

Good article.

Thanks GW!

Never Thought I'd See The Day...

The Toronto Sun Shamefully Says "We Should Nuke Iran"

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


You need a (close italics) after start here. The whole page is in italics.

Sick....truly sick

Sick, Truly Sick They will receiving a letter from me on this one. The only thing that got that horrible feeling out of my stomache after reading this, was the fact that the author said Iran has no real enemies.......well I guess that would be true if you ignore the the largest militry power in world history that wants to Nuke them (which the other fully endorces within months...ie. before our elections)....and ignore the only Mideast Nation that actually has nuclear bomb.
Orwell is spinning in his grave. War is Peace.

We can all email the sick bastard here...



Ahmadinejad provokes wars?
Iran has no real enemies?
Is this guy for real?

Unfortunately this is a classic example of the dumbed down mentality that's being created by this administration and its endless drivel of warmongering propaganda.

I'm going to spend some time now to draft up a thoughtful letter to these warped and misinformed idiots.

Let's Nuke Iran

Good afternoon Mr. Coren:

Regretfully, I happened to read your column titled "We Should Nuke Iran" in the online version of the September 2nd, 2006 Toronto Sun and felt inclined to respond.

Let me comment:

"Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran."

Excuse me? This statement is beyond foolish, it’s insane! And, the last time I checked, Canada did not have the capacity to "nuke" anyone. So I ask you, how do you propose that "we" accomplish this?

"It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months -- if not weeks -- if we are to preserve world peace".

Would you care to substantiate this please? The Pentagon has estimated Iran to be 5 to 10 years away from building "the bomb", even if it is their intent. Now if this claim is based on the same shoddy intelligence practices used prior to the invasion of Iraq, then it should not be taken too seriously. You are also claiming that the solution to world peace is to drop nuclear weapons on a sovereign nation. Do you have any idea how absurd and backwards this statement is?

“The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many.”

What twisted logic do you use to come to this conclusion? According to Dr. Kurt Gottfried, Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University, "The use of the B61-11 nuclear 'bunker buster' against an underground facility near Natanz, Iran...would create massive clouds of radioactive fallout that could spread far from the site of the attack, including to other nations. Even if used in remote, lightly populated areas, the number of casualties could range up to more than a hundred thousand, depending on the weapon yield and weather conditions".


May I also suggest you have a look at the following video which documents the effects of depleted uranium on soldiers and citizens. Hopefully this will give you a better idea of exactly what you're suggesting it is that "we" inflict on Iran.


"..Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction..."

This statement is so ludicrous, it isn't even worthy of additional comment.

"Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives."

Would you substantiate this please? What do you base this rhetoric on?

"Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed..."

Diplomacy has failed? Since when? Iran has been fully compliant with the NPT and has been cooperating fully with the IAEA. Just because Iran refuses to abruptly cease its nuclear program and capitulate to the demands of the West, it does not mean that diplomacy has failed. You may want to read the following article. I have extracted a few quotes for you:


"The report clearly indicated that Iran honored its commitments within the framework of international resolution and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is ready to continue on that path regarding the remaining few points still pending," Asafi said.

He stressed that Iran's nuclear activities are "transparent, open, peaceful and far from any ambiguity, which makes settling Iran's nuclear issue easy through negotiations."

You also say:

"Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region."

Of course you only need a two month span of memory to spot that absurdity.

Anyway, next time you decide to spew your warmongering venom using the channel of a large Canadian newspaper, at least try to do a better job. This way, the less informed reader can have a chance to defend themselves from your truly warped and dangerous opinions .

Think about what you're saying here. You are advocating the use of nuclear weapons on a country that poses little real threat to Canada.


An average Canadian

WaPo covers unraveling of Miami Terror "Plot"

Who should we trust indeed... (certainly not the FBI)

Diggthis story.

WaPo: What was reported at the time to be "A Major Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Sears Tower" turns out to be an FBI run theater troupe of down-and-out transients. These mentally impaired men were fed and housed by the FBI in the warehouse district of Miami and kept in reserve so that the "big terror" bust could be used for greatest political benefit.


Excellent as usual, GW!

Welcome Back! Will you be going to New York?


With just one tiny caveat to readers--and certainly GW made this clear but I will emphasize the point. Never trust anyone implicitly, even those who seem to have a perfect track record, or are praised by others. This is not meant as an endorsement of distrust as a general rule at all, but as a reminder that in the end you have to understand *why* someone is right as opposed to just accepting it on trust. Learning can be a drag, especially in school, but this is different--it's extremely important not just to understand for your own sake but to be able to present a credible case to the uninitiated and also to counter disinfo efforts. That means that if you're not sure what the justification for something is--post it as a question. This is something all of us should do when we're not sure about anything--not be afraid to look like the one person who's not an expert--let's face it, no one is a true expert in the sense of knowing everything about 9/11--even DrG will admit that there are questions that still need better explanations. Knowing what we don't know is very important. Whenever we speculate we should be clear that that is what we're doing, and in general speculation should be done among the initiated and not among people just learning about the issues. The strongest case is the simplest one we can make based on available and undisputed facts. We want people to doubt the official story, not any particular speculative version of the events. If you consider yourself a follower of any particular 9/11 personality that is fine, but don't put them on a pedestal, especially when you're reaching out to newcomers to the truth movement. SOmeone tenuously checking out the issue might find a small fault with an otherwise respected famous truther and then think that you were talking them up, and wonder why.

Finally, I've mentioned this before and will repeat it because I think it's great advice--in chess, the strategy is that when you are ahead, you should simplify, and when you are behind, it's best to keep things complicated. In chess terms this means, for example, reducing the number of pieces on the board by sacrificing a knight for a knight, queen for a queen, etc. so as to magnify the importance of a small advantage like one pawn. In our case it is more like simplifying the issues--keeping the focus on undeniable facts that the perps would rather have ignored in favor of confusing speculation. Whatever you think of no-planes theory (NPT), it needlessly complicates the issue at this point, and while NPT folks may have a point when they point to other ideas that, once unpopular, eventually
became accepted by the majority, this doesn't mean that a) NPT is therefore necessarily correct or b) that even if correct NPT is a wise avenue to take at this point in the game when many formerly skeptical people are beginning to look into things. If NPT turns out to be correct (and from what I've seen I *highly* doubt it, but don't discount it absolutely) it will be an amazing development and its proponents should be hailed as visionary geniuses. At the moment though, given the evidence presented thus far, it should be made clear that while a small minority may consider it likely, most people in the movement do not and it should not be considered representative or reflective of the movement generally. The personal attacks between NPTists and non-NPTists should cease for the good of the movement. Non-NPTists may say that not responding to their posts makes people think that they are not contested. I think it would help for the site owners here to have a poll visible at all times to show the relative acceptedness of various aspects of the case, and make it possible to vote only by people with registered (even if anonymous) screen names, or some other system which would make the results indicative of the site community or at least not hackable or readily distorted...

So anyway, good job GW, and everyone else on the site who keeps us all focused and moving forward--EVERYONE who does that is a real f***ing hero in my book!

Real Truther out!_

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

On Trust

I trust my mother's intentions implicitly.
It's here judgement that I sometimes have problems with.

There are really only 4 possible finite states that explain the relationship between behavior and ethics:

1) Doing the right thing for the right reasons.
2) Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
3) Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
4) Doing the right thing for thw wrong reasons.

To summarize each case:

1) Doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Doing good with good motive is the best of all possible worlds. We should all aspire to that standard.

2) Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Getting evil outcomes from the best of motives is the story of our civilization.
Or, at least, that's the official explanation for how we got to be where we are. The Law of Unintended
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
How many good honest Germans voted for the National Socialists out of limited information and desire for the greatest common good ? They were patriots all, willing to sacrifice their own children for the salavtion of the fatherland.
Our media packages this rationalization as "failure and incompetence".
"Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.."
These are the people who are ready to market a complex limited hangout on 9/11 as LIHOP exploiting "blowback" from the Reagan-era Afghan jihad and our dependency on oil (re: "Syriana")

3) Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
This is where pure evil meets pure stupidity.
This one is easy. It's just deliberate sin, blind criminal socio-pathology, sadism and pure evil.
Easy enough to figure that one out.
Just watch a video of Dick Cheney or Michael Chertoff.
You'll get the picture.

4) Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
This is the art and science of limited hangouts and damage control. This is the sphere of the Democratic Party and the gatekeepers. This is high-frontier COINTELPRO turf. This is where we see the manipulation of actual truth, (limited truth) in the service of the Big Lie. This 4th zone is where we tend to be taken in.
This is the zone that the mass media is designed and structured to exploit.
Because we are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to salivate on even the most trivial occasion when MSM features a blurb about "9/11 conspiracy" .. no matter how distorted.
Like the victims of Stockholm syndrome, we are physiologically conditioned to feel gratification when the TV or the New York Times deigns to even acknnowledge our existence.

And that is exactly how this thing is set up.
More on this later ..

Just go back and look at those cartoons they put out there.

And tell me that there aren't millions of Americans, as we sit here now, who KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job, but would prefer to avoid the implications of the entire truth, in the grand scope and scale of the whole false-flag religion, with each new event (whether in London, Bali, Madrid, Amman....,
the threat of exploding baby milk on planes)
each new threat erected as a cathedral of terror in the minds of millions.

People embrace the lie willingly.
Sometimes doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Or they embrace the limited hangout.
Occasionally doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

That's how moral ambiguity, rationalizing wilful blind ignorance and deliberate denial becomes a means of controlling whole societies.

That's what they calculate: that people will not abandon a secure and comfortable lie, for the dangerous and uncertain implications of a hideous truth.

Ah! When language is

Ah! When language is employed with crystal clarity.
Beautifully written ;)

pure evil

"Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
This is where pure evil meets pure stupidity.
This one is easy. It's just deliberate sin, blind criminal socio-pathology, sadism and pure evil.
Easy enough to figure that one out.
Just watch a video of Dick Cheney or Michael Chertoff.
You'll get the picture."......Thanks, I needed that.

I agree.

Beutifully said! This would make an excellent article.

How would you know?

How would you KNOW 9/11 was an inside job when ethical people who are also far more knowledgable than you on the subject matter KNOW that 9/11 was NOT an inside job?

How would you know that NIST is wrong and an a non-expert like Steven Jones is right?

Who is ethical, the structural engineers of NIST and ASCE who signed therir names to the reports and are required to file a strict code of ethics, or a non-experts like Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, and the entire crew of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who NEVER acknowledge refutations of their works, are wholly unqualified in the subject matters they right about, who do not have a code of ethics and say anything they damn well please without consequences?

What about 9/11 conspiracy theorists who say it is suspicious that there is no film of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, but that is is suspicious that there IS film of flight 11 hitting tower 1 in NYC, and that they are BOTH evidence of a government conspiracy?

So when you "...sit here now, who KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job...", just HOW do you know it and WHO told you?

Keep It Simple Stupid

That's right Real Truther. Keep it as simple as possible. The chess analogy is an excellent one. I focus on the obvious demolition of WTC7 and the absolute absurdity of the "Official Story." What hit the towers is of little importance to me. Same with the Pentagon. All that is smoke and mirrors or as RumDum would say, "Shock and Awe." I have a feeling old Rummy is going to get a taste of "Shock and Awe" very soon. This whole 9/11 thing is about to explode!......................... "Every Dog Has His Day."

What obvious demolition?

How can you sit there ansd claim that WTC 7 was an "obvious demolition" when the evidence does not support that claim? No matter how much you hate Bush and Rummy, science is blind to political motives and you must present irrefutable, physical evidence of evidence. So far all you have done is make claims that demolition is "obvious" without the evidence to back you up.

Do you seek that is ethical?


it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for a building to collapse at or very near freefall speed without the aide of high explosives.

There is no possible way a 47 story building can collapse in its own footprint in 6.5 seconds because of simple fire damage.

It defies the laws of physics, Law of gravity and Law of motion.

Add to that NIST's new claim

Add to that NIST's new claim that WTC7 sustained damage on its south side. If this is true (the photo evidence is "secret"), that damage would cause the building to topple over toward the south, not collapse straight down at free-fall speed.

Well....no, not really

No one has actually come up with any evidence for your claim. Let's also remember that your assertions are false.

1) None of the towers fell at any where NEAR free-fall speeds.
2) NO evidence of explosives has ever been demonstrated - only "theories" that have been refuted like Thermate/Thermite
3) WTC 7 did not fall in 6.5 seconds. It was over 13 seconds as is clearly seen in the videos of the entire event.
4) WTC 7 did not fall into its own footprint; it damaged the buildings around it and the North face debris was found ON TOP of the South face debris.
5) Nothing can defy the laws of gravity, physics, and motion and it is crystal clear that they weren't on 9/11.

You need to lookat the evidence rather than beleive some amateur 9/11 conspiracists who are clueless about physics and structural engineering.

More recommended reading

On Point: 9/11 theories burst

August 29, 2006

With the anniversary of 9/11 just a couple of weeks away, it's time to strike a blow for sanity and, yes, truth. If the polls are accurate, someone you know is flirting with 9/11 denial - or perhaps has succumbed already to the contagious delusion.

The symptoms are unmistakable. For starters, the victim uses the phrase "the official version" when referring to events of that day - or more likely, "the government version" - and utters the words with unconcealed contempt.

Maybe the skeptic has e-mailed you a video of a lecture by Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, or a column by Morgan Reynolds or Paul Craig Roberts, accompanied by a note of wonder: "Have you seen this?"

Or perhaps your friend/relative has sent you a link to one of the dozens of Web sites dedicated to explaining why this or that critical aspect of the accepted version of 9/11 is allegedly full of holes.

There is no time to waste. You must purchase Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, a paperback just released by Hearst Books, and get it to the afflicted person in time for the fifth anniversary of the terrorists' attack.

Debunking is the product of editors, writers and researchers at Popular Mechanics magazine, and is an expanded version of their March 2005 issue on the topic. Edited by David Dunbar, the magazine's executive editor, and Brad Reagan, a contributing editor, the book provides a sober, concise review of the major allegations and the consensus rebuttal of experts and eyewitnesses.

Let's dip our toes into a couple of the conspiracy buffs' favorite claims:

• Claim No. 1: Before 9/11, no steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed because of fire. Why did the twin towers? Jet fuel doesn't even burn hot enough to melt steel. The collapse must have been triggered by an engineered demolition.

Responds Debunking: "The Twin Tower fires were unlike previous high-rise fires. . . . the planes that struck the two towers involved multiple floors, slicing through floors 93 to 99 in the North Tower and 77 to 85 in the South Tower . . . The resulting conflagrations were immediate and widespread.

"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns."

Important point: "The NIST report states that pockets of fire hit 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit). Steel begins to lose strength at temperatures as low as about 400 degrees Celsius . . . At 980 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), it retains less than 10 percent (of its strength) . . . "

Debunking goes into much greater detail regarding what it says are among "the most extensively studied structural failures in American history," but you get its flavor: It's fact based, with lots of quotations from expert testimony.

• Claim No. 2: What about World Trade Center 7? This 47-story building also collapsed in the wake of the attacks, and it wasn't even hit by a plane. If it wasn't an inside job, what happened?

The collapse of building 7 was something of a puzzle to investigators at the outset. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency's preliminary report in 2002 may have missed the mark in several respects. However, Debunking notes, "with the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised than the FEMA report indicated. 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's (lead investigator Shyam) Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.' "

FEMA didn't notice this in its early analysis, according to NIST, because "in the many photographs taken of the area following the attacks - a primary source in the FEMA report - the structure of WTC 7 is simply not visible" because of smoke.

Debunking deals with much more, of course, including many fraudulent claims involving the attack on the Pentagon as well as the demise of Flight 93. But among Debunking's most damning passages are those quoting numerous 9/11 witnesses, rescuers and others complaining about how conspiracy addicts have twisted and misused what they said to build their theories.

These guys are a disgrace: Buy this book and spare your loved ones the same fate.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes On Point several times a week. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Hey thats quite the sales

Hey thats quite the sales pitch.
Anyone with intelligence can see, at the very least, that the official version of 9/11 is a fraud but you know what, I'm sick & tired of you scumbags.
Please, identify yourself, at least by a pseudo-name. As my name suggests, I'm a traitor to the Bush Crime Syndicate, you know, the drug running, coke-sniffing, election robbing, insider trading, child molesting SCUM you so eagerly serve...
You know, I recently listened to one of your Hearst minions on a radio interview getting reduced to saying, when asked about the collapse of WTC7 (not hit by plane, building commits suicide, remember?) I paraphrase --
" WTC 7 collapsed due to being struck by part one of the towers, Hearst publising has seen the pictures proving this but cannot release them to the public". Sad.
Unbelieveable, the arrogance of you people.

Carroll replied to you too: ABC's of 9/11 skeptics

Rocky Mountain News


On Point: ABC's of 9/11 skeptics

August 31, 2006

pictureThere are three types of 9/11 conspiracy buffs, I've learned in the past two days.

Type A's are mostly harmless. They are skeptics intrigued with the theory that 9/11 was an inside job involving government assistance or direction who are not ready to make the full-body leap into cuckooland. After my column Tuesday praising the new book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, a number of Type A's e-mailed me various reasons why they can't quite accept the consensus version of 9/11 that will appear in history books. Their attitude may even be healthy up to a point; the public should want to pore over the fine print of any complicated explanation for a tragedy.

Type B's are more aggressive. They have made up their minds but are still willing to ply their arguments on wayward journalists like me with a minimal number of insults.

Type B's will ask, with a tutoring tone, aren't you aware that real-estate developer Larry Silverstein slipped and used the term "pull it" - allegedly demolition slang - in referring to World Trade Center 7? (Actually, the context of his statement suggests a very different meaning, which Silverstein himself has confirmed.)

Or, they will say, don't you realize that two members of the 9/11 commission have written a book accusing the Pentagon and FAA of lying? (Sure, but Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton maintain the FAA and Pentagon misled the commission to cover their inept response to the attacks, not because they were complicit in them.)

Or - to cite just one more common query - how could the twin towers collapse at near free-fall speeds if they were unassisted by demolition? (Read the investigative report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or its recently posted fact sheet, for the nonconspiratorial answer.)

Finally, there are the Type C's, the red meat conspiracy hucksters who know a despicable traitor when they spot one.

"You are complicit in cover up and will be remembered!"

"You haven't the guts to truly understand what happened that day."

"You are as corrupt as your handlers."

"Your stance makes you an accessory to the crime."

"Obviously you're working hard to bring about the end of this country, our freedom, and constitutional rights. Proud of yourself? I hope you get what you deserve."

"The disgrace is your fascist ability to ignore evidence."

"You are the one lost puppie (sic)!"

"I'm afraid that your poorly researched article on 9/11 is what will be remembered as the REAL disgrace."

"On what planet do you live?"

"Have just read your fear-laced article in the Rocky Mountain News . . . It's time to free your mind; or at the very least, force those hands back out of your pockets."

"Mainstream media is owned by a very small group of people . . . and they can be bought and bribed just like most anyone else."

"If I was you, I'd be getting my a-- on a plane to Israel."

One of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" did write me a long, patient letter in which he urged me to investigate the collapse of Building 7 with a view to discovering "the culprits responsible for setting up the explosive charges. It was obviously done well in advance of 9/11 - it's impossible to configure and set up a building of this size in a day; the job would take a professional company several months to accomplish."

Several months? A professional company? The mind reels at the implausible scenario.

As one level-headed correspondent wrote, as if reading my mind, do "people in this country really believe that not one single person that allegedly rigged the WTC with explosives has ever had a momentary pang of conscience or remorse? Not one single weak link in the entire diabolical scheme? . . . why didn't the government officials that were so cunning and sinister arrange to have someone plant nukes or chemical weapons in Iraq and then 'find' them? If any country would have the means to do that, it would have been us. . . . But no, they instead have had to stumble around the awkward fact that they never found any."

Just so. But don't try pointing out this obvious objection to 9/11 conspiracy buffs. It will only prove your part in the sickening plot.

The only person to trust is

The only person to trust is yourself.
Your own research & your own sentience.
When the forces stacked against you are so powerful, wealthy, influential, devious, murderous, clever & psychotic, you must admit that somewhere YOU are on that chessboard, & the hand that moves you into danger maybe the very one you trusted or even respected.
It maybe the very one that appeared to speak the truth about 9/11.
I can think of several, primarily young, 'leaders' of the 9/11 Truth Movement who are highly suspect & qualify, at least in my mind, as deep, deep cover Manchurian candidates.
Dear reader, you must always keep in mind that the forces that are responsible for 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc, will have known, from the outset, that there will be a social & political movement of enquiry to expose them. How better to control that movement, than to create it.
Follow NO ONE!
Keep LOVE in your heart.

One who does not trust Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Good to see you don't trust Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer and his gang.

Did I say that? What we have

Did I say that?
What we have here is a joker.

Yes, you did say that.

You said clearly, "The only person to trust is yourself."


You are referring to my

You are referring to my comment in reply to you stating that I stated not to trust Jones, Fetzer.
Firstly, try to learn how to use a blog correctly, you dimwit.
Second, there is a difference between trusting someone & believing them.
I believe Jones & Fetzer, I dont trust them or anyone else.
I do not believe nor trust some of the younger characters in the 'movement' ie Mr. Blood.

None of us really know 100%

None of us really know 100% exactly how 9/11 occured. But hopefully if nothing else we can agree one two things:

1) The three trade center buildings that collapsed were demolished with some sort of explosive device.

2) The whole government explanation about the hijacking does not make sense.

If we can agree on that and push and push and push then we can make a difference.

We have to agree on the basics, put everything else aside, and force disclosure to occur.

I saw another "truth" movement about an entirely different subject vaproize into obscurity a number of years ago. Why? Because no one really knew the "whole" story and therefore made up an idea about the "whole" story and started believing their own theory 100%. Anyone who did not agree with them was automatically the enemy! So much infighting occured that the movement fizzled out.

We can't let that happen. We must unite, realize none of us have the whole story because whoever is behind 9/11 obviously hid tons of evidence, and the best we can do is agree on a few basics and press forward!

We can fuss with each other, debate between ourselves, and argue with the choir all day long. But what we really need to do is QUIT all that non-sense and move forward.

Why should we agree?

I disagree with both for lack of concrete, physical evidence. If the 9/11 Truth movement is to pursue truth, it can't decide that evidence is not important.

To date, no sound physical evidence that the towers were demolished intentionally has withstood the scientific debunkings nor been able to refute the massive evidence against that theory.

So what you really have to agree on is that truth has to be demonstrated conclusively with physical evidence, even if it overturns your beliefs. Right?

Anonymous - how fucking

Anonymous - how fucking stupid are you? The physical evidence was removed by the perps. Duh. Your masters believe in there on too many people on this earth - why don't you please them (and me) and kill yourself you pathetic loser.

It's not easy being an Anonymous CIA Chimp..

Keep posting here you coward. Hate to know what you must think of yourself everytime you look in the mirror. Having fun yet? Hope you're getting paid for the quantity and the not quality of your posts.

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

The Secret Service at Booker

The Secret Service at Booker Elementary: The Dog That Did Not Bark

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-- James Madison

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-- George W. Bush

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, farewell address

What are the times of the 9-11 attacks?
WTC 1 ? 8:46am
WTC 2 ? 9:02am
Pentagon ? 9:40am

lets begin with the first story or timeline the Bush/Pnac adminstration told us about 9-11
It has NORAD StandDown written all over it! but these are not my words, these
are the words of the people at the highest levels of our Govt.

Does this make sence, the acting Joint Chief of Staff Genral Richard Meyers (highest position for military personel in our govt) did not order to send up intercepts until after the Pentagon was attacked, 90 min after first known hijacked plane and nearly an hour after the first attack on the WTC at 8:46am?

Below are 5 Articles or papers that if you just read one of them will prove that
9-11 was a False Flag operation lets make that 6 with the first about
False Flag operations

An Introduction to False Flag Terror


ps I highly recomend you listen to David Ray Griffin interview and read his new

The Secret Service at Booker Elementary: The Dog That Did Not Bark
Posted Sep 2, 2006 03:01 PM PST
Category: 911

As the government thrashes around trying to prop up the 9-11 mythology, one of the questions they cannot answer and will not even attempt to answer is this one:
With a supposedly unknown number of planes flying across the nation and crashing into buildings, with Bush's presence at Booker Elementary School announced in the media three days in advance, and with an airport just four miles away, how did the United States Secret Service know that Bush was safe where he sat reading about goats? How did the United States Secret Service know that they were not making targets of all those teachers and children by keeping them in that room with the President? How did the United States Secret Service know that they did not need to drag Bush from that room and toss him into the back of his armored limousine? How did the United States Secret Service KNOW FOR A FACT that President Bush was not a target that day?

Because they knew in advance what the targets would be.


MP3 download: David Ray Griffin Shreds NORAD Tapes
Submitted by Reprehensor on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 6:51am. Dr. David Ray Griffin | FAA | Guns and Butter | NORAD
Yesterday, August 30, 2006, on KPFA's "Guns and Butter" radio program, host Bonnie Faulkner featured a new interview with David Ray Griffin: THIS IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED LISTENING. The recent Vanity Fair piece and the NORAD tapes are thoroughly deconstructed and shown to be rife with anomalies;

The NORAD Audio Tapes: Real or Faked?

Interview with Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding his most recent article, "9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify the 9/11 Commission Report?" Griffin's article, written primarily in response to Vanity Fair Magazine's, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes" by Michael Bronner in their September 2006 issue, deconstructs the preposterous argument that NORAD was not notified by the FAA of hijacked airliners until they had struck their targets or crashed, and that the only jets the military scrambled were in response to a flight that did not exist. Griffin takes a close look at NORAD's audio tapes, on whose authenticity these claims depend.


The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11

....What is NORAD hiding with these conflicting notification times, and absurd "scalded ape" statements? Remarkably, it is possible that the story of fighters scrambling from Otis could be a complete fabrication. Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers was the acting head of the US military on 9/11 because the Chairman was out of contact on an international flight. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Two days after 9/11, under oath and in front of a Congressional committee, Myers was asked when the order to scramble planes was first given. He responded, "That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck [at 9:37]." [Myers Senate Confirmation Hearing, 9/13/01] If true, the claim that fighters were ordered scrambled at 8:46 is incorrect by almost one hour! This idea was not simply Myers's confused recollection. The next day, NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder also claimed that no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. Only then did the military realize the scope of the attack and order fighters into the air. [Boston Globe, 9/15/01 (D)] NORAD's current story of two fighters being scrambled at 8:46 was first reported on CBS Evening News on September 14, hours after Snyder agreed with Myers's assertions. [CBS, 9/14/01] But even after that, in early October 2001, NORAD commander General Ralph Eberhart stated, "We did not anticipate this threat would take off from inside the United States and it would be a matter of double-digit minutes" to respond. [AP, 10/7/01] So in other words, even though NORAD fighters were supposed to be able to take to the sky within 15 minutes of being ordered to do so, NORAD claimed it was unable to respond unless it was warned more than an hour (or does he mean 99 minutes?) in advance!.....


Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales

The First Version of the Official Story

On 9/11, however, that did not happen. Why not? Where was the military? The military's first answer was given immediately after 9/11 by General Richard Myers, then the Acting Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD. They both said, independently, that no military jets were sent up until after the strike on the Pentagon. That strike occurred at 9:38, and yet American Airlines Flight 11 had shown two of the standard signs of hijacking, losing both the radio and the transponder signal, at 8:15. This means that procedures that usually result in an interception within "10 or so minutes" had not been carried out in 80 or so minutes.

That enormous delay suggested that a stand-down order, canceling standard procedures, must have been given. Some people started raising this possibility.


Peer-Reviewed Paper

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin


Whom should we trust?

Bottom line: Trust Jones completely and don't question his motives. If anyone questions Jones' motives, don't listen to them, especially if they make sense. "Let us not tolerate wild conspiracy theories." Translation: Let us not tolerate anyone who questions the work of Steven E. Jones. After all, only real science can stand up to scrutiny.

(adopted from theSaiGirl):

(4) Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

This is the art and science of limited hangouts and damage control. This is the sphere of the gatekeepers. This is high-frontier COINTELPRO turf. This is where we see the manipulation of actual truth, (limited truth) in the service of the Big Lie. This zone is where we tend to be taken in.

This is the zone that the mass media is designed and structured to exploit.

Because we are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to salivate on even the most trivial occasion when MSM features a blurb about "9/11 conspiracy"... no matter how distorted.

Like the victims of Stockholm syndrome, we are physiologically conditioned to feel gratification when the TV or the New York Times deigns to even acknowledge our existence.

In the same way, we are tempted to follow anyone who is preaching to the choir, wherever they may take us.

And that is exactly how this thing is set up.

Just go back and look at those cartoons they put out there.

And tell me that there aren't millions of Americans, as we sit here now, who KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job, but would prefer to avoid the implications of the entire truth, in the grand scope and scale of the whole false-flag religion, with each new event... The half-truth is far more comfortable than reality.

* People embrace the lie willingly (standing behind a false prophet).
Sometimes doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
* Or they embrace the limited hangout (distracted by what's popular).
Occasionally doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

That's how moral ambiguity, rationalizing willful blind ignorance and deliberate denial becomes a means of controlling whole societies.

That's what they count on: that people will not abandon a secure and comfortable lie, for the dangerous and uncertain implications of a hideous truth.

They calculate that people would rather follow a false prophet than to think for themselves. When folks begin to think for themselves, they bring in a manager to "remind" them of their loyalty to a false prophet.


"Bottom line: Trust Jones completely and don't question his motives. If anyone questions Jones' motives, don't listen to them, especially if they make sense. "Let us not tolerate wild conspiracy theories." Translation: Let us not tolerate anyone who questions the work of Steven E. Jones. After all, only real science can stand up to scrutiny."

That's a prescription for totalitarianism.

One should hold Steven Jones to the same standards as anyone else - he nor anyone else deserves special treatment. It is your attitude that leads to disaster by giving someone carte blanche - and one who is not even a qualified expert in the subject matter - to say what he wants.

Steven Jones knows this. He and Fetzer know that people are out there who unquestionably believe and trust him so that he does not have to defend those things he claims are true but which have been firmly debunked - like his thermite/thermate theory.

Many of us are true skeptics and question everything. If you choose to "believe" without evidence, you make possible the existence of those whose intent and motives are nefarious.

Re-think your position in the name of the truth.

Well said Michelle

That is a spot on evaluation.That is mainly the first impression I get now;The more I investigate,the more this rings true.
There are many COINTELPRO working within the 9/11 movement to disrupt,mislead, and distract all of us from the truth. The Neocons have left nothing out in this all-out assault for oppression and control. We all have to be VERY aware and informed to not be mislead.

Who should we trust.........

Trust those who point to the physical evidence and ALL aspects of the 9/11 lies.

Anyone who calls what happened at the Pentagon a "HoneyPot" is leading you away from exposing the murderers and toward the easiest to cover-up.


Vinnie S:
Now that you mention it, the first time I ever saw the term "HoneyPot" was when GeorgeWashington told us why we needed to say that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Hmmmm...

Reichstag fire.

How Hitler Became a Dictator


false flag
with suspending civil liberties immediately afterword.

Welcome back GW!

Maybe this will help;

How To Spot a Spy

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out. 2) A lot of time is wasted 3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged 4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:"You're dividing the movement."

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.
The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda 2) To side-track the discussion 3) To interrupt repeatedly 4) To feign ignorance 5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.


Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites) 2) Print flyers in English only. 3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares. 4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support 5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing. 6) Confuse issues. 7) Make the wrong demands. 8) Compromise the goal. 9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time.


1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement. 2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble. 3) Encourage militancy. 4) Want to taunt the authorities. 5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values. 6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent. 7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.


1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything. 2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data). 3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend. 4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.


Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.


ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.

Anonymous..you have a shadow spook..and he's an idiot

He tends to say stupid things,exactly what the government says. I suppose he fully believes in the Popular Non-Science Mechanics article debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists wholeheartedly.
Let Me put it this way,just because the magazine cover said scientificly researched on the cover doesn't necessarily make it true.
Who was the main consultant in that piece? Benjamin Chertoff? Is he a scientist? He definatly is a cousin of Top Security Cop Michael Chertoff. Doesn't that just reek of bias? That shoots your BS right in the ass. Do us all a favor and go play on the highway.