New Website: 9/11 Truth Europe

9/11 Truth Europe Opens

We want to announce the opening of a new European 9/11 Truth website,

We wanted to create the site to be a place to find the different resources
about the truth movement in Europe and also to be a place to inform what is
happening in Europe.

The site is just up and running and we would like to invite others to be
active with The page does not have much of anything yet and
we need your help to make this site great.

Mikael Cromsjö
9/11 Truth Europe

Best news I have had all day

I went to the website to register and had to send an email about how to become a member.


you really need to do some

you really need to do some work on the 'extraordinary facts' that section is very lacking and needs alot more hard work. it is very lacking in detail and one of the facts is the thing about the hijackers still being alive.

the problem with that is around a month ago the BBC edited that article and i guess that makes it null and void.

stick to the points that are valid. sibel edmonds etc, stick to the non-physically stuff because thats where the info is that will change peoples opinions.

Here we go again.

stick to the non-physically stuff??
where do you get these ideas? nothing liek an anonymous expert to give advice on the kind of evidence that works. Building 7 collapse. Molten steel. Eyewitnesses to explosions. Freefall speed. Huge pieces of steel embedded in buildings 400 feet away. No freakin' plane at the Pentagon. Silverstein's insurance. the occupants and contents of Building 7.

Just for starters.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


i only say stick with the

i only say stick with the non-physical stuff because i find that people just are less inclined to believe it. if its on a bit of paper and incriminating they are more inclined to listen. look, i rekon it was CD, but thats NOT what i find is most effective...what they reply to that is, why didnt we know about this 5 years ago, where as there is still 9/11 stuff coming out through the form of wistleblowers. the CD explanation is good, but it does not get across the motive and who did it, who blocked the investigaions etc.
that is the incriminating stuff.

if you are good at explaining the physics of controlled demolitions, good for you, but dont go crying when the people u r talking to dont have a physics degree and dont understand/believe you just because you yourself are not a professor

don't misunderestimate the soft bigotry of low expectations

Most people who are willing to listen have no problem with the physics--it ain't exactly rocket science (nothing at all to do with space in fact!)

They say things like yeah, that's what I THOUGHT when it happened. This makes no sense! When you then explain that molten steel was found and not explained, when you tell them about building 7, that is when most people see the light. Then if they care to learn more you can fill them in on some of the weird side issues like Sibel, etc.

I really don't see how he said/she said intrigues of whistleblowers like Sibel carry any more weight with people. people can be lying. Falling buildings don't lie.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


journalism 101 - to inform the public

Who, What, When, How, Why

You need all of them to be effective...

Who goes to the documentation, see Dr. David Ray Griffin, The Complete 9/11 Timeline, PNAC, Mineta Testimony, Norad Tapes, etc...

What is the practice of False Flag Terrorism and the current cover-up (MSM), see Webster Tarpley and Terrorstorm for the FFT and Zwicker for MSM, etc...

How goes the observations of the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, see, Dr. Steven Jones (Thermate/Superthermites), Journal of 911 Studies (Why Indeed, Sesmic Evdence, Conservation of Momentum, etc)...

Why is the one that is the most removed from what I understand at least, and to me is potentially complex and simple.  

Focusing on one and only one of those questions may be enough to pry the minds free, but if you tie them together you get bigger picture, which is what information ultimately tries to communicate, and convey a solid foundation for understanding.

Just my 2cents. 

all you guys

need to go to this site and give your 2 cents

Anybody that could take the time to go to this website and leave a few post under the thread listed as "9/11" in the "open discussions" section on this forum, I would appreciate it.

of course

I agree with your basic point there, img. A lot of people accuse me of being one track minded but anyone who goes to my website can see that while its focus is the demolitions I do provide more background than that. Obviously it's one thing to make people experts in the subject, it's another to pique their interest into finding out more. My philosophy is that I don't want people to depend on me or anyone else as a single source of information. Because my site just lays out the basics I hope it encourages people to do their own research, which I also say outright. Now, my approach may be a waste of time, I have no evidence that it has the intended effect. But those are my two cents and added to yours we have four. I think people should collect at least a buck and change before making up their own minds. :)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I am with ya Real Truther.

I am with ya Real Truther.

Just know the proponents of the OCT have their script polished, and have force feed it into the minds of the masses (repeatedly - catapulting the propaganda).

If you only swap out one piece of the OCT the remaining lies leave a retreat for those that are fearful of the implications of CD.

Full Court Press...

Thanks Jon

2 excellent post, Thank you very much.



"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I hear ya... it's all about the narrative

A narrative is more like a tapestry than a house of cards. Removing one card can make the whole thing fall. They did not build a house of cards, as much as we would like to think it could be that easy to topple. They wove a tapestry of lies and our job is to loosen and remove as many threads as possible so as to provide a clear picture of what lies behind it. Even if people see something through the holes we manage to poke in the official narrative, they still prefer to cling to the familiar tapestry pattern than begin to worry about what may lie beneath. Hence this aspect of the strategy of disinfo--muddying the waters keeps people from wanting to "go there".

At the same time, once we understand that we must cover all the bases, or initiate a full cour press as you put it (sports metaphors are good--speak the language of the people you want to reach!) we should not forget the fundamentals of propaganda. One of those is repeat repeat repeat (repeat.) Use simple and strong language and be consistent. I know it sounds childish for me to constantly refer to Judy Wood as Judy Jetson, but repeating that will make it stick and that helps to simplify something that the disinfo wants not to be simple.

As much as I hate engaging in these sorts of tactics, this is one case where fighting fire with fire actually makes sense. Anyone who wants to be a good activist, not just a dedicated one but a really good one, should learn as much as possible about how the big boys go about their manipulation. It's not complicated and in order to counter it effectively you want to know what they themselves think is important. Also never underestimate the importance of the classics--like Dale Carnegie's how to win friends and influence people. Classic doesn't necessariuly mean it's good, it just means it's influential. If you read that book you'll be able to spot people using the methods it describes no problem. Then if you really want to have fun you can lay traps for them based on what you know.

This is the difference between book learning and real learning--book learners can go very far as long as they are playing within a system that follows the rules set out in the books they studied. Change it up a bit and force them to come up with creative solutions and they fail. A conspiracy as big as 9/11 relies on LOTS of book learners who are basically following instructions. As they study the reality of our movement we will change it, and they will always be a few steps behind. What we need is for the movement to be a sort of unconscious, self-sustaining and evolving conspiracy. A counter-conspiracy based on promoting the truth in the face of an effort to unlawfully contain it.

We need to make sure that we are building something with the ability to outlast any of us individually. The more ways you can figure out to do that without letting on what you're doing, the more successful we'll be.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I agree

Guys like Real Truther become nearly hysterical if you attempt to challenge their belief systems. They will accuse sincere people of being shills because they do not agree with their conclusions and will challenge their beliefs.

I have mixed feelings about this. I suppose that some activists like Real Truther are the equivalent of religious fundamentalists or extreme right-wing patriots who feel that you must not, under any circumstance whatsoever, deviate from the party line. To do so is an indication of disloyalty or heresy or being a government shill.

This, of course, is nonsense. While it is important to keep providing evidence, where available, that controlled demolition is a fact, or that a missile hit the Pentagon (which I do not believe) or that United 93 was shot down, etc etc…. I also think this particular approach to activism is dead wrong.

No, the evidence for these things are, by far, NOT conclusive. There is no general consensus in the public or even among loyal 9/11 activists regarding what happened at the Pentagon, or to United 93 or even to the tower collapses themselves.

Real Truther’s single minded obsession with all things associated with controlled demolition has led him to be divisive with others in the movement, to discount and discredit the value of alternate avenues of research (as he does here with Sibel, and has done with Pakistan), and has pushed him into almost a fundamentalist defensive position where he will not tolerate the existence on these message boards of alternate viewpoints. He becomes sullen and angry, personally insulting, accusatory and ultimately absolutist in his positions.

And, while most of us agree that the case for controlled demolition is a strong one, he takes this too far, insisting that theories are facts, cherry picking his facts, and refusing to entertain mature and level headed discussions on such subjects as the feasibility and probability of Jones’ thermite theories, molten steel, etc etc, instead opting to forward his own amateur opinions as scientific fact.

Real Truther is fond of talking about “common sense” dictating the truth, while failing to recognize that many of his conclusions hinge upon science that is FAR from conclusive or gaining unified support in the scientific and engineering communities.

The consensus among the real experts simply is not there. Activists like Real Truther never seem to understand that INSISTING that the evidence is air-tight and conclusive does not impress anyone. It may garner some applause from the choir, but ultimately it is the discriminating and highly intelligent demographic groups that must be convinced that 9/11 must be investigated.

Ultimately it is Real Truther’s credibility that becomes questionable because he is claiming to know the truth, where it is just impossible for him to know exactly what the truth is. I feel that he does a disservice to the cause with this approach, and by tearing down evidence that is VERIFIABLE – like Sibel and Able Danger and Pakistan and the San Diego cell and foreknowledge and money trails and insider trading, he is diverting people from the most IMPORTANT evidence, because any ONE of these smoking guns could unravel the whole story should people ever be forced to testify.

Simply declaring the Pakistan evidence is not valid is once again replacing facts with opinions. All a REAL activist need know is that there is evidence that needs to be confronted and exposed. When Real Truther declares that the Pakistan evidence is just a plot to scapegoat Muslims, he is giving an OPINION, not a fact, and it is not unreasonable to question WHY these boards are inhabited by activists who seek to divert us away from Sibel and Pakistan and Able Danger and the Norad testimony, instead opting to direct people into pointless debates about hypothetical theories about what may or may not have been molten at ground zero.

Think about it.

Is that you, John?

Debate the issues, leave the personalities out of it, or you sound like a big, fat, f*cking shill.


But, your accusations of shill are a sure-fire sign of organized disruption.

Nico Haupt was one of the first activists in this movement to start the “shill” game, calling everyone from to Michael Ruppert to nearly every legitimate member of this movement a government shill at one time or another. You are carrying on a fine tradition.

You and Real Truther use the “SHILL” card all too often as a weapon, not as a statement of fact. You use it to smear people who do not appreciate your particular brand of obnoxious debate and opinions. You use it against anyone who stands up to your particular brand of bullying people.

Chasing away people with opposing viewpoints, claiming they are “shills,” is disruptive and counter-productive. Attempting to ruin the reputations of legitimate contributors to this movement with accusations regarding their integrity because they will not line up 100% behind your opinions is inexcusable.

Perhaps you didn't notice I wrote "sound like."

I think anytime an anonymous poster so persistently criticizes someone who is registered here, a suspicion arises that the "anonymous" is a shill or someone's personal troll. If you would like to register and post under a name I would be a lot less likely to suspect you.

Regarding organized disruption: ultimately, no one can be certain about the good faith of anyone online. However, in this case, I know that I'm not "organized disruption," so what am I to make of an anonymous who implies that I am?

I guess I should also mention

that when someone lies about their identity, they get no benefit of the doubt regarding their good faith.

What nonsense

I do not want to choose sides in this dog fight but…..

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You criticize people for posting anonymously, yet prove you do not respect people’s identities either. You personally attack “John” as a “shill” whenever he posts using his real name, and by accusing him of being “anonymous” whenever he may or may not be posting at all.

Just can’t win with you – right?

I don't remember

ever calling him a shill when he posted under his real name -- it's quite possible, though. If I did, it's because he pulled a bizarre stunt in which, even though registered, he posted as "anonymous." I've never done that. I stand behind anything I say, post under the same alias here and everywhere else I post, and can be PM'd by anyone who wishes to know my real name.


You say? I'll have to remember that...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You will have to....

We will wait for you to admit that you are a government disinfo guy. Like Alex Floum, aka, George Washington.

But that wouldn\'t be very profitable.

I am a "government disinfo guy"...


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Better yet...

I am just as much a "government disinfo guy" as GW.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I hate message board nazis

They always ruin good debates

Now who is a liar?

You don't remember?

Funny that.

You see, this is where your

You see, this is where your credibility skates on micro thin ice.

Cass. backed off , but you don't want to even try to come to a middle-ground. I might agree with some of what you say in another context but your framing is off, mate.

Can you not see how, shooting your mouth off, apparently thriving on drama AND insisting on anonyimity is a sure reciepe for suspicion?

Seriously, this should be screamingly dead obvious.

fair point. it is easy to

fair point.

it is easy to get authoritarian in your beliefs after they have so fundamentally been altered. i find myself doing it and it isnt a good look.

I think that anyone trying to lower the importance of the paper trail and hone in solely on the CD theories damaging, as i fing most people, even truthers base their conviction on the CD. Some good factual background info cements things i find.

If they believe its al wierd co-incidences

theyre a co-incidence theorist.

how do i get to vote on

how do i get to vote on peoples posts?

Ah, yes. Use physical evidence + testimonial & documentary

evidence all together.

How would the BBC's editing of said article, 5 years later,

make the fact that some hijackers are still alive null & void?

Do you have a link to this supposed editing?

heh, no, i played no part in

heh, no, i played no part in the editing, i am strongly against it, there is something quite orwellian about how they can go back and edit the news. And anyway, there are other stories about hijackers alive on other site with other sources so why not state those and even give links?

I meant Null and Void in the minds of people who arent aquainted with the current circumstance we now find ourselves in.


They never 'edited' the article as the liar/idiot states, they added a few words under the picture of Al Shehri . They also added a note in the news editors blog that reads, " We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

Just what does the fact that the omission commision or fbi never questioned the "identity of the nineteen hijackers" supposed to mean? I'll tell you what it means to me, they don't want to question their identity.

"They never 'edited' the

"They never 'edited' the article as the liar/idiot states"

erm..... you later go on to say:

"they added a few words under the picture of Al Shehri"

to me that is editing, where exactly did you catch me lying, some people are so up tight.

I was replying to the anonymous idiots lies.

Unless you're one in the same...

The liar/idiot states: "the problem with that is around a month ago the BBC edited that article and i guess that makes it null and void."

Sorry, that is wrong.

The article was never ediited, or retracted. They added some text to a photo, not the article itself.

Weak "Facts"

- That UA93 was shot down
- That the twin tower were demolished by explosives
- That a missile hit the Pentagon (rather than flight AA77)
- That WTC-7 was demolished by a controlled demolition
- That a 'stand-down' order was given to the US airforce on 9/11

This is what they are focusing on?

Sorry, but there are days when I wonder if this sort of obsession over physical evidence was an intentional disruption technique.

You have misstated & misrepresented the physical evidence, much

like a shill would. I wonder why that is?

LOL. I'll Bite, Troll.

"- That UA93 was shot down"

Beside the fact that an eight to ten mile debris field & eyewitness accounts prove positive it was shot down, we have this.

"Reversing all previous statements, The Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down flight 93

Read into the article below for the following section:

"He compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington."

Cellucci's statement thus reverses all of Washington's previous statements about Flight 93. (Other than the two times that Rumsfeld admitted that Flight 93 was shot down..) "

I wouldn't have assumed you

I wouldn't have assumed you were a troll--except you labeled the listed facts as "weak", and your quotes around "facts" imply you don't think they are.

SO I'll give you the samne question I gave Ezzie--and I never got an answer to, and we'll see how you do:

Where in the NIST report do they state and explain the mechanism for simultaneous, systematic total structural failure of the WTC1, 2 &7 buildings, that would cause them to fall at near free fall speeds as visually recorded?

Again, what is the MECHANISM for simultaneous structural failure?

I won't hold my breath.

Good thing I didn't hold my

Good thing I didn't hold my breath...

Hey, no fair Jenny, give "anon" an easier one....


Where did the energy come from that turned almost all of the Twin Towers that was not steel into fine dust?


What caused 100's of human bone fragments to end up on the roofs of nearby buildings?


Please explain William Rodriguez's story in a way that doesn't confirm CD?

I won't hold my breath, but I will put up more signs.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well, y'all.

Philip Zelikow, 9/11 Commission liar, resigns as Rice's "senior

aid" and will return to University teaching:


Brushed by Woodward's book, but for some reason, failed to mention that Philip Zelikow said, "that no witness before the commission had drawn attention to a July 10 meeting at the White House, nor described the sort of encounter portrayed in Mr. Woodward’s book", however, as we found out later, "former CIA Director George Tenet presented the briefing to commission member Richard Ben Veniste and executive director Philip Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters on Jan. 28, 2004."

"Ben-Veniste confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers that Tenet outlined for the 9/11 commission the July 10 briefing to Rice in secret testimony in January 2004. He referred questions about why the commission omitted any mention of the briefing in its report to Zelikow, the report's main author. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers."

Do ya think this could be the reason for his resignation? Nah...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

That Zelikow & Rice are closer than two peas in pod on 9/11

and Iraq!

By the way @sshole...

You're a little late.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Great news, this subject and

Great news, this subject and others relating need to be expanded to all parts! Not only that it means all the disclaimers will have an extra work load to peddle their neo-con justifications! See you there!

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think, Decide!