9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Speculation

I liked this, so I thought i'd share it:

(Source: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=250)

Author: truthmover

Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements.

When I first got into this, I didn't know which websites to trust. The big challenge at the time was 911review.com vs 911review.org. I soon realized that I could look at the links on each page to see quite clearly who these projects had decided to endorse. The line was quite distinct between the two, and I knew one of them had to be a shady enterprise.

The same pattern can be seen today, and the two sides haven't changed much since then. Now we have 911research vs. 911researchers, and the Scholars for Truth vs the Scholars for Truth and Justice. Take a look at the two lists of web links below to get a sense of what I'm suggesting. (Notice that - scholarsfor911truth/911scholars.org/scholarsfor911truth.org - the Fetzer scholars website is three of the links in the second list, and going to that site you see that there is a new banner link to 911researchers, a Seigel/Haupt production.)

I'll put this another way. Paul Thomson, Nafeez Ahmed, Barrie Zwicker, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin...or Dave VonKleist, Rick Seigel, Jim Fetzer, Nico Haupt, Judy Wood, and David Shayler? I'm over-generalizing to make a point. I have come to think that these people are really not on the same team. We can't miss the fact that all the people supporting the most speculative evidence are supporting one another.

THIS BRINGS ME TO THE POINT: We need to stop trying to prevent a split in the movement that is inherent to our having been infiltrated by those with different priorities. This split has been there since the beginning and its not going away.

This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. THERE IS ANOTHER MOVEMENT, ADOPTING OUR THEMES, THAT HAS NO PARTICULAR DEDICATION TO THE TRUTH. I'll call them the '9/11 speculation movement.'

We can't let our efforts be undermined by people on a different course. I think the best hope we have is to stick together, not get distracted, stay on message, and keep this obvious coalition of government agents and the logically challenged at arms distance. But while we keep them at arms distance, we are also competing for the attention of the curious. Our movement must be stronger than theirs and more compelling.

Group A: (From 911truth.org)

9/11 Petition & Complaint--Justice for 9/11
9-11 Research
9-11 Review
9/11 Reading Room
9/11 Visibility Project
911Keymaster/Willie Rodiguez
Center for Research on Globalization
Citizens for Legitimate Government: 9/11 Exposition Zone
Complete 9/11 Timeline
Daniel Ellsberg Whistleblower Project
National Whistleblower Center
National Security Archive
Project on Government Secrecy
Deception Dollars
Emergency Truth Convergence
Family Steering Committee
Feal Good Foundation
Global Outlook magazine
Guns and Butter Archives
INN World Report
Journal of 911 Studies
Knowledge Driven Revolution
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
NY 9/11 Truth
Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee
Peter Dale Scott
Petition to Senate to Investigate 9/11 Oddities
Radio Free Oklahoma
September 11 Victims
Summer of Truth
Taking Aim
Tyranny Alert
Watchdog: 9/11 Citizens Watch
WTC Environmental Organization

Group B: (From 911researchers.com, not 911research)

911 Eyewitness
Rick Siegel
Judy Wood
No More Games
Reopen 911
Gerard Holmgren


You have chosen a kind moniker for this 'B' list.

Your point that the movement never did split is excellent. There is another movement, with different goals.

I just cut and pasted this - source is identified.

We could just as easily call it 9/11 Truth vs 9/11 Disinfo. Or perhaps 9/11 Fantasy... To quote the movie Half Baked out-of-context, "I think it's more complex than that."

Fascism Lite - Now with 75% less mass murder and 25% more public appeal!

Nice work....

....this is helpful to have broken down....

I hope it gets continually refined and updated with others' input...

broeckers.de and hintergrund.de

Both belong on the first list, for the most part. Team8+ is a Nico-initiated group but some interesting research has come out of it.

I've noticed what you are saying: it's certainly easy to find two different sites with 50, 60 links to other sites and no overlap between them.

My point of view

as member of the german 911 truth movement...

Christian C. Walther s also a loose associate to team8+. And he is most probably the best researcher I know.

Nico is strange, indeed. Even Gerhard Wisnewski, the maker of "911 Case Unsolved" for the german WDR, who interviewed Nico for his docu, is not able to make a sure guess about him.

Andreas Hauß /Medienanalyse is trustworthy, but his personal point of view to the demolotion hypothesis is annoying, to say at best. He waste energy, e.g. in the democraticunderground forum, against 911 truthers who adress this issue. I've discussed that with him, he stands to his line. So be it.

Mathias Bröckers has a clear message: Put the points on the table we can prove (not the demolition or the Pentagon mystery). Aka the origin and tracking of the hijackers.
I like that for good reasons.
We have a very intelligent discussion in the last days over at http://www.writersblog.de/bröckers about this.
The tenor of the posters there: Indeed all the points belong on the table, if the oct crumbles because of the Shanksville, Pentagon or WTC anomalies, so be it...

they forgot

they forgot libertyforum

thats where the real shit happens

you forgot some important sites


...but i guess that's because the issue isn't black and white, as your worthless blog suggests.

thanks for the plug, wolf!

I also think the idea that ther3e are two categories--the good stuff and the bad stuff, is much to simplistic. It speaks to the whole divide and conquer, with us or against us, blue state red state, etc., series of false dichotomies that are used to limit people's thinking.

To really understand the disinfo campaign at work here, we can't just identify the obvious disinfo and say "see, all these are fake disinfo" thus implying that anything not on that list is genuine. There is indeed disinfo meant to discredit (webfairy Nico et al) but there is also disinfo meant to mislead and distract ("legitimate" researches who dismiss the Pentagon or CD as legitimate issues).

Sometimes the disinfo is aimed at the whole issue, sometimes just at part of it. There are a number of "legitimate" sites and individuals who never, ever, mention the extensive body of evidence documenting probable Israeli complicity in the attacks. If that were not bad enough, that issue is further split into those who think it should be avoided because it is divisive and those who think it should be avoided because it is a red herring, that Israel had nothing to do with 9/11. Then we also have those who present the case of Israeli involvement but with an intentionally "anti-semitic" tone so that the öther side" can point to it and say "see, people who bring up Israel are bigots". I could (but won't) for example, create a fake Zionist website that made a big deal about accusing Patsystan of being behind the whole thing, then others, defending Patsystan, could point to my website and say see? anyone who criticizes Patsystan is playing along with this rabid Zionist scheme. I think it's telling that not only has nobody done soemthing like that but that virtually no one stands up to defend Pakistan like happens with Israel. Could it be because AIPAC is stronger than APPAC? Could it be because APPAC doesn't even exist?



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I'm really trying...


I've really been trying to play it cool with you. I've been going out of my way to suggest the validity of your concerns as you continue to push into me. And I'm starting to feel that your comments come more from an ideological difference between us than one of strategy. I doesn't seem like you posted to this thread because you spent any time considering what I had suggested and wanted to offer thoughtful critique. You came here to, well for one thing, talk a lot about Israel.

Your post does not address my premise. Saying that the movement can't be neatly divided into two groups, something that is painfully obvious, does not refute what I found when I looked at the lists of links at dozens of websites. I did not find that the whole movement was divided into two camps. I found that there were two prominent camps that appear to be directly at odds.

I was wondering. If you have some big ideological or strategic issue with me or TruthMove, could you maybe compose your thoughts and offer them in a manner than might provide some educational benefit. I acknowledge that we all have something to learn from one another.

You are correct.

"it's more complex than that" :)

I hadn't torn this article apart entirely before I reposted this, I admit. But it's sparked a nice discussion :)

Fascism Lite - Now with 75% less mass murder and 25% more public appeal!

Real Truther wrote "Patsystan"




Right up there with "Faux News".....


(1) Who in the blue hell are you?
(2) This is the only blog entry I've ever posted on here, so it is probably "worthless" - and this was just a cut-and-paste of someone else's writing (see top - source is identified)
(3) You're right, it's always more complex than black and white. But the article was interesting - hence why I reposted it
(4) Your tone is uncalled for.
(5) Who in the blue hell are you?

Fascism Lite - Now with 75% less mass murder and 25% more public appeal!

A bit of confusion

Once again, dissyness re-posted an article by Jules from another forum. And that article suggested that there have for some time been two prominent groups in opposition, and not that everyone in the movement neatly fit into two categories, or that these lists of websites exclusively represented good and bad people.

Hope that clears things up a bit for everyone.

PLEASE READ: Just to clarify

Thanks dizzyness for re-posting this here. I thought this info and perspective might be good to share. The TruthMove forum often posts stories from 911Blogger, and its nice to see an exchange happening.

Just so everyone is clear on the point: The lists in this post are from 911Truth.org and 911researchers.com. I did not create these lists, and they do not represent lists of good and bad sites exclusively.

I presented them solely to demonstrate that these two sites have very different lists of recommended links. This does suggest something about their differing priorities, and this distinction is mirrored in many other places.

I offered my interpretation of some data I was looking at. Every one should feel free to examine that data for themselves.
International Truth Movement

You're welcome

My pleasure. And some of the commentary I've received here shows how much (or in some cases how little) attention those reading are actually paying.
Fascism Lite - Now with 75% less mass murder and 25% more public appeal!

two groups!? please, it ain't that easy

to divide the 911 sites into two camps is pure stupidity. do you think that disinfo/shills/misleading info and the like only subscribe to group b's crap? it's a bit more sophisticated than that, my friends. this blog serves no insightful, meaningful, or worthwhile purpose.

Listening and responding

Wow, I feel so stupid. :)

I'm aware of how sophisticated 'it' is. I'm also aware of the fact that anyone trying to establish credibility in the movement would not only be advocating the most suspect evidence. That wouldn't look credible.

Both lists have their strengths and weaknesses. One is a lot stronger than the other. Don't you think so? I find a lot of the research and speculation happening at most of the sites on both lists to be fascinating. I usually learn something when I'm there.

I didn't suggest that everyone is group B was necessarily disinfo. I asked a valid question, and came to a conclusion based on my observations. Why does it seem like when you go to 9/11 truth websites, that the lists of links you find seem to suggest that there are two relatively exclusive groups, apparently not trying to promote one another. If you haven't gone around and checked this out yet, I recommend it.

As others in here have confirmed my experience of finding that large lists like these at other websites seem to break down roughly into two somewhat exclusive camps, I don't think my point is wholly without merit.

And so then what's with the super attitudinal condescension? I didn't tell you that you were stupid and unsophisticated. I sense that you are acting defensively. What's up? Do you know me? Am I supposed to know you? You act like your opinion carries weight.

I wouldn't have taken the time to write all this if I thought I was wasting my time. I hope you recognize that I'm not trying to oversimplify the movement, but merely examining the movement and reporting what I find. Maybe you didn't like what I found? Or, maybe you could offer a better interpretation of the data. But first you will have to go around to a bunch of websites, and gather the data.

International Truth Movement

i apoligize

...for nothing. and for the record, i am stupid, unsophisticated, and full of some sauerkraut dish i whipped up last night.
just for fun, i'd like to mention that mark rich (you know, clinton's buddy) is a mossad agent. why is that important? read this.

Show "Yep, you guys caught me. Mine's a shill site." by Killtown

have a cigar

Divide and conquer

But I agree: We have to call all alleged and real members of our movement to:

-put personal harrasment off the table
-not to narrow the 911 case as whole
-put all our energy to the point we all agree on- the oct is a myth

If someone like Sander has the faible for the examination of money trial, so be it. It's important, quite sure, and we need to adress it.