On Disinformation and Damaging Associations

Nearly seven years out from 9/11, and disinformation remains a persistent problem within the 9/11 Truth movement. Part of the problem has been that sites like 911blogger.com have been slow to label blatant disinformation as such. Back in April, I noted that certain topics would no longer be tolerated here. In the interim, two of these topics were introduced in a U.S. District Court in New York, setting a poor benchmark for future 9/11 Truth-related cases in New York. It's now time for a firmer, (and admittedly glaringly late), stance on Fakery, DEW, and "SBHT" syndrome, here at 911blogger.

To start, let's skip back to 9/11/2001;

"So did you hear?"

"Hear what?"

"An airplane hit the World Trade Center this morning."

"What kind? You mean, a little plane?"

"I don't know, just 'a plane'. It was on the radio."

Immediately, something didn't seem quite right. I thought that it could have been a small commuter plane, but not a jumbo, not with contemporary guidance and radar systems. No way. However, before long, the radio was delivering the news of a second plane strike. Definitely a big jet.

This was an attack.

Aircraft struck the twin towers. It's very likely that they were Boeings, and it's also probable* that they were the very Boeings that the media reported as "hijacks". It seems absurd to have to say these things, but the fact of the matter is, there is a disinformation campaign afoot, largely confined to a handful of sites and YouTube, to trick people into thinking that "no planes" hit the Towers, that the objects that hit the Towers were cloaked in holograms, or were holographs, and that digital alterations were made to broadcast footage on the fly, on 9/11.

If this were the case, then there would be no video or photographs in existence that are basically anomaly free, depicting the 2nd aircraft hitting the other WTC tower, but this is not the case;

It's just not the case.

Further, the transcribed oral histories of First Responders that were recorded in the days and weeks following 9/11 indicate strongly that debris from loaded commercial jets was in plain view in the area surrounding the towers;

Christopher Attanasio (EMT): "...we took 2nd Avenue all the way down. Upon arrival, towers one and two were both ablaze. The second plane had hit the second tower already. Both towers were totally engulfed. People were jumping out of the buildings. There was airplane fuselage and landing gear around the site. Body parts, victims' remains on the floor. There were some injuries on the street. Some cars were on fire."

John Breen (FDNY): "We did see part of -- I didn't see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did see part of the landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room."

Michael Cain (FDNY): "We parked on West Street and I guess about Albany, West Street and Albany, got out of the car and started going up West Street and there were body parts in the street. The plane wheel was in the street."

Richard Carletti (FDNY): "When we passed 10 and 10, there's a bridge that runs I guess into one of the buildings directly south of Trade Center No. 2. There's a pedestrian walkway. As we passed that, we came into the debris field. It was jet parts and body parts."

Manuel Delgado (EMS): "An explosion goes off. [Actually, this was the second plane impact. -rep] I immediately tell everyone to get out of the car and hide somewhere, go underneath something. It's interesting because, as we were there, there was a police car, I guess, on Vesey, on the corner there, and some debris comes down from whatever this explosion was, at the time we really didn't know, and it just crushes it, I mean, crushes the top front of the police car, which really scared me at that point.

Q. Could you tell if it was airplane parts?

A. It looked like an airplane part afterward, yes, it did. It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off."

Michael Donovan (FDNY): "We heard the plane briefly, the earth shook, the buildings shook, a tremendous fireball overhead. I thought there was a bomb or an explosion. A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of the airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building."

Thomas Fiztpatrick (FDNY): "I figured, as long as we didn't get hit by the plane, we were ahead of the game. The next thing I was worried about was getting hit by the parts. Various pieces of the plane were falling on the street. As we went down the street you could see parts of aircraft with stencil numbers on it and things like that. There was a wheel, or like a wheel housing or something else there in the street."

Ray Goldbach (FDNY): "The four of us got out of the car, we started to cross Broadway, and the second plane went into the other tower. I don't know what time it was, but Tom McDonald yelled something like holy shit, oh, fuck. He hit the ground out on the street. We all got up. We kept walking. I believe we went down - I don't know whether it was Dey or Cortlandt Street. We walked down that block. It was littered with airplane parts, pieces of the building."

Steve Grabher (FDNY): "...by the time we got near 2 World Trade Center people were jumping off the roof like crazy. Landing near the hotel and the street was littered with body parts. I don't know if it was from the plane or what. But there was just body parts all over the place. Chunks of meat. I saw an airplane tire. I walked past an airplane tire. What looked like an airplane tire."

Stephen Gregory (FDNY): "I saw airplane parts on West Street.

Q. How did you know they were airplane parts?

A. It looked like pieces of a plane, skin of a plane. I mean, they weren't really discernible. I couldn't say this was this part of a plane or that was that part. Just knowing a plane had hit the building and I looked and I saw it looked like the skin off a wing or a fuselage or wherever it came from.

Q. Clearly not building material?

A. No. The building material was sort of gray and you could see it, you know, how it differed from the plane."

Michael Guttenberg (Office of Medical Affairs): "The other thing that was actually evident, though, is what appeared to be some plane parts, like some circular pieces of a plane, and lots of shoes. I don't know if that was women jumping out of their – jumping out of their heels to run, but there were -- just impressed me there were no -- you know, there were no injuries on the street at that point, but there was lots of shoes all over the place and plane parts. It was the same thing in both directions."

Michael Hazel (FDNY): "We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine."


Stephen Hess (EMS): "...our initial response was seeing body parts and airplane parts all over the west side. Just traumatic to see."

Paul Hyland (FDNY): "We were coming across and we walked down. We had to go down to the command center. We carried all our tools, the bottles, everything, and as we're walking down, part of the plane engine was sitting right in the street, still burning. I said, look, this is the plane."

Robert Kimball (EMS): "Like I remember walking by with the chief, and I remember seeing the airplane engine, you know, pieces of, you know, obviously trade center all over."

John Lynn (FDNY): "I parked soon thereafter on West Street, geared up and walked along West Street, where I noticed landing gear and the evidence of some kind of explosion."

Orlando Martinez (EMS): "Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. The person who was next to her, I guess worked with her, said something hit her. It may have been the landing gear. It was a large piece of metal that was so sharp it slit her whole back open, buttocks. Her legs were exposed, bones. We boarded her as fast as we could. There was nowhere to grab her. She was too slippery, so I grabbed the hip bone. That was exposed. We just kind of picked her up, put her on the long board and we strapped her up, put her on the stretcher and took as much flesh as we could. It was just hanging all over the place, put it between her legs. Put her in the ambulance and rushed her to Beekman."

The above lady was not hit by a "holograph". She was mangled by an aircraft part. An aircraft part that came from one of the planes that crashed into the towers. It's really that simple.

One of this site's users, "SCAFFOLDRIDER", sent us photos that may reflect some of the kinds of airplane parts that the First Responders saw that morning. You have to forgive them for not grabbing pictures of the parts themselves, they had a few thousand other things on their minds. Nor were they expecting that the PsyOp of 9/11 would be extended indefinitely, attacking the verity of their experience. Here is SCAFFOLDRIDER's story;

I was there that morning of 9/11 working on a nearby roof and the following week I was asked to go to Ground Zero to help with the rigging of some of the buildings that were damaged. I worked on, 1 Liberty Plaza, Century 21 Building, Hilton Millenium Hotel, and The Federal Building.

Working at the Federal Building, it was our job to hang swing stage scaffolds from the 7th floor setback roof. When I first got up on the lower setback roof and saw the amount of debris I was amazed. Giant pieces of the World Trade Center aluminum siding were everywhere. We had to move most of them to fasten our tie-back scaffold cables. While moving one of these 7 foot pieces of aluminum I noticed what looked like an airplane part. I picked it up and it had a serial number on it and something in writing "hydraulic piston".

About a half hour later, the Postal Investigator and an FBI Agent came up to the setback roof. I was asked where exactly did I find it and not to remove anything else, especially anything spray painted in yellow paint. I was told that there were many airplane parts on the roof and most of them were identified by yellow spray paint.

Well throughout the day working on the roof I had come across the yellow paint on some objects. No one was supposed to have a camera on the Ground Zero site, but everyone had one. I had my in my work bucket and took pictures of the whole setback roof and debris.

Well, we had problems securing some tie- back cables to the setback roof and I had to go to the upper roof to see if we could run the cables up there. I had my camera and headed for the upper roof and I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a large piece of a landing gear and pieces of airplane parts all over the roof. I took many pictures and quickly left he roof.

Here are some of the photos that SCAFFOLDRIDER sent in to 911blogger.com;

Pretty persistent illusion, I would say. Most of these photos have been in the public domain since 2005. Other photos of aircraft parts are easily accessible via a google image search.

Witnesses saw the planes come in. Witnesses saw the debris in the streets. Video and photographic evidence confirms the reality of the 9/11 planes.

So those who propose that the 9/11 planes were video forgeries or "holographs" are either seriously confused, or they are purposefully promoting disinformation.

This site will not defend, support, or promote the instigators of these lies, or those who give them a platform. They are not friends of the truth. It doesn't matter if 90% of what they pump out is good. If 10% of what they are promoting is poison that is being injected into the public perception of 9/11 Truth... then they are a liability to accredited professionals laying their careers on the line to investigate 9/11, and they are an embarrassment to 9/11 activists who hit the streets in an effort to wake up the masses. Don't play dumb, unless of course, you are paid to play dumb. In which case, no amount of proof or shame will snap you out of it.

What is striking about the proponents of the above fraud, is their zeal in the face of the obvious. No matter how much proof you throw at the diehards, it won't change their brains by one synapse.

The aggressive promotion of the Fakers is matched only by the devotees of "Directed Energy Weapons" as the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

There are many problems with the DEW idea... it shouldn't actually be called a scientific hypothesis or theory. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify. It's an idea about how the Towers were demolished. Just an idea.

Physicist Greg Jenkins has written extensively about the improbability of DEW on 9/11 at the Journal of 9/11 Studies;

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center


Jenkins is also joined by Frank Legge;

"A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds"

The majority of Jenkins' work has been in the public domain since October of 2007 at the latest. It utterly deconstructs the viability of the idea of DEW on 9/11.

Since then, the so-called Hutchison Effect has been rolled out as evidence of DEW on 9/11. There is a kind of relation. Both Hutchison and the video fakers rely on dodgy video clips to make their points. If Hutchison has been "creative" with his video footage, can the same be said of the anomalous footage of the fakers? It would certainly explain a lot. It is of course possible that some bored technician at Langley is throwing bogus footage out there for the Fakers to "discover", but either way, it's bad business.

In the face of the strong arguments against DEW on 9/11, the DEW proponents only plow ahead, indifferent to reason. So very similar to the proponents of video fakery.

What has support of this idea by a handful of people done for 9/11 Truth? By far (to date) the most damaging thing has been that Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood attempted to take their ideas to court. United States District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed their complaints, with prejudice;

"Plaintiffs claim that a terrorist attack was not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex (“WTC”). According to plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers was caused by a United States secret military “directed energy weapon.” Plaintiffs’ attorney argues that “the defendants knowingly participated in the fraud of furthering the false claim that two wide-body jetliners hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.”

"All defendants ... moved to dismiss the lawsuits as being frivolous, and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. The motions to dismiss are granted and all three complaints are dismissed with prejudice."

"Plaintiffs maintain that the alleged fraudulent nature of the investigation has furthered the deception, perpetrated upon the masses, that the WTC was demolished as a result of terrorists plowing two commercial airplanes, filled with thousand of gallons of jet fuel, directly into the Twin Towers at a high rate of speed. They claim that, through the employment of psychological operations, millions were deceived into believing that the destruction was caused by a terrorist hijacking that murdered thousands of innocent people inside. Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All three plaintiffs [The third plaintiff is Ed Haas. -rep.] explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality from the capacity to do great damage such as that of destroying the World Trade Center Twin Towers in less than 10 seconds each, as occurred on 9/11/01, down to and including imposition of a disabling stun on human beings for crowd control and/or other psy ops [psychological operations] purposes.”

"Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government."

"Plaintiffs’ theories about the cause of the 9/11 disaster completely fail to state a cognizable claim for relief."

"Plaintiffs merely allege the existence of a nefarious conspiracy of epic proportion. They name all defendants as coconspirators. They therefore conclude that all defendants’ work records and the services they performed are fraudulent because they are tainted by the illegal conspiracy in which they participated. Such generalized attempts at fraud pleading fail to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b). See, United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 556-57 (8th Cir. 2006)"

The above is extracted from Judge Daniels' dismissal.

This is the bitter fruit harvested by supporting this nonsense.

Now, all of these defendants;


...have this dismissal to point to the next time some 9/11 Truth activists come calling in a New York District Court with a legal complaint alleging that something other than airplanes took down the Towers.

It's shameful.

If you are promoting this nonsense, you are no friend of the truth. If you give a platform for this nonsense, you are no friend of the truth. This site will not support you.

Finally, on a different track, there is the phenomenon of "Suddenly Blossoming Holocaust Truther" (SBHT) syndrome. Truthers who don't talk of their obsession with proving that the holocaust of WWII is a "hoax", until AFTER they have wormed their way into your community. The most clear cut example of this is of course Eric Hufschmid. (Jim Hoffman's 911review.com tells the basic tale here.)***

The general pattern is as follows, the "Holocaust Truther" makes friends and allies within your 9/11 community, even publishes a great book or video, (in Hufschmid's case, both a book and a video), and after a period of time (after the work of the Holocaust Truther has been disseminated and quoted widely) the real Truther is revealed.

What is one of the most popular 9/11 Truth videos on the street right now?

Arguably, Sofia Shafquat's "911 Mysteries".

Sofia Shafquat is currently selling "The Ernst Zundel Story" at her online store.

I repeat; One of the highest profile 9/11 Truth websites is selling an Ernst Zundel documentary. This has been going on for months.

When you consider the attention that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has paid to the 9/11 Truth movement, and AE911Truth.org in particular, you have to seriously consider the intentions of such a move.

Is Sofia Shafquat giving us a head's up about her future research?

Her store also distributes The Science and Politics of 9/11 - 2007 Conference DVD, which documents a conference in Madison, Wisconsin conducted late last summer (2007) that promoted the disinformation of the Fakers, and the non-hypothesis of DEW.

When the Financial Times of London did its first major piece on the 9/11 Truth movement, it zeroed in on the Madison conference as a wellspring of hit-piece source material;

...Fetzer was off to that seat of academic respectability, Yale University. To prepare for our meeting, I watched a DVD of a 9/11 symposium he held in his new hometown of Madison, Wisconsin last year. The star of this show was Alfred Lambremont Webre, a judge on former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad’s alternative international War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur and co-author of the Space Preservation Treaty. He delivers what might be the most momentous opening line in the history of town hall seminars. “Fellow Citizens... 9/11 was a false flag operation by an international war crimes racketeering organisation to provide a pretext to engage in a genocidal and ecocidal depleted uranium bombing of central Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq in order to secure vast oil and uranium reserves; to roll out a terror-based national security state system worldwide and ... to implement the final stages of a world depopulation policy.” There are two more “false flag” operations in the pipeline, he says. The first is the war against asteroids, the second the “war against the evil aliens”.

Hearing this, you either experience the thrill of revelation or the sinking feeling that the person you are listening to is having some kind of breakdown. Within 30 minutes, Webre has folded into the 9/11 plot the Skull & Bones society at Yale University – or the “Brotherhood of Death”, as he calls it – neocon think-thank the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothschilds, the Queen and the City of London. I wondered how all these conspiracies could be maintained without the whole conceit unravelling.

The answer, of course, is that there is only one conspiracy. Pearl Harbour, the moon landing, JFK, 9/11, the Illuminati, the Black Helicopters, Skull & Bones, chemtrails: all faces of the same demon. The plot goes all the way to the top, and all the way back in time. You could come to believe that it involves everyone except yourself – at which point it’s all over for you. And as I listened, I just waited for him to say the Word. And, inevitably, Webre brought it all back to the “international neo-Zionist organisation”.

I asked Fetzer about this as we sat in a cafe across from Yale, home of the Brotherhood of Death: how did he keep his scholars on message? “It’s obvious to me that you have to consider all the possible alternatives,” he says. “You can’t exclude any, lest, as you proceed in your investigation and eliminate hypotheses, you eliminate the true hypothesis because you’ve never allowed it to be considered.”

Yes, you CAN exclude some. The most improbable, the most unlikely, the impossible, the absurd ... grossly obvious disinformation, you CAN exclude this nonsense from your 9/11 horizons.

You can also exclude the proponents and promoters of this nonsense, because they only poison the well of 9/11 Truth.


* Independent researcher Aidan Monaghan has been having an extremely difficult time even finding out if normal aircrash protocols were followed by the NTSB or FBI which would have verified the plane parts as the specified 9/11 hijacks. His effort continues.

** Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

*** Lots of worthwhile material relating to the topic(s) at hand at Hoffman's site: http://911review.com/infowars.html


Further reading:

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories by Eric Salter

Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis by Eric Salter

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity by Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD

Three Amigos - Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer’s assault on 9/11 Truth by Jeremy Baker

Arabesque's blog.

Michael Wolsey's Special Report on COINTELPRO.

Related video:

William Schaap's expert testimony on the history of disinformation:

Thanks to...

Xenomorph, 911Veritas and arie for video advice.

And Graeme MacQueen for collating the First Responder testimony.

Sorry this took so long.


.....I've never noticed this web site promoting such stupid ideas as no planes. (Excluding what hit the pentagon) To stand behind the plain and simple fact of our justifiable unanswered questions, and our governments unwillingness to answer them should be enough in itself.
I don't like speculation, however i am not opposed to those who ask ....What if?
Maybe it would be a good idea to have a permanent post here at 9/11Blogger stating what we here believe.

this website hasn't promoted the 'stupid ideas'

but some of the posters have: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10283
"Please register NOW and come to Madison to join the cutting edge of the movement to save our planet:"

Fortunately, that kind of garbage isn't allowed here anymore.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Thanks for Posting this Rep.

Almost a year ago I put together a newsletter on this topic. The opening paragraph reads:

Dear Friends,

This month I am sending out a big THANK YOU to all the researchers and activists who have contributed so much in their self-less time and energy toward bringing the light of truth to bear on the 9-11 cover-up. Our numbers continue to grow and our influence is being more and more felt across our nation as ordinary folks begin to think the unthinkable; that 9-11 was orchestrated by rogue elements within the highest levels of our own government in order to bring about a police state here in America and to wage endless, perpetual war on a new and faceless boogie man. Make no mistake about it, we are having an effect. There are many indications that tell us this is true.

One clue to support this assertion is the number of hit pieces produced for the mainstream media which attempt to "debunk" the 9-11 Movement. Millions of dollars have been spent to counter all of our work and we should be proud knowing that none of this would have been necessary for the powers that be were it not for our work in bringing light to truth.

Other clues are out there but are more difficult to see and sort out. These clues revolve around the fact that our movement has been infiltrated at all levels by what appears to be an organized and orchestrated effort to discredit us and our work. This sort of tactic is really nothing new when it comes to our corrupt government. In fact, crimes against the Constitution by the tax payer funded intelligence agencies of America have been well documented in our country's recent history.

We would all be extremely naive if we fail to recognize that those responsible for 9-11 will spare no expense to keep the truth about what really happened on September 11th, 2001 from ever being revealed, for when that happens, they know their jig is up. As 9-11 activists, we all need to learn about the tactics and methods which are being used against us. Disinformation, misinformation, and outright attacks on hard working 9-11 and peace activists are all being used RIGHT NOW in order to discredit us, divide us, destroy our work, and eventually conquer us. We must not let this happen or we risk losing everything; our country, our lives, and our future as a free people.

In order to secure the success of our efforts, we must first become aware of, and then take the necessary steps to ensure that you are not unwittingly participating in the campaign against us. Disinformation quickly spreads as misinformation by well meaning and good people. Once you learn what disinformation is and the effect it has on any movement, you can identify it, and then remove it from your talking points, film screenings, and public meetings. This does not make you a gatekeeper! It makes you a careful and thoughtful activist who researches what he/she presents as "9-11 Truth". A campaign of education is absolutely necessary and we must all actively work to educate others about these efforts to discredit and divide us.

With that said, the bulk of this month's newsletter is devoted to education about what COINTELPRO is, its manifestations, and how we can nullify its effects. In early 2007, I recognized this need when I produced a short series of programs which became my Special Report on COINTELPRO. This series is even more relevant today. That can also be said about the links to the important information throughout this month's newsletter. With our eyes wide open, and with help from each other, we can disrupt the disruption.

Thank you.
Michael Wolsey

These statements are as true today as they were when I wrote them. Please see this, and a collection of disinformation and COINTELPRO related information by checking out our October 2007 Newsletter and pass the link around to your friends and colleagues.


We must educate ourselves, and then others in order to effectively counter the disinformation program we are all targets of.

Much has been made of...

... the screen going black for a second or so in the helicopter shot right when the second plane hits. What would be the non-TV fakery explanation?

TV Signal Disruption caused

TV Signal Disruption caused by plane impact.

Communication breakdown on NYC-TV networks due to signal loss from WTC1 antenna mast : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_during_the_September_11,_2001...
There's more articles like this, but I can't find them off hand.

Thanks, that sounds reasonable

The broadcasting tower was the North Tower, right? So the South Tower impact somehow momentarily disrupted the signal?

september clues debunked

perhaps the same thing that

perhaps the same thing that makes the burger king sign flicker in the evan fairbanks footage, an electro magnetic pulse of some kind? Generator or transformers blowing up in the tower? Helicopters transmit their signal through a radio connection. If it could make the lights flicker it could make the connection drop for a second i guess.

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower


9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

"One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’) is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true…

I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. That creates an exaggerated version of the situation as I see it that makes it easy to satirize. I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. But there are ample grounds based upon past experience to believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research... On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate. Their function appears to me to be obfuscation... There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the work of those they attack to be too good to ignore. Disinformation… is the major obstacle to the search for truth about the death of JFK.” Jim Fetzer

Jim Fetzer: "When I discovered a scientist of the caliber of Judy Wood... [long pause--gets emotional] that I've spent so much time seeking to open minds. To broaden the imagination, to consider alternatives that one might prefer were not the case... [voice hoarse] And I'll say today... when it comes to the study of this video fakery, you've seen a brilliant, scientific objective analysis from this man... Ace Baker. ...I say that between the breath of study provided by September Clues and... Ace Baker, that there's a prima facie case that has to be overwhelmed by superior evidence if it can be produced--not only of the existence of video fakery, but the overwhelming probability to manage events... the whole thing through the media without planes--I'm telling you the evidence is growing... you have to take this seriously... we're down the rabbit hole. This whole thing has been a massive deception... it's objective and provable! ...we had Morgan Reynolds whose been pilloried like practically no one else has been pilloried for even advancing the idea that there's no planes... by God... we could listen to a patient explanation of what really happened in terms of methodical analysis of actual footage... and the point was proven! And it was brilliant! And you were here! You were here! "

"Jim Fetzer: I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?

Judy Wood: Nope. I don’t think so.

Fetzer: Planes?

Judy Wood: No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Show "In my opinion, the biggest" by Galileo

Full disclosure:

Full disclosure: The man who is saying this is the PR manager for Kevin Barrett who endorses and frequently promotes many of the people who endorse DEW and TV fakery. In fact, Barrett is part of the "dynamic duo" with Jim Fetzer.

Barrett's PR representative: "Arabesque, the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth"
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Show "Dialogue Concerning the Two" by Galileo

This is PR "spin"

Kevin Barrett:

I would urge people to go take a look at this material… 'I think we don't really need any kind of unanimity from researchers… I don't think this is doing any permanent harm to the 9/11 movement… 'I think people who are blowing it up into something really huge are either sort of panicking or just making a tactical mistake… [the perpetrators] would have taken advantage of the most advanced technologies of deception and demolition, and in fact they would have arranged it in such a way that anyone who figured out exactly what happened and described it accurately would sound completely insane… So, I wouldn’t rule out anything and I think we need to allow researchers to pursue their own path…”

"Barrett has supported 9/11 disinformation conferences such as The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?[1] On 911blogger Barrett promoted this conference with the plea to “Join the cutting edge of the movement to save our planet.”

"“‘Many participants lamented the phenomenon of "internet lynch mobs" comprised of angry emailers and bloggers demanding that this or that researcher be banished for heresy. Often these internet lynch mobs are made up of people who have not carefully studied the research issues that they so confidently pronounce on. Barrett urged those who find controversial research issues a distraction from 9/11 activism to either study those issues with an open mind, or ignore them and focus on activism. The worst thing to do is waste time and energy on fruitless infighting.’”

“I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now… In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Show "Arabesque; that interview" by Galileo

Into the "memory hole" we go

"There is nothing on this website about TV fakery or DEW. Nor has there ever been a press release about it and I write the press releases. Nor has Barrett ever done a single campaign media interview about DEW or TV fakery."

And when anyone does an internet search, they find out that he was promoting this nonsense less than a year ago. What is your point exactly? That if I start claiming tomorrow that DEW did indeed blow up the WTC towers, all of my past writings on this subject no longer exist? I never wrote them? This is like saying I could start a campaign as an ex-serial killer on the premise that I no longer do these things. Hey look, I never murdered anyone last year, so now I'm ok, right? This would be funny if Kevin Barrett didn't go around calling for the mass murder of journalists who disagree with him. Of course, he has no problem with being civil to people like Jim Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds.

"The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]—dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..."

"MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. Barrett's public statements suggestive of violence are in stark contrast with 9-11 Research's policy stressing civility, verifiable information, and rational analysis. In 2007 Barrett's support for 9/11 junk science presented as 9/11 Truth typified by postings on James Fetzer's website became increasingly obvious."
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

I think you're pushing it a bit

I was with this thread 110% until I got to this. Though I like Kevin Barrett, personally, like you I have always been skeptical of some of his extreme tactics and his association with Fetzer, who is out-of-control. But this particular YouTube clip is not offensive to me at all (albeit I think Paula Gloria is a loon). One of the primary objectives of disinfo is to "distract" and create chaos. What has been pointed out here in a number of ways is that disinfo artists mix in a lot of truth, so that it can be discredited later when s/he becomes an outcast -- throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the old saying goes. I have to agree with Kevin that if you have a problem with a particular point of research, the best thing to do is ignore it. Attacking it accomplishes nothing. Disinfo artists want to be attacked. Their goal is to suck up your time and energy and get you off of the track you're on. Case in point: if you have a problem with directed energy weapons and are sure it was thermite that was used to bring down the towers, do waste you're time proving the DEW theory wrong. Spend it proving the thermite theory correct, god know Jones, Ryan, Gage, et. al. are overwhelmed and can use all the help they can get. And why do we all love Steven Jones? It's not just because he is a soft-spoken nice guy with some crucial evidence. It's also because he has identified his personal contribution, puts his heart and soul into his work, and ignores everything else. It's the perfect model and we would all do well in taking a hard look at it.

The 911 truth movement, like any advocacy group, is vulnerable to harm, intentional or otherwise. That's just a fact of human nature. I think the final judgment on Barrett is still to be determined. If he is a genuine truther, he will agree with this thread, unequivocally, because the points raised here are among some of the most important considerations we need to be dealing with today. I'd like to add that not only are the points you've raised "required reading" and spot on with regard to keeping our message pure and solid, but the timing, as well, was impeccable, especially given the high profile 911truth is and will be getting vis-a-vis the WTC7 report. So thank you Rep. for being alert.

Show "Thank you, 911 peacenik" by alllans2k7

Quoting the words of someone is not an attack

"Reprehensor and Arabesque seem to be doing the work for the disinfo perps! They are sewing discord. Arabesque seems to be making it personal."

Quoting the words of someone is not an attack. You are conflating critique with ad hominem which is a classic technique of people who want to inject nonsense into 9/11 discussion. And your accusation by the way, is calculated to cause disruption. I am not going to be impressed by any accusations or attacks that you will make against me. You should have learned that by now.

"9/11 activists should be wary of any and all accusations that are not readily supported by credible evidence, facts, or documentation. Ultimately, false and misleading accusations create divisiveness and encourage hostility... to create an environment of mistrust, suspicion, and divisiveness."

"Strange" how Barrett can call me a COINTELPRO operative or 911blogger "islamophobic" and this is not considered an attack. How is this not, in your words "sewing discord". It looks you have a biased perspective.

Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists

Jim Hoffman “[to] be successful [the] '9/11 community needs to create a culture conducive to critique… Yet… Abusers are tolerated… Rational critique is discouraged and reframed as… censorship… divisiveness… [and] infighting.

Jim Hoffman: “If people are going to inject racism or ad hominem attacks and disruption—why do we waste our time opening our forums to people who do that? There should be these basic guidelines, norms that we follow, and I’ve seen so much resistance to establishing that kind of environment from some of the leaders of the movement. [It’s essential to have a] civil environment in which we can [critique each other] and show that 9/11 was an inside job… the nature of this 9/11 cover-up is—to inject nonsense into the investigation, surround our valid analysis of the attack that can be used in straw-man attacks in the Media, and to create this culture within the movement that is hostile to critique. Our challenge is to create a culture that has these guidelines that doesn’t accept this over-the-line, outrageous [behavior]. What people are making excuses for it, and what people are pointing it out? Maybe that’s a better indicator of who should be recognized as who is really contributing to this movement... You see people who are making the worst kind of ad-hominems, conflating ad-hominem with critique. That’s a key tactic to shut-up the kind of critique we need to really hone our case. [Pretending that] there’s no such thing as critique, to disagree or to discuss something—[claiming criticism without ad-hominem is] all attack—it’s ridiculous. ”

I guess I'm a very "divisive" guy. Quoting the words of someone has led some to accusing me of being an agent. If I keep embarrassing these people by quoting their words, they should stop saying these things, don't you think? Some people actually consider it an "attack" to report what someone else is saying. This is like saying that CNN is attacking Georgia when they report attacks against Russia.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Ironic, this....

"Reprehensor and Arabesque seem to be doing the work for the disinfo perps! They are sewing discord. Arabesque seems to be making it personal."

Considering that Kevin Barrett's associates have a history of unethical and legally questionable behavior, all with the intent of making it "personal":

Fetzer: violation trust and confidentiality of an email list
related--violations of privacy
Tarpley: slander and defamation against both peace and truth activists during the KW hoax
Captain May: slander against anyone who points out May's numerology bollox and antisemite leanings.
Tolerance of Paula Gloria, Nico and others who act like agent provocateurs and should by all rights be up on assault charges.

All of the above: demands to "hunt people down" who don't agree with them, a la the Larocuhe play book they know so well. A play book that has historically left dead bodies.

You're taking a stand? To support people who slander, defame, and assault? Please. This is a stand:


It took the nasty behavior of the ZIHOP wankers--Kev's new best mates-- to make me see what others have seen for sometime---there is a group of people whose ONLY interest is trying to stir up bad feeling and bollox. How can you recognize them? They're doing this: "looking for an excuse to attack people who you disagree with."

And this is the kicker-- they are not all no planers. And contrary to one uber wanker, I do not "hate noplaners", I hate the unethical behavior key "noplaners" have historically engaged in, now being joined by "jewmoonhoax.com", definitely NOT a noplane site.

They want us to fight, true. But the answer IS NOT the big tent. The Big Tent feeds and encourages the excuses to attack people as if they were part of the 911 op. HELLO--it is not the people you disagree with who are the enemy. It is the people in the Bush administration and cohorts who are responsible for 911 who are your enemy.

I have a dream this 9/11 anniversary for the fighting to stop. For the no-planer "war" to end. Whatever you believe, "they" need us to fight over this bollox. But we don't have to. Its not necessary to "fight" over theories to demand a new investigation. Its not necessary to "fight" to go on with your research or speculation. But the "fights" are necessary to sow bad feeling and waste energy in these online skirmishes.

We don't need a Big Tent-- we need a Big Fence. A mutual agreement that, what ever we believe we need to do, we keep it to the appropriate forums and if we do decide to venture out, we respect the differing goals of those forums, and choose to agree to disagree INSTEAD of making it a personal unproductive fight with a fellow private person who has done us no harm.

And then the disruptors on all sides will expose themselves for what they are by their consistent misbehavior. See, they CAN'T NOT FIGHT--they can't live and let live. It's their job to sow discord.

Only the bastards want to keep it personal. This is the subject of a much longer an ambitious blog--stay tuned...

"Even in the darkness every color can be found..."

(To whom it may concern---I'm unblocking your email address. I think you're smart enough to know by now I'm not the enemy. Ready to make history?)

Well Said!

"Spend it proving the thermite theory correct, god know Jones, Ryan, Gage, et. al. are overwhelmed and can use all the help they can get. And why do we all love Steven Jones? It's not just because he is a soft-spoken nice guy with some crucial evidence. It's also because he has identified his personal contribution, puts his heart and soul into his work, and ignores everything else. It's the perfect model and we would all do well in taking a hard look at it."

I completely agree with your above statement. It is much more fruitful. You can not (and never will) be able to control what others do. Focus, concentrate, and harness your energy on gathering evidence for what you think are the most reasonable hypotheses.

While I do not always agree with Kevin Barrett, I think he is a good guy and definitely not a disinfo agent. I enjoy listening to his radio show, especially when he has guests like David Ray Griffin (beginning of this month). He also had Kevin Ryan on his show for two hours a couple weeks back, which was informative (KR mentioned he is in the process of making some nanothermite).


>>While I do not always agree with Kevin Barrett, I think he is a good guy and definitely not a disinfo agent.

That's irrelevant, sorry to say. The best agent would know how to make you believe he's a good guy, regardless of what KB is or isn't. The issue is what the facts are, not who a buddy or a nice guy is.

Protecting Jim Fetzer when the *entire* movement had rejected him was like a sinkhole in the middle of our movement, providing a fastrack path to Fetzer sucking in newbies and pouring garbage into their brains. How "nice" or "good" the person appears who does that is irrelevant to why they need to be exposed and sidelined.

Well, you are entitled to

Well, you are entitled to your opinion about KB.
I said that I think he is a good guy *and* not a disinfo agent. I did not say he is not a disinfo agent *because* he is a good guy. Those are two different statements with two different meanings.

"providing a fastrack path to Fetzer sucking in newbies and pouring garbage into their brains. How "nice" or "good" the person appears who does that is irrelevant to why they need to be exposed and sidelined."

You give "newbies" too little credit. What makes you think people can't figure out things on their own? Fetzer will do what he does, others will do what they do. You cannot control the decisions people make, or shield them from what you think is bad, they will need to make up their minds on their own. Truth stands distinct from error.

If your goal is really to sideline Barrett, then I think you would be best to spread that message to all those who appear on his radio shows, including David Ray Griffin, Paul Zarembka, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, etc...
If the above mentioned figures do not comply with the cease and desist order, you may wish to start exposing and sidelining them as well.



"Irrelevant" is what this thread has become. I see my comment has been knocked down a few points, and I'm with the extreme minority. That's fitting, since being in the minority is exactly where I want to be with regard to the diarrhea of the mouth going on here. And "below the viewing threshold" is now where 911Blogger is being place in my bookmarks.


Let me cut through it, luv....

"While I do not always agree with Kevin Barrett, I think he is a good guy"

Good people don't let their mates do these things without speaking up--

"Considering that Kevin Barrett's associates have a history of unethical and legally questionable behavior, all with the intent of making it "personal":

Fetzer: violation trust and confidentiality of an email list
related--violations of privacy
Tarpley: slander and defamation against both peace and truth activists during the KW hoax
Captain May: slander against anyone who points out May's numerology bollox and antisemite leanings.
Tolerance of Paula Gloria, Nico and others who act like agent provocateurs and should by all rights be up on assault charges."

Wisconsin Public Radio

I posted it here and it was removed although it had been voted up and I was thanked by several other commenters.

Really pissed me off . . . didn't expect "gatekeeper" activity here.

Kevin Barrett has no "PR Manager'. I think that's fairly evident. Perhaps he could use one.

I listen to Barrett because he is on my list of "truth" radio programs. He has been distancing himself from Jim Fetzer and although they share a radio show on GCN, they don't appear together. That being said, no one has proven that Jim Fetzer has hurt the 9/11 Truth movement.

This whole thread has a disinfo quality to it. I believe that the owners of this site have personal issues with Kevin.

I really would like to see some evidence that Kevin is anything other than what he presents himself to be. Just associating him with Jim Fetzer is witch trial stuff.

Aidan Monaghan

is on Kevin Barrett's program today - is Aidan a disinfo agent? I wish I could post the interview here . . its a great interview and Kevin promotes this site.

I've been posting audio here for years. Am I disinfo for posting an interview with Kevin Barrett and Aidan Monaghan.

Is Richard Gage disinfo because he had Kevin introduce him here in Chicago a few weeks ago?

Thanks Aidan...

I guess I'm dis-info too because I put something of yours up on MY site a week ago. Damn, and all this time I thought I was doing something helpful.

We can't mention questions about a plane not hitting the Pentagon. Until recently, some people around here didn't want us talking about Building 7 because it was too easily "debunked". I guess the laugh riot of the NIST report on Building 7 put an end to that...

I would simply suggest putting the best info out there that we can. I have never been into the moronic "no planes hit the towers" crap or the ray-beams from space stupidity. The way I've always seen it, if someone is stupid enough to follow that crap, let 'em. We don't need them if they are that stupid.

Kind of like one of those signs at the carnival ride: If you are not at least "THIS SMART..." you cannot go on this ride.

Just For The Record

The "No Planes" and "Directed Energy Weapons" theories have been generated in my view by people wishing to bring ridicule upon the 9/11 skeptics community.

These theories have no basis in reality.

"is Aidan a disinfo agent?"

"is on Kevin Barrett's program today - is Aidan a disinfo agent? I wish I could post the interview here . . its a great interview and Kevin promotes this site."

What you say is really interesting because I don't remember calling Mr. Barrett a disinfo agent anywhere in this thread. Would you care to point out where I said this? Where Reprehensor said this?

You can't because we didn't. There is a difference between critiquing the actions of someone and making unprovable allegations. If I have opinions about the personal integrity of someone in the 9/11 movement, I prefer to keep it to myself because having a discussion about opinions is a waste of our time.

This should be common sense, but because you are insinuating otherwise, I'll explain. Simply because one falls for discrediting information, it does not make one an agent. The RELEVANT issue is that discrediting information is discrediting information regardless of intent. If you can understand this, you can understand the basis for this thread.

Put another way: promoting TV fakery discredits the 9/11 truth movement regardless of whether you are doing this intentionally or not. That is the issue here, and that is what we should be focusing on.

Do you call a news organization a "gatekeeper" when they do not promote space beams and TV fakery? What I find noteworthy is the amount of attacks that actually come from Mr. Barrett and his supporters, not the other way around. Criticizing someone for advocating TV fakery or DEW is not the same as calling them an agent, and for this reason your criticism is off the mark.

Calling this a personal issue between Mr. Barrett and Reprehensor is also off the mark. I'll leave my final remarks for the director of the Libertarian Party:

"Note that even prominent people within the 9/11 Truth movement itself are reporting these quotes and claiming that Barrett discredits their efforts. From the references you can also see that there’s a community of people out there who are watching and listening to Barrett’s every word. When he says this junk in the future as a Libertarian candidate, every one of these people will have reason to link these noxious sentiments to our party."
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Here's an example:

"is Aidan a disinfo agent?"

Far as I can tell, I'll check his profile in a mo--this is just a guy. Not an elected official. Not a tenured professional. Not the owner of a corporation. Not anyone with any greater responsibility as a private citizen than the rest of us--so why are we asking if he's an agent? Is there any --um --proof besides disagreement of opinion?

That is irresponsible--FULL STOP. And designed to keep us fighting.. oh joy..

I didn't realize that the

I didn't realize that the Wisconsin Public Radio audio clip was removed, but I did have a chance to download and listen to it before its removal. Thanks for posting it, along with all your other audio postings--it is appreciated.

Excellent blog

I know most of us have

fought disinfo agents all over the web. I won't name names but we all know at least some of them. They are like Energizer FrankenBunnies spreading lies wherever they 'magically' appear ... surely yet another in the long list of government cointelpro adventures. In a sense, the mere fact that they exist is supportive proof that the government lied ... and continues to lie. They, and poison pills like Eric Hufschmid nauseate in extremis. I noticed the Sofia Shafquat issue a while ago and have hoped it was merely because she was ignorant. I am no longer so hopeful.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)


I was under the impression that she was *attacked* by the disinformists for not believing in no planes.

Damn! This should be required reading!! Thanks Rep!

This is a most important article for any seasoned 9/11 Truther! It should be required reading in "911Truth 102".

Disinfo is a problem

but banning speech is not the solution.

This site is a representation of 9/11 Truth's integrity.

This site is a flagship for the 9/11 Truth movement.
It is imperative that "9/11 Truth" does not get muddy on this flagship. 9/11 Truth presented here must have a firm foundation based on solid facts. 911Blogger has to be positioned on firm ground for the truth to prevail.


William Pepper warns us about this.
(8 Minutes)

Excellent job Rep,

Excellent job Rep, definitely what you and others have put togethor here should be required reading. For me it's gotten pretty ugly at times dealing with disinformation promoting users, certainly everyone should always be on the look out, and don't let it get the best of you, either. Best wishes all, Nate

Thank you for this Reprehensor.

You shall know them by what they produce... Battling this stuff in the darkness can be really demoralizing, thank you for making this site's stance clear.

TV Fakery

"Webster Tarpley: "Nico Haupt… is one of the leading researchers in the 9/11 truth movement. Indeed, he’s been called the enfant terrible of the 9/11 truth movement research. He’s always controversial, but he’s always on the cutting edge of research. He is the author of the 9/11 encyclopedia. He conducted for quite a while the 911skeptics.blogspot. I would point out that however controversial some of his ideas may sound, over the years a lot of his discoveries have been indeed been incorporated into what is the conventional and accepted wisdom about these matters… Finally he is one of the leading people in the research on how the news-film of 9/11, that you saw on CNN and the other networks was doctored. He also has some… very controversial, but extremely heuristic findings about implications about doctored news-film and other considerations for what actually happened on 9/11… I would like to give Nico the floor. He has some very very interesting research results…"

A massive collection of videos and photographs of the attack on the World Trade Center have been assembled by various 9/11 researchers.[2] There exists at least 44 different clips of the planes approaching and striking the Twin Towers."

...the evidence for a missile, like TV fakery, is similarly nonexistent. The resulting holes in the World Trade Center tower closely match the size of the alleged planes to have struck them."

Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery

"Others argue plane substitution in the attacks. But then, what to make of these reports of DNA identification at the WTC?[24]

“DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person. Of the 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.”

Although about half of the victims at the WTC have not been accounted for,[25] reports continue to surface to this day in which passengers from the flights that hit the World Trade Center Towers are identified:

March 19, 2002:

“A hand found in the rubble at ground zero was matched through DNA testing to Trentini, a 65-year-old retired schoolteacher from Everett, Mass., it was reported. Trentini and his wife, Mary, 67, were flying to Los Angeles Sept. 11 on Flight 11 to visit their grandchildren. It is the first time DNA has been able to verify the identity of any victims aboard the two planes that were flown into the World Trade Center, according to the report. The fingerprints matched Trentini’s, and his college ring, believed to be his Wofford ring, was still on his finger.”[26]

November 2, 2006:

“DNA tests have identified the remains of three more people who died in the attacks on World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. They were American Airlines Flight 11 stewardess Karen Ann Martin, passenger Douglas Joel Stone, and a man whose relatives have requested anonymity.”

April 11, 2007:

“For the 6th time in a week, the city has identified another victim from the 9/11 attacks. DNA analysis identified 66-year old Alberto Dominguez, from Australia. He was visiting family in the US and was onboard American Airlines flight 11, which hijackers crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. His remains were discovered during the original recovery effort. A spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office says remains found at that time are being re-tested.”[27]

Are these reports faked too?"

September Clues, TV Fakery: Debunked
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Don't only look at the DNA, look at the bigger picture !

Airplanes of some type hit the WTC I, II, and the Pentagon.
The Official 9/11 report states that the DNA was isolated from all of the people on board flight 77 that is said to have hit the Pentagon.
It seems the report also states that the 90 tons of aluminum of the plane "evaporated" (or something like that) from the high speed impact and the ensuing flames. I can think of many scenarios for a "psy-op" to be able to obtain the DNA of all aboard. None of these scenarios would involve looking for DNA in a crash site where 90 tons of aluminum evaporated, and the place was engulfed in flames.

Most rescue workers realized that something was fishy when one of the highjackers Passports magically showed up almost intact after crashing into the WTC and being engulfed in flames. I realize that landing gear was found, but I have NOT yet seen a positive identification of THAT landing gear, with the type of plane that is said to have crashed. I also remain skeptical about what airplanes were used, since the serial numbers of the black boxes have not been shown.

I listened to Dr. Shyam Sunder of N.I.S.T. interviewed on "No Lies Radio" today, repeating many times that they made "technical judgments to what would be credible hypothesis". "This is a technical investigation, it is not a criminal investigation", trying to base our findings on sound science, he said that the molten steel would easily come about if fires were left to rage in "a shielded region", where the radiation would be radiated back. Where is the sound science and experimentation to show us this in practice? What other steel frame building fires did he observe this in?

He kept repeating "What would be a credible hypothesis?", but lacked ALL curiosity to investigate explosive or criminal demolition, since this was, according to "pretty credible people" "not credible", or not what he was chartered to investigate.

M. Sunder may have received a doctorial degree, because he was capable of searching after ONE SPECIFIC thing in science, what his professor told him to search for... If he was a medical doctor, I would not like to be his patient.

WTC 7 is a smoking gun, the revised NIST report is a Cover-Up, as is “The Official 9/11 Report”. When we see who is covering this up, we also know something about who might have done this. I feel “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan” is VERY significant in this perspective: http://www.911blogger.com/node/16497

Dr Beeth

Pentagon hole

"It seems the report also states that the 90 tons of aluminum of the plane "evaporated" (or something like that) from the high speed impact and the ensuing flames."

The only reference i've seen to the plane at the Pentagon "evaporating" is "vaporized" and it was not an official statement, it was a remark by someone who was there, and from the context it seemed to be an off-the-cuff analogy expressing their surprise that a 757 could be seemingly totally obliterated- which has happened in more than one crash- links in my article linked below. Am i wrong about this?

I used to believe the "no 757" theory, and i can understand why people believe it. As I noted in my article linked below, if any serious evidence is ever presented that anything other than a 757 hit the pentagon, i'll admit my error. However, there's a lot of evidence that a 757 DID hit the Pentagon, and it's likely it was 77, too- the simplest thing would be to use the actual planes and real passengers and guide them by remote control, after all- plane swapping and a missile/global hawk makes the plot much more complex. However, that's not the evidence for a 757, just an additional observation.

The study and debunking of the disinformation campaign is important for identifying real evidence, drawing a clear distinction between the Truth movement and the disinfo movement (which may well be funded by the 9/11 perps), and it is also useful in convincing some that 9/11 was an inside job; otherwise, why would there be such an active disinfo movement? As I note prominently in my article, if you currently believe something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, that doesn't mean i think you're a shill; but if you're a truth and justice activist, I'm sure you can agree it's important to promote solid evidence, and considering the controversy over what hit the Pentagon, i'm sure you can agree the question is at best not settled either way- meaning it's OK to have doubts and wait for more solid info, but it might be a serious mistake to make absolute claims that "no 757 hit the pentagon" and to claim a missile or global hawk DID hit the pentagon, or that there was a bomb and a flyover.

Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?

Rebuttal to "Corrections": Paul Landis Response to my 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" Psyop article


Show ""No Tolerance"!!!!!!" by Citizen Pawn

You can rate the video all

You can rate the video all you want, I've only disabled the comments. I'm simply tired of some of the provocateuring tv-fakery people. Go ahead, try and debate some of them on youtube and see how it pans out, watch them spam that you're a government shill, a traitor, or that you're disrespecting the victims of 9/11 all over everyone elses videos and profiles and write obscure articles on websites about you behind your back that you'll proabably never see unless you look, like the cowards they are. How do you suppose those things make me feel? Should I like them? No, I see many of them as sinister and manipulative evil people. Yes, you're right, I do have zero tolerance for it anymore.

Sorry, did a search on this page..

And yours is the first post bringing up cointelpro:

"All who support "TV Fakery" are cointelpro and "enemies of the truth". (Even though I myself survive by running a shipping business out of my two car garage)"

Is this a response to someone else post on the first page you didn't thread? Because Rep said "seriously confused OR purposefully promoting disinfo". He did not say "cointelpro".

Also, you know what kind of site 911Blogger is--you know it has historically had "no tolerance" for "noplanes" and "TVfakery"--so why the surprise? You are free to discuss those things at other sites. Can you live and let live? Can you agree to disagree? Can you help stop the fighting?

Slashdot thread on NIST report

If you have a Slashdot account, please come and defend 9/11 truth.


YouTube user achimspok has

YouTube user achimspok has done a great job exposing these noplane clowns. Here's some of his video's

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

Thanks Reprehensor; this is

Thanks Reprehensor; this is probably the single most damaging aspect of 9/11 truth. It is one of the two subjects which debunkers use against us, and so very obviously a disinfo campaign meant to derail the heart of the movement. The only way that I see we can distance ourselves from this garbage is by stressing and emphasizing the stuff the debunkers cannot skirt around - now, with WTC7's so-called explanation, it's even harder.

Thanks for your clarity on this Rep

Thanks for your clarity on this Rep

wOOt!!! Down with the 'big tent'!!!

"Yes, you CAN exclude some. The most improbable, the most unlikely, the impossible, the absurd ... grossly obvious disinformation, you CAN exclude this nonsense from your 9/11 horizons."

Hey you! Yeah you. The one who is reading this for the wrong reasons. You are losing. Your effort to distract people and confuse them with disinformation is not succeeding. Slowly but surely the people of this movement are coming to recognize that the 'big tent' is a destructive ploy, that the truth movement must exclude fallacy, and that people like you always make the same tired arguments.

Good move Rep. We are offering them fewer places to sell their garbage.

International Truth Movement

I love how

the covert PR spin guy for Barrett gets to tell us how we must respond. And of course, the response is that we're allowed to ignore Barrett's association with a known disinformation agent -- his "Dynamic Duo" partner, no less.

The best excuse he can make is essentially that Barrett was too stupid to analyze "no planes" and reject it outright -- but he's changed now. He's changed, I swear! So, we ought to forgive him.

Did you go to clown college, Galileo?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Great Piece

I appreciate your efforts to clean up blogger and send the disinfo trolls packing.

The people cited by yourself and others are not part of the 911 Truth movement. They are part of the 911 disinformation movement. This is painfully obvious. The National Enquirer was set up by an "ex" CIA agent named Generiso Pope who, according to his own biography, specialized in psychological warfare during his time with the company. The tabloid was apparently designed to tar "deep politics" with the lunatic fringe and reinforce the credibility of the establishment media. So it is with "TV fakery" and "space beams" etc.: a transparent attempt to conflate the hard facts of 911 with unbridled kookery. Individuals who appeal to "unity" with neo-nazis and promoters of blatantly absurd theories are misguided at best; certainly they are not aiding in the cause of 911 truth.

Keep up the good work.

Ignore Antics Of Fetzer, Reynolds, Woods & Co.

The bottom line is, is that virtually no one is paying attention to their antics except us.

I doubt that their stunts will have any impact upon our goals.

"no one is paying attention to their antics except us"

I guess you missed all of those FOX news interviews. And the NIST rebuttal to TV fakery and No planes. And the dozens of mainstream newspaper articles that pretend that these theories are part of the 9/11 truth mainstream.

Ignoring it has failed. Ignoring the disinfo allows others to associate it with being a legitimate part of the 9/11 truth movement. Silence is tacit approval that it represents the 9/11 truth movement. They want you to "ignore" it so that others will think it is still "plausible" and that it "represents" the 9/11 truth movement. Ignoring it allows for some to mistakenly fall for bad information. This can happen too.

I do not believe that we should ignore damaging influences to the 9/11 truth movement. But what you probably are misunderstanding is that there is a constructive and non-constructive response to disinformation. The constructive response is to critique it, and then move on. All that has to be done is refer to past articles. A case in point is the DEW theories. What happens is that the same points keep being repeated even though they have been debunked. Do you need to keep making rebuttals? No, you can just refer to the ones already made. And that's an effective strategy.

And that's the strategy that the 9/11 truth movement has been taking. Seeing an article about disinformation on the front page of 911blogger is a very rare occurrence. So how is that "over" focusing on the situation. Being critical is part of the scientific method and peer review is how science works. Rejecting peer-review allows for the weak theories to be unaddressed and gives them false credibility. It also shows those who want to associate these theories with the mainstream 9/11 truth movement that they are in error because they have been debunked by other members of the truth movement.

How did Jim Fetzer become co-founder of ST911? Was he as divisive as he was when he became co-founder of the group? What clearly happened is here is that he became progressively divisive and progressively moved towards embracing and promoting discredited theories. That's what happened, whether or not you want to speculate about the motives behind his actions.

This is the second dimension to disinformation. I love it when I'm accused of "sewing discord" for merely discussing the topic of disinformation and without making any accusations. I guess it tells you I'm hitting a nerve by addressing this issue. Did you know that many of these divisive theorists do things like make crank phone calls? Did you know that they say things like "you're a retard" or that someone is making a "hostile takeover". Understanding how these attacks are used to disrupt the truth movement are as important as understanding how theories are used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. There is more than one way that the 9/11 truth movement can be disrupted. it's not just about bad theories--it's about ad hominem attacks and accusations. It's hard to ignore someone when they call you up calling you names and then writes slander about you on the internet. Or calls you a racist on the internet. Calls you COINTELPRO, or even calls you a terrorist? Accusing you of being an Al Qaeda member.

Being educated is the solution. Understanding how disruption works is the solution. Pretending that there isn't a problem and that everything is "normal" is not a solution.

I'm also a big fan of learning from history so that it doesn't keep repeating and we don't keep making the same mistakes. Taking effective responses to disinformation and disruption within the 9/11 truth movement is never going to be a mistake.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Dozens Of Newspaper Articles?

Apart from the Reyonlds Fox segment and a NYC publication reference to the antics of Nico Haupt, I'm not aware of any wider coverage of disruptive individuals.

Was there coverage of the NIST rebuttal?

The antics of Fetzer, Reynolds, Woods and Haupt should be noted and reported, but not to the point that their activities disrupt ours.

I don't think the situation has become a crisis - yet.


I've read at least a dozen articles from the MSM drawing ammunition from the quack wing of the movement. There are probably dozens more I haven't come across.

However, you're right that It hasn't become a crisis. It has failed to become a crisis because responsible researchers have taken the time to debunk the loony theories, marginalize their promoters (some of whom held high standing in 911 truth circles at one point) and stress the importance of maintaining the highest standards of scholarship in our outreach to the public. Without such efforts, the disinformation movement could have done a great deal of harm. It still may. The potential remains for their "activities to disrupt ours", but only due to the insistence by some that disinformation is of no consequence -- not those who rightly criticize its enablers.

Individuals who have given disinformation promoters an uncritical platform even after a thorough debunking of their wacky theories are not responsible members of the movement; rather, they serve (wittingly or not) as members of the 911 disinformation movement. Pointing this out is "divisive" in the same sense that removing a tumor divides cancer cells from a healthy human body.

Sadly this issue is not going away

Aidan, sadly this issue is not going away. At virtually every single 9/11 truth conference--any effort that we do, we see hoax material being attached to legitimate efforts. I find it amazing that it is virtually impossible to go to a 9/11 conference without discrediting information, holocaust denial, and other discrediting memes attached to it. Virtually every effort to get something done is penetrated by efforts to include discrediting material. New investigations and "tribunals" are plagued by UFO's Directed energy weapons and discredited nonsense. Efforts to remove this material meet extreme resistance. People who call other dedicated activists "terrorists" are invited to conferences like nothing has happened. Should we ignore something like this?

Or should we demand accountability from people who damage the 9/11 truth movement? I think the answer is clear.

9/11 Five Years Later: What Have We Accomplished?
An Assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement

"Here is my assessment. The reason for the discrepancy between what people know about 9/11 and what they are willing to do to stop the War on Terror; the reason we have ultimately failed, in other words, has to do with the scope and sophistication of the political and social control mechanisms used against us; namely, disruption and disinformaiton. I have been an activist for 20 years, and I have seen and experienced COINTELPRO-style disruption many times in the past. Yet never before have I witnessed it used on such a scale and with such precision as I have within the 9/11 Truth Movement. There are thousands of examples, but let me give you just a few...

1. When we launched our Democracy Now campaign, we asked activists and the general public to send them emails requesting they have David Ray Griffin on their show. We provided a sample letter, but encouraged people to write their own, and we asked them always to be polite. We also provided them the email addresses to send their letters, and we included our own email address in the mix, so we could see what kinds of letters Democracy Now was receiving. What happened was very telling. For every two or three emails they received that were respectful and well-written, they received one that was either highly insulting, vehemently anti-semitic, or down-right ludicrous. The timing and repetitive use of specific phrases among many of these emails revealed a coordinated effort to disrupt our campaign and convince Democracy Now not to associate with us.

2. When we launched our campaign to get the attorney General of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, to open a new investigation into 9/11, we began an online petition drive and received thousands of signatures. Shortly after our campaign website went up, another website was launched duplicating our campaign and promoting preposterous claims designed to make the 9/11 Truth Movement appear ridiculous. Thus a clear message was sent to Eliot Spitzer that opening a new investigation into 9/11 could easily destroy his reputation by associating with people who believe, among other nonsense, that the planes on 9/11 were merely holograms inserted onto TV screens.

And these are just examples of reactive disruption efforts (in response to things we do), which aren't even the primary methods they use against us."

If you were to document just how impressive this campaign actually was, you would understand that you cannot ignore it. For example, there are literally somewhere around 100 accounts on youtube at this very moment pushing TV fakery. One of them was correctly named "noplanespam". I know this because I have done the research and I have made a list of them.

What is particularly striking about this is the sheer number of videos produced and the speed in which they are produced seems to suggest that this is a professional effort. Many of these video posters engaged in a campaign of harassment against 9/11 activists which included calling members of the truth movement "terrorists" and "al qaeda" members, along with posting personal information while encouraging harassment. This is not something that we can or should ignore. When you are a target of one of these campaigns, you understand the seriousness of this issue. It could be any 9/11 activist being targetted.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Aidan, FOIAs and Fetzer

Aidan, I appreciate your hard work with the FOIA's, and how you never go beyond the evidence, and how you always explore other possibilities, when they exist. You have consistently appeared rational and genuinely concerned with truth and justice, in your approach and analysis.

In your comment here you dismiss Fetzer (and his cohorts Wood and Reynolds) as ineffective antics.

Why are you an Associate Member of Fetzer's org, Scholars for 9/11 Truth?


This is not an accusation; I am very curious as to the reason.


Awesome blog, Rep.

I became a truther before Loose Change hit the big time. We should actually be very thankful that Loose Change has been the most popular introduction to 9/11 truth. As Jim Hoffmann says in his updated "Hoax-Promoting Videos" page:

Of the four reviewed videos, Loose Change shows a willingness by its creators to reject hoax claims, the film's third edition having far fewer errors than its earlier editions.

Before Dylan became famous in the movement, I became firmly convinced of a MIHOP scenario upon receiving two videos in the mail; I can't even remember now from what site I ordered them. They were, of course, In Plane Site and Painful Deceptions. Though I was never quite convinced about the pod, I was convinced by the rest. In many ways I felt Hufschmid's video was even better. I came to admire Hufschmid's work and regularly visited his web site. In fact, I visited it almost every day.

I can't begin to tell you just how much my heart sank into my gut when he posted his first Holocaust article. His words were: "I believe [the holocaust] has been so exaggerated and so distorted that the Jews are committing a crime by promoting it." Scroll down to the bottom of that link to see it for yourself. Ironically, the top of that link begins by warning us to watch out for traps and fake theories, such as holograms, mini-nukes, and blue screen technology. So his inclusion of the Holocaust nonsense at the bottom is superbly disingenuous.

That was to be the first of many heartsinks.

I can't believe Sofia of 9/11 Mysteries is promoting nonsense. I didn't know until now. This is indeed disappointing.

Another thing. Even if one were to privately hold some skepticism re the "official historical narratives" of other past historical events (moon hoax, holocaust; by the way, Eric Hufschmid was a "Moon Truther" even before his first "Holohoax" article, but still after he was well known for his 9/11 book/video), EVERYONE KNOWS that associating those ideas right along side 9/11 truth activism is immediate poison. Like two chemicals which are harmless on their own but volatile when combined, no "activist" could be more damaging to the movement than an SBHT. Many of those who still believe the idea of 9/11 being an inside job is preposterous psychologically tie 9/11 truth with "holocaust revisionism." You know, "Gee, these people are like those idiots who say the Holocaust never happened."

Three years ago at the dinner table, when I first brought up the subject of 9/11 truth, about how maybe 19 Muslims didn't do it after all, my father said: "Well son, there are also those out there who like to believe that the Holocaust never happened." (He said it in this "let me enlighten you" type of voice, as if I'd never heard of Holocaust denial.) And my dad's not stupid! He's an aeronautical engineer! He then went on to say: "And the Holocaust deniers can come up with these seemingly plausible or credible arguments, at least on first glance." Et cetera. I think I've made my point.

Great job once again, Rep! In fact, I'm bookmarking this one!

And Jim Hoffman believes a

And Jim Hoffman believes a big plane went into the Pentagon.
I voted you down for using him as your standard of excellence.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

As a matter of fact, the

As a matter of fact, the people who were near the building when it was hit believe as well that "a big plane went into the Pentagon" - read about it here, here and here!

Whether it was Flight 77 or not is a different question - but the eyewitness accounts clearly demonstrate that indeed "a big plane went into the Pentagon". We cannot on the one hand point to all the eyewitnesses describing explosions in the towers and then on the other hand dismiss all the eyewitnesses describing a large plane hitting the Pentagon - we have to take the evidence for what it is and not adjust it to conclusions we've already made.

True BUT . . .

The problem is that many of the eyewitnesses saw the plane on a trajectory that contradicts the physical damage. This is an irreconcilable contradiction. In other words, the plane they saw could not have hit the Pentagon AND caused the downing of the light polls, struck the generator vehicle and created the damage path within the Pentagon itself. SO, we have witnesses -- and I believe they are telling the truth as they honestly saw it -- who believe they saw something that could not have happened.

Counterintelligence operations are often like this: Hedgehogs, flamingos, wild geese and red hearings chasing one another in a house of mirrors. All the better to get away with murder. Oh and lets not forget about that level, mere feet above the ground, "something" crossing the Pentagon lawn that was made public.

And lets not forget that our Congress and other Federal Agencies have done a neat job of making EVIDENCE irrelevant for proving their "case": --"As you probably know, the Safety Board [NTSB] assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the FBI investigated the circumstances under which the four aircraft crashed, pursuant to Congress's direction requiring the Board to *relinquish its investigative priority to the FBI* when the Safety Board and FBI determine that an intentional criminal act *likely* caused the accident at issue." ( http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762 )

Yeah, the witnesses saw the plane and the plane they saw could NOT have caused the damage observed and recorded. There is no way around this factual conundrum without venturing into speculation which, I think, is precisely its point.


"Yeah, the witnesses saw the plane and the plane they saw could NOT have caused the damage observed and recorded. There is no way around this factual conundrum without venturing into speculation which, I think, is precisely its point."

This is the point if you want to focus on theories when 9/11 has been proven with facts to be an inside job.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

I haven't looked into the holocaust arguments

But over the past year almost everthing I've ever believed has changed. 9/11, JFK, MLK, RFK, OKC, WTC 1993, TWA 800, KAL 007, Paul Wellstone..

So at this point I question EVERYTHING. I take NOTHING on faith. The fact that I've believed it all my life or that everyone I know believes it no longer has any weight with me.

So I'd be open to exploring the evidence around the Holocaust. (Clearly that cannot be done here.) But healthy curiosity is not wrong.

If we had always believed what were told, we would never have found out about 9/11!

Remarkable Examples Of Intelligent People Acting Stupid

I cannot recall another example of PhD holders peddling such horribly flawed opinions on any topic.

I do not believe that Fetzer, Reynolds or Woods actually believe any of what they allege.

All 3 embedded themselves within this movement and then simultaneously began peddling their extreme theories while at the same time attacking the very sound research of Steve Jones.

In fact, Jim Fetzer did not emerge as a major figure until Steve Jones gained attention for his research, at which time Fetzer asked Jones to join him in his Scholars for 9/11 Truth venture.

Good points here.

"I cannot recall another example of PhD holders peddling such horribly flawed opinions on any topic."

The only examples I can think of are scientists hired as expert witnesses or by PR firms to distort the truth.

"I do not believe that Fetzer, Reynolds or Woods actually believe any of what they allege."

My experience and intuition would have me agreeing that this is likely. And I'd add a couple names to that list, as I have elsewhere.

The 'plant and burn' strategy, I'm sure there's an official term, is something this movement has now seen occur many times. Rep's Suddenly Blossoming Holocaust Truther, of which Eric Williams is the most infamous example in my eyes, is the same strategy in action.

One of the things that I keep hoping will change about the movement is how long it takes the majority of us to recognize an intellectual betrayal. As a result of our knowledge that people have used this tactic against us, we have to be prepared to respond in a reasonable and timely manner when it happens again.

International Truth Movement

Aidan- your membership in Fetzer Scholars org?

I'm reposting the same comment here i posted on pg. 2 as this thread has gotten so long...

Aidan, I appreciate your hard work with the FOIA's, and how you never go beyond the evidence, and how you always explore other possibilities, when they exist. You have consistently appeared rational and genuinely concerned with truth and justice, in your approach and analysis.

In your comment here you dismiss Fetzer (and his cohorts Wood and Reynolds) as ineffective antics.

Why are you an Associate Member of Fetzer's org, Scholars for 9/11 Truth?


This is not an accusation; I am very curious as to the reason.


The best cointel agents

are not agents at all. Hear Jim Hoffman explain it on
visibility 9-11 radio show....

Bob Bowman's Words

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Bob Bowman states, "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11". I'm learning a lot from this blog and thanks for all of the truthful teachers that are contributing to it. I know I've had my mind change a few times in the 3 years I have studied this subject and I'm not embarrassed to say that I was wrong at times and had to change my mind again. I think we're all going through an evolution of what TRUTH is about and how difficult it is to obtain TRUTH when we don't have the institutional power to bring TRUTH out legally. One thing is certain and that is we were lied to because we all know the many contradictions that exist with the official account of 9/11. Everything that has happened to the 9/11 Truth Movement has happened for a reason and it has only made us smarter in our search for TRUTH. Don't give up or get discouraged if your an honest TRUTHER because we have these bumps in the road. This is a process and we have to stay in the process of learning to see the 9/11 Truth Movements rightful conclusion. Real history is being made here and in time it will get its rightful place.
Take Care Matt

It's not rocket science...

To understand that you put forward the best information at all times. All of us have theories about what happened that day, and I'm sure a lot of them sound crazy to a lot of people. The reason we have these theories is because it is human nature to try and understand something when we're not being told the truth.

"For people to dismiss these questioners as "conspiratorial advocates", or "conspiratorial theorists"... that's completely out of line because the... The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT." - Ray McGovern

However, those who aren't apart of the movement don't understand that. So, we have to be as careful as possible because our enemies, the media, the debunkers, etc... will use anything and everything stupid we do against us. Our facts speak for themselves, and they don't sound crazy. There's no problem theorizing among friends, but some things are better left private. People that don't understand this, for whatever reason, and consistently promote bad or crazy sounding information, should not be promoted.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thanks for being our vigilant guardian, Reprehensor

Excellent post, I never tire of your tireless efforts!

vigilant, vig·i·lant , \ˈvi-jə-lənt\, adjective
Middle English (Scots), from Latin vigilant-, vigilans, from present participle of vigilare

---> to keep watch, stay awake <----

---> alertly watchful especially to avoid danger <-----

guard·ian, \ˈgär-dē-ən\, noun,
Middle English gardein, wardein — more at warden, 15th century

---> one that guards : custodian : keeper <---

---> one who has the care of the person or property of another <---

While the 911 Truth movement belongs to everyone, that does not imply we shouldn't guard it, as if our lives and our collective futures depend on it. They do.

Thanks for all that YOU do.

Thank you so much for this! 5 STARS!!!!!

I really needed this resource here in Australia, it has really helped!!

Thank you so much!

Kindest regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

It's NOT "disinformation"

Not really. There is an obvious absence of malice. People simply believe some pretty weird stuff. And then they try to convince others of what they simply believe to be true. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way things are and have been since the beginning.

Some people believe Jesus arose from the dead and turned water into wine and fed some multitudes with a loaf of bread and a bunch of other stuff like that.

Some people believe that you won't get into high heaven if you aren't wearing special underwares when you die.

Some people believe there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.

Some people believe you can confess all your sins and you're good for another week.

Some people believe they have been visited by aliens and have seen UFO's.

Some people believe right-wingers, conservatives, and even Republicans have something valid to offer the world and that all three of those things are not illnesses and diseases that are in sore need of a cure.

Some people believe there is no God.

Some people believe they can find God through various drugs.

Some people believe that there really is hope for the world, and humankind, and that we can pull back from the brink and not destroy ourselves and the Earth.

Some people believe in magic.

There are too many to point out. And none of them are evil conspiracies. They are just what one or more people believe and talk about and sometimes try to get others to believe, for a variety of reasons. Some are more misguided than others. Some can potentially cause more harm than others. Some are more fantastical and some are more mundane. And on and on it goes.

And all of the weird beliefs and similar things around 9/11 are not any different. It's just the way it is. And that includes believing in 9/11 Truth and Justice itself, which is considered by MANY non-9/11 Truth people (which are currently still in a VAST majority, btw) to be seen in the same light as some of us see the fringe beliefs that are targeted in this article. That is, they look at us like we look at the fringers.

I don't believe a commercial passenger jet hit the Pentagon. And I'm not some disinformation person trying to destroy the movement just because I believe that to be true. (although some people in this movement would label me as such) I could be wrong. I could be right. Of course, that belief is more accepted by the general mainstream of the movement and isn't considered in the same light as space beams, mini nukes and no planers.

Much and most of this is like the religion of 9/11 Truth worried that the FUNdamentalists are too radical, and the liberalists lack dedication and true understanding, and the off shoots are better off over there where they are because they are making us all look bad, and the people who want female priests, and male priests able to wed, are destroying the foundation of the church, and the headquarters is trying to exert too much control over the flock, and that evangelical has too much power, and those several were caught with their pants down, and if we don't all get our act together RIGHT NOW it's the end of the world as we know it ----- rather than the real truth of the matter that the church has been around a long time and will be around for years or decades or centuries, and none of the petty bickering and infighting and power grabs and all the rest amount to much more than a hill of beans. (which all becomes increasingly clear in 20/20 hindsight --- for some --- others not so much)

Take care of the cojones and the frijoles will take care of themselves.

What have we learned?

1. Critiquing other people in the 9/11 truth movement is not an "attack" when you do not make engage in accusations or name calling. It is not an "attack" to quote the words of someone else in the 9/11 truth movement.
2. Critiquing within the 9/11 truth movement is not "sewing discord". If you do not believe the official story, this is not merely a "belief" but an analysis of the facts. Why should this not apply to alternate explanations or theories about 9/11? Without critique everything would be "plausible", "possible", and "on the table" including the official story of 9/11.
3. Promoting false or misleading information is not evidence that you are an agent. However, repeatedly promoting bad information and bad behavior is evidence that you are unreliable and discrediting to the truth movement.
4. Attacks and accusations are used (intentionally and unintentionally) to disrupt the 9/11 truth movement. It is very easy to spot the persistent "shit disturbers".
5. Promoting false or misleading information discredits the 9/11 truth movement regardless of intent, which is why critique is essential. The best possible case for 9/11 truth results in the best evidence to convince skeptics and get justice.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

What about David Ray Griffin?

Are people like him now officially unwelcome here?


Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11:
Three Official Denials

by David Ray Griffin


This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the
Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost
importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson,
there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington.
Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only
two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone
using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.
17 In either case, the official story about the calls from
Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of
the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should
we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other
defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds
for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal
contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such
contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11
Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.


Dear Reprehensor, Aircraft

Dear Reprehensor,

Aircraft struck the twin towers. It's very likely that they were Boeings, and it's also probable* that they were the very Boeings that the media reported as "hijacks". It seems absurd to have to say these things,...

was it really necessary to disclassify an Operation Northwoods/plane swap maneuver as "absurd" and pigeonhole it into the no-plane corner?

Does that mean that Operation Northwoods is tabu at 911blogger and that researchers and sites working in this direction - f.i. pilotsfor911truth.org, thepentacon.com, loosechange911.com - are viewed as disinformation and not welcome there?

Please clarify. I've seen so many attempts to mix up the difference between no-planes and Operation Northwoods that I can't believe you are jumping onto this bandwagon, too.

With all respect,

Woody Box

Not my intent.

However, I am influenced by Robin Hordon's observation that 77 is the only flight that a full-on swap out is probable because it was the only flight completely lost by radar.

The Bay of Pigs also offers up a similar proof of concept;

If I remember correctly...

...according to the published flight paths, at least 3 of the 4 flights made direction changes over airports....couldn't a switch have possibly been made there and the flight path left undisturbed to the casual eye?

I am not in the aviation industry, so I don't know if that is possible, but it is worth looking into, IMO.

Just wondering.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

The Starkly Simple Strucure of the Cruel Hoax Called "9/11"

The only elements which are _essential_ to the "9/11" Story are that two (unidentified) jetliners hit the Twin Towers (and their four engines were never recovered, thus allowing for no identification); open-flame kerosene fires burned for a short time at each of the Twin Towers; there was an incident at the Pentagon (again, no engines); a jetliner _may_ have been totally destroyed at Shanksville (no engines); the Salomon Building (WTC-7) was mysteriously destroyed. All of the rest of the stories are inessential. The monumental trauma of "9/11" (a massive crime against World Civilization) consists of these basic elements.

(The subsquent "Anthrax Attacks" compounded the traumas).

As few as eight well-placed people could have planned and implemented the cruel hoax of "9/11" in a carefully Compartmented Operation. Their assistants could have been wholly misled as to what was being done, and why. It is absurd to allege that "the U.S. Government did it." The entire U.S Government was neither available, desireable nor necessary (although a few particular selected elements of the FBI could be most useful in placing false evidential trails).

To see how easy these "9/11" 'conjuring tricks' are, simplify, simplify.

The "four hijacked planes" had GPS-equipped autopilots, which are programmed pre-flight with waypoints. By someone... The autopilots are supposed to disconnect when the pilot uses the cockpit controls. Easily circumvented by infiltrated ground crew.

------------ * * * * * ------------

[A] 'Wire' the buildings to be demolished with radio-controlled dynamically-sequenced explosive charges; thermate (to take down the main structural steelwork); and C-4 radio-detonated charges magnetically-attached to the underside of the 22ga. steel floor pans (for maximal "mushroom-cloud" psychological impact -- ruinous psychic blows produced by the gigantic top-down powdered pyroclastic dust clouds).

To set these in place unobtrusively, the interior structure of the buildings can be accessed over time from the Central Service Areas via the 36" high crawl spaces under each WTC floor

[B] Enter mid-Atlantic waypoints into the four selected autopilots...

[C] Break those autopilot disconnection links, via hardware or software or both. Take out the onboard I.D. transponders...

As soon as the planes go onto autopilot, they will all stay on pre-programmed courses until they hit (say) the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, where no-one will be looking for them. Especially after complex Air Defence Exercises.

[D] Insert two unmarked twin-jets (plenty of these available secondhand) into the airspace of the Air Defence Exercises, set to fly on autopilot into precise GPS coordinates on the Twin Towers themselves.

[E] We can be certain that no Boeing Jetliner hit the Pentagon on "9/11". This was confirmed to me directly on 3 June 2004, by the DoD's Chief Freedom of Information officer, whose boss was killed there on "9/11." He has the highest Security Clearance in the building... He has to, to redact FOIA releases.

In a voice like icy cold steel, he told me:


'Coincidentally', George Tenet announced his surprise resignation a half an hour later, along with that of his "CounterTerrism" Deputy.

(According to popular mythology, the plane and its two giant engines were 'vapourized.' Yet, two of John Ashcroft's FBI agents somehow managed to recover the "Black Boxes" from _inside the building_, preloaded with false data. See "Pilots For 911 Truth" analyses. "Pilots for 911 Truth" have lovingly reconstructed the data: our chief investigator is Jeff Latsis, Chief Accident Investigator for the USAF. The records clearly show the plane flying 500ft. over the top of the Pentagon...)

With 12 terminals attached to the Internet and to the Pentagon's own mainframes, this top FOIA officer has the highest security clearance in thr building. He has to, so as to "redact" (black out) all the sensitive bits in the FOIA releases.

------------ * * * * * ------------


An in-place Coup d'Etat took place on "9/11", with the planes providing misdirection and misattribution. Bush ceased to be President in anything but name. Policies changed drastically across the board. 'Athens' became 'Sparta.' All of history is re-runs of Athens vs. Sparta.

Only two key men were _required) to stymie all investigations: John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney-General (to obstruct the FBI investigations); and Rudy Giuliani, the Mayor of New York (to quash revolt, and to hastily destroy the crime scene evidence by shipping it overseas for melting-down).

Since neither of these persons has the intellect nor ability to plan and control such events, a third man is required -- someone well-placed to liase, supervise necessary aspects, and lay false trails of blame. Someone, perhaps, rather like Jerome Hauer, Giuliani's OEM Director...

All of them are of course fully entitled to a fair public trial.

[ FX: "There's your trouble..." ]

Tony Hollick

------------ * * * * * ------------