How to Destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement

The 911 Truth Movement


LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS isn't going to go away quitely into the night just because the Military Industrial Complex said so.

The Constitution is Not going to collapse no matter how much co-intel pro crap they try to throw at us.

We ARE SEASONED. We are Matured.

From BEFORE JFK, FROM BEFORE PEARL HARBOUR, People have been aware of false-flag events at one level or another.

Patsies or pre-"allowed" attacks.

911 is OUR GENERATION's Wake UP Call.

The Truth Movement has been around for a long long time.

911 is Our 1776

As 1776 was the Founding Fathers' Response to Absolute Tyranny. They had their George AND Friends too.

In the Face of Absolute Tyranny, the Lone Lantern will NOT Burn alone.

Merry 911 Truth Mas and Happy 911 Truth Year.

What we do, we DO for ALL Mankind.

Peace CANNOT exist in a Vacuum of Injustice.

The Truth Movement is going to Fill that Vacuum.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Show "It's a good video..." by willyloman

Arabesque has done a lot

looking for evidence, as I recall. You ask it as a question, Willy, "Now are we supposed to not talk about legitimate evidence at the Pentagon because some "drone" created the "no planes hit the towers meme"?"

I don't find that Arabesque is suggesting that we not talk about "egitimate evidence at the Pentagon ". Just that we not assume that it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon. Also, the hard evidence for WHAT exactly hit the Pentagon is hard to come by, since we are denied the videotapes of the event that we are quite certain exist. None of the existing publicly-released tapes shows exactly what hit the Pentagon. OK -- correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to see the EVIDENCE.

With regard to the Pentagon, in nearly all my talks I refer to Sec'y Mineta's testimony regarding what happened as the plane approaching the Pentagon was being tracked. I think Mineta is our chief whistleblower at this time -- along with April Gallop and William Rodriguez and a few others at the scenes. He was there, and his testimony is quite damning to the role of Dick Cheney and the lack of air defenses for the Pentagon.


Merry Christmas sir.

and Merry Christmas to all reading this.

I think that's a fair assessment, that we should be given access to all the evidence that is being withheld, including the videos, and I would go so far as to want the material picked up by that row of agents that walked the yard and picked up pieces of wreckage that day. I would even want that one, manageable piece that was sitting in the yard that is constantly held up as proof that a plane hit the Pentagon; you know the one I am talking about. I would like that to be handed over to someone like you, for analysis. But if they won't give us 3d modeling program they used to explain the collapse of Building 7, I doubt we will get anything else.

Gallop presents a very compelling eye-witness report of the events of that day. Two things stand out. One, that she walked through the area hit by whatever it was and saw no plane wreckage, and TWO, that there was no alarm sounded. These are key bits of information. Often what doesn't happen and what isn't there, can be very compelling evidence.

And lastly, she talks specifically about the defenses around the Pentagon and that they weren't activated. That again is key testimony. Having someone from the Pentagon admitting that there is a defense system in place over and above the intercept planes that weren't ordered to intercept.

I guess my point here, ProfJones, is that sometimes what we don't see is evidence as well. And I am sure you know that.

I do have a question that I would like to talk to you about, ProfJones, which goes back to what you and I discussed months ago. I don't want to do it publicly, so I would ask you to contact me via email, if you have the time. I know it's Christmas and all..

but I think it is important.

If you don't still have my email,


Stick with the hard evidence of what we do know at this point. And because of the excellent work of many we know plenty.

An effective analogy I've used is to say that we don't have to know how a magician does his trick to know that it is a trick: we see the woman sawed in half and are amazed... but we don't believe he ACTUALLY sawed her in half and quickly put her back together.

An excellent video. The truth will out.

Merry Christmas.

The Evidence Is There For What Didn't Hit The Pentagon!

ProfJones says, "Also, the hard evidence for WHAT exactly hit the Pentagon is hard to come by, since we are denied the videotapes of the event that we are quite certain exist. None of the existing publicly-released tapes shows exactly what hit the Pentagon. OK -- correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to see the EVIDENCE."

We do have hard evidence that whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon was not a 757 thanks to the Pentagon photographic evidence released thus far; the evidence says that an aircraft DID hit the Pentagon, just not a 757. The "no plane hit the Pentagon" mantra is a distraction. Of course an aircraft hit the Pentagon, though not a 757.

Now the Pentagon strike was to destroy the Office of the Accountants, who were looking for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld told Congress on September 10, 2001 was missing. The only way to ensure the accountants office was destroyed was to use a precision weapon: Cruise missile. A 757 is not a precision weapon.

Since Flight 77 flew from the north of the Citgo gas station, and the Pentagon videos show a pointy-nosed object (not the nosecone for a Boeing 757) heading for the Pentagon supposedly south of the Citgo gas station, what does that tell us about what flew into the Pentagon and what didn't? 9/11 Truth is about the EVIDENVE. Well, the evidence is clear here: decoy on one side of the Citgo gas station, while a small, pointy-nosed object flew into the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station......

Fast forward to 25 seconds in the following YouTube video:

Notice the shape of the nosecone of the object about to enter the Pentagon?

Now take a look at the nosecone of a Boeing 757 in the link below and compare it to the object in the YouTube video:

They are grossly dissimilar, or in other words, they are not the same objects!

Now the specific type of Cruise missile (AGM-86) in the link below is the spiting image of the object seen in the YouTube video:

If a real 757 had flown into the Pentagon from the south, it would be massive in size in the first Pentagon photo stills released. Recognizable portions of a 757 would have been seen protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser. Note the corrected proportions of a 757 in the link below:

Also, does the aircraft in the five Pentagon CCTV stills in the link above look as though it's flying into the Pentagon at an angle, or does the aircraft look more like it's heading for the Pentagon more or less straight on?

The question I have is why do certain entities such as Arabesque refuse to let the evidence inform us what didn't hit the Pentagon?

Dean Jackson/webmaster
Washington, DC

Very illuminating!

Thanks Dean/Brian, I had not seen those images before. If that first Youtube vid has not been doctored in any way, then the evidence seems overwhelming that we are looking at a missile speeding towards the Pentagon. Not clear, however, what you mean about "protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser." In which image would we see it protruding?

I'm sure there was a plane, but I (so far) ascribe to the fly-over theory. One plane to serve as a decoy, one missile speeding in from a different direction, creating a near surgical strike and leaving little debris. I say "so far" because my research has not been exhaustive in this area as it has in some others. I remain open to persuasion, but with all the heated comments on this post, I have yet to see any good rebuttals to the evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon.

I see lots of down arrows to hide the missile evidence, but that doesn't bother me, I always read the hidden comments. As soon as someone tells me "don't look here," that's exactly where I'm gonna look!


Yes, I have to agree that Arabesque is one of the most meticulous researchers on the evidence being used to make claims, and has found and exposed errors and inconsistencies in both physical evidence claims and in the contradictions in researchers' arguments.

I tend to think that Arabesque would not necessarily agree with one premise of the film (there are some points made that Arabesque's work would agree with) -- that the "no plane" claims at the WTC discredit the "no plane" claims at the Pentagon or Shanksville. I think Arabesque has done a lot of work that suggests the view that "there is no evidence for a 757 at the Pentagon" is not a strong argument and not based on strong evidence. He works to keep our work grounded in the strongest evidence.

Arabesque cites the Pentagon witness statements here --

Why Does The Evidence Not Matter In The Pentagon Attack?

Victronix says, "I tend to think that Arabesque would not necessarily agree with one premise of the film (there are some points made that Arabesque's work would agree with) -- that the "no plane" claims at the WTC discredit the "no plane" claims at the Pentagon or Shanksville."

Who are those eyewitnesses that say there was no commercial airliner (or an airliner matching a commercial airliner)? The eyewitnesses who either affirm an aircraft approaching from the north of the Citgo gas station or south of the Citgo gas station, all affirm that a large airliner was present. Can we please stick to the evidence? The eyewitnesses all affirm a large airliner was present. The next question, then, that needs an answer is: Is there any evidence that a large airliner actually hit the Pentagon? For an answer to that question, see my last comment above.

When assessing the Pentagon attack, analyze the eyewitnesses’ accounts with that of the Pentagon photographic evidence.

Dean Jackson/webmaster
Washington, DC

First I'm a groupie, now I'm a drone...sigh

Addressing the BS disinfo "drones", from a tactical standpoint they will be the first fielded into play. So yeh, its necessary to clear out the pawns to get to the bishops and knights. The difference between how we "Arabesque drones" do it and how the stalker fake truthers do it, is we use facts and evidence of bad behavior, not random gratuitous personal attacks.

"but maybe, just maybe, if someone with the time and talent as Mr. Arabesques there could spent a little more effort looking for evidence rather than "drones", maybe we would have a little more positive intel in the movement, rather than just more and more suspicion of those around us. "

1: Maybe, just maybe, if the "leadership" took a stand in a timely manner when activists get attacked, maybe we wouldn't need more intel because the disruption would have been long since neutralized.

"Now you Arabesque drones go ahead and vote this down quick before someone reads it. That's what you do with questions these days, right?"

2: One question: where were you during the Kennebunkport Hoax?

Hello Col. Sparks

I have heard a little about you. Me personally, I don't get into the politics of this movement. If someone presents an idea, I read it, I research it, and then I take it or leave it. I don't engage in witch hunts. I find they themselves are usually the distraction, not the war.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out disinfo agents. It's is necessary. The only problem is, when you start thinking that is all you can bring to the table, and you start buying into you own hype, then you have to find more and more agents to remain relevant. Kinda like Homeland Security digging up a new homegrown plot every year or so.

Your reference to a previous success, and you insinuation that I am lacking somehow in my efforts, by comparison, would tend to make the casual observer think you may already be slipping into a bit of that trap yourself. But then again, I don't know much about you.

When movements this large and this passionate begin to stagnate a bit, they tend to start feeding on themselves. People start looking at each other sideways. Blaming each other. Seeing an agent behind every mistake or every new idea. I simply suggest that Mr. Arabesque there apparently has some talent. and some time. All I have ever heard by people here about him, is how he is trying to shape our discourse and finger "questionable truthers". I only suggest that might be a waste of his talent.

So put your claws back in.

Where was I when you went on Daily Kos talking about breaking the Hoax? I was running my own site, writing my own work about 9/11 Truth...

I was writing about how naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a "terrorist organization" was a fraud...

I was calling for the immediate impeachment of the President of the United States...

and writing about how part of our problem was how the "left" was drifting to the "right" to accommodate this criminal enterprise...

after that I wrote a Petition to Replace Pelosi, and have since gained 8,000 signatures on it, because her criminal complicity in these crimes, and many others.

That's what I was doing the last time you exposed an agent, Col. Sparks. Thanks for asking. Good work on that by the way. I'd been meaning to tell you.

But that really isn't the important question, is it? that question, is what are we doing, now.

Personally, I respect the work of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I also respect April Gallop for coming forward and testifying to what she saw.

Interesting response...

..that I couldn't quite get through because of this:

and you insinuation that I am lacking somehow in my efforts,

Please explain this statement..

As for "exposing agents", I do not recall ever making that characterization. If you are talking about the attacks and slander by Webster Tarpley after the Kennebunkport Hoax, thank you for acknowledging the problem. I think its great you were doing activism at that time.

However, since you admit you knew about the problem, I would also expect you took a few moments to denounce this obvious unethical behavior on the part of a "leader" targeting both 911 activists and peace activists. A simple post like, "Mr. Tarpley, I am appalled and will not be buying your books in future" , is what someone in your position would probably have done given your other valid commitments.

Feel free to share.

BTW: the only reason me and my "drones" keep banging on about these people--the Laruoche connected fake truther stalker gangs--is because no one else is doing anything about it. They are still there. The only reason they've been beaten to the fringes is because of our efforts. That's thanks to "Arabesque and his drones". You're welcome.

There is no excuse for threatening people's lives over activism. There is no excuse for targeting peace activist working with us. And some useless "leaders" have, a year later, decided to try to rehabilitate Tarpley?

I don't think so. No one is saying you have to do exactly what we do; but that you fail to see it's work that needs to be done--and stoop to making snarky comments about "Arabesques drones" and my "claws"-- speaks volumes.

This is about public safety and social responsibility---not "politics". Or are you one of those people who is going to wait until someone gets killed before you speak up in a timely fashion?

Thank you so much for telling me what I should...

... do. That's very kind of you. That's what I have been waiting for; someone to come along and tell me what I should do all the time.

I assume you're responding out of thread to my post below

Hey, no problem! Anyone who has reached adulthood NOT knowing that

email harassment
death threats
privacy invasion

are things responsible activists don't do obviously needs a helping hand. Cheers!



I am responding to this comment you made above... Again, nothing said here is anything like "death threats" or "stalking"...

this is the comment of yours telling me what I should have done...

"A simple post like, "Mr. Tarpley, I am appalled and will not be buying your books in future" , is what someone in your position would probably have done given your other valid commitments."

Sorry, my mistake

But thats not telling you to do anything. Thats just what I'd speculate someone in your position might do given the circumstances and your admitted knowledge of the attacks.

So what did you do/say when you learned a former member of a murderous political cult who somehow became massive in 911 truth was attacking your fellow activists?

How do you destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement?

By not acting to hold those responsible for the atrocities that took place that day, accountable. As long as there are people seeking justice for 9/11, the 9/11 Truth Movement will never die.

Edit: This thread is a buzzkill.

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?

Iron discipline needed

Iron discipline is needed to keep from descending to the same level as those one is criticizing.
One cannot criticize name-calling and labeling when others do it --- and then indulge in it oneself.

Go to 7:32 in the video: "the media portrays these fringe nutcases."

Isn't "fringe nutcases" exactly the sort of language that is used to marginalize the Truth Movement?

I know how frustrating it is, and how difficult it is, to maintain the discipline necessary to stick to the high road. I want to yell "idiot," and "traitor," and "fool," and "dupe" and "coward" etc. etc. etc. BUT
I don't because the high road demands that I not descend to this --- AND it is fruitless. In fact it is less than fruitless. It is destructive. ( I had been a blind fool myself for years - swallowing the Official Conspiracy Theory and thinking that the idea of "inside job" was insane. God only knows what I continue to be blind to).

So PLEASE re-do this video and criticize Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds etc. all you want ---- BUT do not call them "fringe nutcases." Say they are "factually incorrect" and leave it at that.
If you want to attack their theories, then call them "baseless," or "without any supporting evidence," or "full of errors such as ......(and then name the errors)." But do not attack them personally by calling them names.

If the idea is to stick to the facts -- then that applies to evaluations of people's character as well.
Calling people "Trolls" is not useful. Call them "mistaken" or "uninformed."

Iron discipline my friends. That's what the wise of all traditions have always taught.


very good points

I second the motion.

I flinched when he called them "morons"

Arabesque calls those he disagrees with "morons." Shades of the SLC crew --- all they've got is insults.

Link please

To a quote by Arabesque directly calling someone he disagreed with a "moron".

I'm assuming this was --allegedly-- in an online debate or on his blog--NOT an irrelevant throw away comment ...from say a private email where we all occasionally put out the odd insult about people not present we're annoyed with.

Did you watch the video?

It's at 2:06

Did you?

Note that at 2:06, nothing shows Arabesque referring to anyone as a moron. Also take note that this movie was not made by Arabesque so if there is any reference to any individual as a moron, you should blame the individual who made the movie.

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?

You wrote:

"Arabesque calls those he disagrees with "morons.""

Please post a relevant example from a forum or blog. Private or confidential correspondence doesn't count.

Didn't Arabesque make the video on this page?

It is my understanding that he did, and I have told you exactly where to find "morons," at the 2:06 mark.

I also disagree with these people, obviously. But name calling does not advance our cause.

Arabesque did not make this

Arabesque did not make this video, there is just a link to Arabesque's blog on here, but it actually is a misrepresentation given that the video directly contradicts some of Arabesque's research in its claims.

Thank you for succinctly

Thank you for succinctly explaining the issue. It was a common error to think Arabesque did the video. At least that is cleared up.

There are people on the ground in Virginia studying this event but Arabesque is the authority? Therein lies some tension.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Not is was not...

...a common error to think Arabesque made this video. It was unfounded speculation from go. The common error was to think Michael made this video--an error I made myself.

That is not what people are

That is not what people are even arguing about here but good that you corrected it.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Your aggression is really beyond the pale

"unfounded speculation?" How about a simple mistake due to the link back to his blog? You always have to go for the jugular, don't you?

Am I? Really?

Might be a case of turn about is fair play and all that.;-)

That said, on rereading the thread, I can see where this MIGHT be a possible misunderstanding. However this could have been averted by level headed people simply asking Michael for a clarification instead of jumping on the "Arabesque is an agent" bandwagon. 'Sides, that wagon's a bit crowded these days...

my comment still stands, in reference to the video's authors

I am commenting on the video, not on Arabesque, and my comment still stands, re. whoever wrote the script.

There is ill will and bad faith in this thread. Too much ego and aggressive posturing and too little of a humble desire to find the truth.

I don't like anyone in a movement I am associated with using the word morons. It's like the boosters of the OCT who engage in ad hominem attacks cause they got nothing else.

Clearly, due to all the down arrows, other commenters think calling our adversaries "morons" is just peachy keen. I seem to be the only one bothered by it.

"There is ill will and bad

"There is ill will and bad faith in this thread."

There rather is, isn't there?

It's in the video..

but I guess that's why you "hid" her comment, so people wouldn't see that.

An iron discipline fact about the Pentagon is the engine mystery

I generally don't discuss the Pentagon issue much as the facts there are more murky. However, there is one issue which can be discussed, without fear of being in a gray area, and that is what happened to the high strength and high temperature alloy parts of the aircraft jet engines. There is also only one turbine disk which was found and it is too small to be from the jet engines used on a Boeing 757.

All good points


This Pilots for 911truth page makes good points about the size of the damage vs. that of the aircraft and the lack of lawn damage and debris.

Additionally, there is the 270 degree maneuver to hit the one wing of the Pentagon which was recently refurbished and only had about 10 to 20% of the people in it that it normally would have had.

There are very sound points to make about the Pentagon but one has to be more careful there, and in the case of Flight 93, than things like the collapse of WTC 7.

When shown the collapse of WTC 7 people can see it was obviously a controlled demolition. When they are then asked when there would have been a chance to set the charges they are forced to confront the fact that some sort of pre-planning had to occur.

I believe the collapse of WTC 7, along with the information about what was contained in it, is the most useful tool to get those who haven't yet, to look at the mysterious events of Sept. 11, 2001. Once there, these other anomalies like Flight 77 at the Pentagon, Flight 93 in Shanksville, and the collapses of the twin towers, can be viewed in a skeptical way and scrutinized more easily. Then other subtle things like Marvin Bush being on the board of directors of the security co. for the towers and the motive for its use as a pretext for disguised resource wars, otherwise known as "The War on Terror", can be brought in and make sense to one initially being exposed to 911truth.

I know the remarkable collapse of WTC 7 was the thing that triggered Professor Jones' skepticism about the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and it and his first paper concerning the collapses of all three buildings was what got me to look at it skeptically also.

Pentagon is good secondary evidence

Nice summary of the suspicion trail of discovery Tony.
This is essentially how my thought process proceeded and how I like to present it to others.
Building 7 is the smoking gun which leads us to all the other obvious inconsistencies and suspicious evidence and events.
The Pentagon peculiarities etc. are more obvious in light of the building 7 evidence but don't stand so well on their own as evidence of an inside job.

Flight 77, Flight 93

The "debunkers" always encourage 9/11 Truthers to read the official government reports regarding the events of 9/11. When we do, and still have questions this seems to really bother them. For instance, the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) makes no mention of what happened to the aircraft's engines. It also gives no explanation of what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon. It merely mentions it. So these issues are left unresolved. Regarding Flight 93, did it crash at 10:03AM or 10:06AM? Was it shot down? What about the eyewitness testimony of Susan Mcelwain? etc...etc...

Recommended reading

>>There is also only one turbine disk which was found and it is too small to be from the jet engines used on a Boeing 757.

ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'

The article correctly suggests caution

I realize that the compressor and turbine blade disks are significantly smaller than the fan blade disks in a turbofan jet engine. However, I hadn't seen the turbine disk shown in the photo before, with someone standing next to it for size comparison. I thought the one disk I saw was smaller.

However, there is only one set of engine parts shown and while the article correctly says abscence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of abscence it is curious that only one set of engine parts is shown.

All in all this is why I generally tend to stay away from the Pentagon anomalies in discussions about what really occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, other than the curious 270 degree aircraft maneuver to hit the only wing with a small number of people in it.

I prefer to stay with the NYC building collapses, which science can be brought to bear on, and we do have video to work with there and a certain amount of knowledge of the structural design.

As I stated in an earlier post on this thread, I believe the collapse of WTC 7 is the portal through which anyone with common sense will start to realize that there is a serious problem with the official story and a cover-up, and that a real investigation is needed to actually get at just what really did happen.

What the film really does

>>All in all this is why I generally tend to stay away from the Pentagon anomalies in discussions about what really occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, other than the curious 270 degree aircraft maneuver to hit the only wing with a small number of people in it.

That's what's wrong with this video -- it doesn't stay away, but makes blatant claims which can be easily shot down in numerous ways. And it does so carefully, sliding the statements in in the middle, not making them central, but just slipping them in quietly. Yet to those who are listening, they are glaring.

Pairing some of our best evidence (B7) with some of our worst and most dangerous evidence (Pentagon no plane, no Boeing, Shankesville no plane) is a means to discredit our strong evidence in just yet another way.

That's what we need to really be learning about this film, what it appears to be seeking to do -- pairing weakest and strongest to discredit the strongest. That's how discrediting by association works.

Luckily, outside of a few CIT salespeople, most on here can see through it.

Re-do? You what?

So PLEASE re-do this video and criticize Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds etc. all you want ---- BUT do not call them "fringe nutcases." Say they are "factually incorrect" and leave it at that.
If you want to attack their theories, then call them "baseless," or "without any supporting evidence," or "full of errors such as ......(and then name the errors)." But do not attack them personally by calling them names.

If the idea is to stick to the facts -- then that applies to evaluations of people's character as well.
Calling people "Trolls" is not useful. Call them "mistaken" or "uninformed."

I don't think Michael needs to redo his video. "Judy Garland" doesn't have anyone to blame but herself. I mean really, orbital platforms? :roll:

I only have one critique on his analysis. Michael makes the distinction between "debunkers" probably on someone's payroll, verse debunkers repeating shite for personal reasons. A similar distinction needs to be made with no-planers--the ones like Wood and Fetzer who are obviously have an agenda and don't care how crazy they look, and the ones who came later, who believe no-planes for their own reasons.

There is actually a test to sort the two: personal attacks. In group one--I call the fake debunker -fake truther dyad-- the extreme denial coupled with extreme crazy theories function as a platform to attack real activists who get blindsided by this theatrical production. Judy Wood is definitely part of this group.

Contrast real debunkers, who want nothing to do with truthers, no-planers or otherwise, and no-planers not connected to the stalking crowd who have no interest in launching personal attacks against anyone and would rather avoid/ignore debunkers, sincere or otherwise and "do there own thing" on their own forums.

What Michael describes is the aspect used to turn the public against 9/11 truth. The fake debunker -fake truther dyad is meant to destroy cohesion within 911truth, no matter what side you're on. It is a sophisticated control mechanism. But maybe thats outside the focus of Michael video.

People, even people I agree with on most things keep missing this: ALL parts of 911truth are infiltrated. Mainstream, "debunkers", "no-planers", us, the "leaders". I do believe the "Noplanes" meme was manufactured to destroy 911 activism. But I don't confuse this with the actions and intentions of individual "no planers". I've said it before--don't hurt anyone or get in the way of a new investigation, and I will live and let live:

There is only one way to neutralize the effect of this mess of a disinformation op in 911truth--the Big Fence. No matter what side we're on, if we're sincere and we don't fight, it neutralizes the effect of the disinfo op that NEEDS fighting to work.

Michael is not accepting noplanes arguments in his comments. I assume he is also NOT going to noplanes channels to "mix it up". "Live and let live" is a sign of people not controlled by the op.

OTOH Judy Wood, Webfairy, etc. along with ScrewLucy behave exactly opposite to this principle: they go out of their way to provoke, harass, stalk, lie--and it's caught up to them:

No one behaving like this is just "uninformed" or "mistaken". IMHO if they can't behave decently, no one has to consider their "theories".

There's your iron discipline.



Thanks for your comments Jenny. One clarification needs to be made. This is not my video. It was sent to me and I posted it here and at my site because I hadn't seen it posted by anyone previously. The creator of this video uses the name WarCrime911 on Youtube. My apologies for not making this clear in my original post.

No problem

Thanks for the update. I hereby amend all my "Michael" references to "WarCrime911". ;-)

Conference Needed on the Psychology of the 9/11 Attacks

This is a decent video, however, it would have much more impact if it included some expert commentary from psychologists who study propaganda's role in creating mis perception.
Belief is the catch word here. The 9/11 Truth Movement's biggest challenge is to find a way to penetrate belief. It is belief that holds minds from experiencing the truth. I have been calling for a new 9/11conference of media, legal, historical, psychological, and other professionals to address this zone of the psychology of belief, propaganda and political pressure as it applies to the events of 9/11.

The "art" of deception has risen to new levels of awareness in the publics mind as we see the fallout from the various Wall St. debacles explode over the news....take the Bernard Madoff scandal's effect on the Wiesel Foundation's loss of nearly "all" of its investments. The US government has a varied and lengthy history of public deception. Time to explore that in every way shape and form. The time for us to derive a benefit from exploring this is NOW.

An advantage that we have...

First, this is one of the most important subjects to keep discussing for the future health of truth seeking. So, thank you Michael.

In working the streets and talking it up with everyday folks as much as I do, and because I present myself cominglig 9/11 Truth for Peace, one of the common points of discussion with many people is that many, many people actually remember that there were cointelpros in the peace much so that they call them infiltrators, or agent provocatuers, or dissrupters...and they know that they were sent there by the Feds.

This provides a wondeful, and very effective way to separate out the "9/11 whackos" as seen by the average citizen. When I make it plain that we definitely have the very same activities going on inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, and that this is one of the ways how the Feds are trying to keep the cover-up going, and that solid Truthers have long since distanced ourselves from the "no-planers" and "videofakers" and the like, there is an immediate rise in the level of my perceived integrity and validity. Their ears are more open, I get treated less conspiratorically, its very easy to swing into JFK [which 80% of the people know that the governement was involved with], and then finally, I can get into my personal high ground for changing minds in behalf of 9/11 Truth Seeking...a short discussion of Pearl Harbor and FDR knowing ahead of time so this country would get into war.

By this time people are connecting the "9/11-go to war" dots themselves and it seems that our conversation has freed them in ways that now allow 9/11 to be considered as the inside job that it was.

...and I never said that 9/11 was an inside job...I just say the governemnet is lying to us about 9/11 too...

There is so much to be gained by cominlging 9/11 Truth for Peace that I cannot possiby overstate the case. And ironically, we all know that the top levels of the Peace Movements have instructed their minions to dismiss the 9/11 Truth Movement completely.

We also know that we are being hacked all the time, and that the Peace movements are still being hacked after all these years so, connecting these dots, how can it be anything else but that the HI PERPS are totally afraid of the merger or, afraid of a mutual acceptance of each movement towards each other.

This ALONE is enough to continue strong efforts to comingle our messages.

And an interesting approach below...

Since many Truthers do not feel it worth much time to identify exactly "who" the cointelpros are amongst them [and I strongly agree], I suggest that we try to raise our awareness of what cointelpro attitudes, influences and net behavioral results look like regarding our individual groups' original intended goals. Pursuant to this idea, I have been using the following deconstruction of .counter intelligence programs...

If we take a look at what is trying to being placed into the 9/11 Truth Seeking discussion and try to decide if its COUNTER to our own INTELLIGENCE...IE:...if it is COUNTER INTELLIGENT...then perhaps we should NOT accept it...

This approach accomplishes the following: radically "depersonalizes" the process entirely avoiding that huge drag on the scene... passes the responsibility for being intelligent and making decisions to each individual involved...

...which is what we strive to do anyway... allows us to make a clear demarcation between damaging "disinfo" and positive and constructive "facts" and evidence... totally frustrates any cointelpro actions as they are being politely ignored and have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the planned activities of information dissemination to the public...

This approach is a significant plank in the platform of CI...Civil Informationing...IE: CI-ers simply do not allow disinfo OR any typical negative behaviors and attitudes to be ANY part fo our 9/11 Truth event...whatever truth event or truth program that we may be performing in public that day...

Without doubt, both understanding that cointelpro and disinfo are out there [and are secretly trying to undermine ALL movements for the people], as well as knowing how to deal with "cointelpro-disinfo" by turning it around TOWARDS our favor, definitely marks a huge difference and a MAJOR evolvement over public activisms from the 60s and 70s.

As we move ahead, we will have considerably more difficulty in dealing with AA77? and the Pentagon because the HI PERPS have most of the evidence locked away in their "national security" hiding places. We have no dust to analyze, we have no laws of physics to depend upon, we have no examples of Pentagon crashes such as the examples of demolitions to compare.

Therefore, we are going to have to create "more conjecture", or have to come up with more "theories or postulations" that are dependent upon some evidence that some people see one way and others see the other way. This is dangerous territory because, it creates openings through which cointelpro and disinfo can easily place their products...and this can get tricky.

But, the FAA...NORAD...the SS...Cheney in the PEOC...AA77? [or whatever]...the 09:32 explosion...The Pentagon...and Where was Rummie?...are the Achilles' Heels of The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario that the HI PERPS put into play, and these subjects will eventually lead to their complete demise as the thousands of pieces fall together and it all becomes more exposed.

Come to think of it, Michael gets a BIG thank you for helping airing out this subject...its critical indeed...

And, as we get deeper into the events surrounding WDC, we will be rousing the beast more and more...

...and the HI PERPS will bring out more and more cointelpro and doubt...

So, we do need to raise our game a bit to deal with it all...

Love, Peace and Progress..

Robin Hordon


In conclusion, the more that we understand

This is well done video with

This is well done video with useful accounts of dis info that I'm familiar with and have experienced ( I once participated in the now defunct " Conspiracy Smasher Blog" in my earlier days similar to screw loose change ...CS never had a good reasonable debate or argument and mostly resorted to insults, anger, misinformation (I took advantage of the traffic that came through CS with my participating in debates and displaying web site addresses to excellent 9/11 truth resources. ...CS had its cult like following of dis info agent wannabee's, but it also attracted thousands of first time web surfers on the subject of 9/11 being an inside job... This is why I thought it important as many others did too by offering the alternative of 9/11 truth to the readers of CS and let them decide between 9/11 truth and dis info CS. Ive been a 9/11 truth activist now in my 3rd year and if ever a year of dis info came a knocking on my door it was 2008. I manage myself well using civil info as a tool and means to my 9/11 activism, but never would have expected this gentle approach to be attacked by others coming from with-in the 9/11 truth movement,(wont get into that cause I've moved on) except I would say this for others who experience dis info, disruptions and stressful encounters from with-in the movement ...Apply the same rules of civil information to all brothers and sisters in the 9/11 truth movement as you would with strangers on the street...Respect that person for who she or he is and what that person believes even if you cant agree, Walk away from arguments, long debates and leave the hard questions to the experts with-in the 9/11 truth movement to answer, Always give your best when working in solidarity and move on when solidarity can no longer be found. I still consider myself an apprentice as a full time activist committed for 9/11 truth with lots to learn...One important lesson Ive learned is not to make mountains over mole burns valuable energy and for certain there are many who will try to stop and hurt the 9/11 truth movement using mountains of useless debate as a way of disruption...Don't give them any rope...just move on and give your best to the next person you meet and expect/enjoy the satisfaction from your efforts where we can make a difference with public opinion on the lies and crimes of 9/11!

I love this quote by Gail Asper: sister to the CANWEST DIS-INFO MEDIA IMPIRE (Leonard Asper)up here in CANADA (Ironic as it seems)
Gail Asper says people should be respected not 'tolerated' If Gail Asper had it her way, the word 'tolerant' would be eliminated from the English language....
(she's a 100% correct!!! I love it! if CANWEST would apply this into there corporate editorial policies) and remove the BS

We too can use a lot more respect for each other in the 9/11 truth movement!
Respect all ( move on....), even those who dis agree, make up dis info stories...
they tend to paint themselves the foolish ones in the end...

Thank you for this thought provoking video, a gift/tool for learning and interesting debates on this blog
to enter 2009.
more on 9/11 civil info found on our website

Show "Arabesque" by rob balsamo

North Flight Path Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

Just released today...

Unlike many here... we actually put our names to our claims and are willing to go to court regarding our claims. Can "Arabesque" say the same?

Didnt think so. :)

Oh.. and Victoria.... Jones highly disagrees with you. Ever wonder why he is still a member of our organzation? Stop making BS excuses in support of the govt story sans positive ID.

So folks.. ask yourself.... why are you drawn in by anonymous indivduals when real experts that can be verified are exposing the govt story?

I especially love the fact "johndoerami" still thinks our data is faked and never came from the NTSB, yet refuses to fill out an FOIA request of his own. When are Blogger mods gonna get the hint?

Ahhh.. whatever...



Was just wondering what information you were seeking in court.



From what i understand speaking to numerous lawyers, a lawsuit can only be submitted by those who have "Just Cause" (or a similar phrase.. i forget... been a good holiday for me...).. talk to a lawyer,

Unless we go "Qui Tam"? With that, takes funds... which we dont have, especially when we give all our presentations away for free and get attacked constantly by disinfo idiots like johndoraemi on Blogger...

However, someone with "Just Cause" (if thats the proper term), is April Gallop, who is also using our work in her lawsuit, which we have offered our assistance and stand behind our work 100% (which means we will take the "Stand", without a bag on our head.. unlike Arabesque cartoons on Blogger and his own blog).

We put our FAA certifications, Military Backgrounds.. . professional reputations... all of it... on the line..... as does April Gallop and Bill Veale.

So, who is the first to attack us? I think i saw John Gold do some attacking with a bit of endorsement. Hey, what types of certifications does Gold have to lose.. .right?

Sorry guys.. but Blogger has become a bit of a mess in our opinion...


Rob Balsamo...

I don't think we've ever met. I don't think we've ever exchanged emails, or comments on I happen to like Arabesque's work. Truth be told, I'm NOT qualified to tell anyone whether or not the information you put forward regarding the black boxes is accurate. So, I focus on other things. To my knowledge, I have never attacked you, or Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

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?

And you mean what exactly by this?

(which means we will take the "Stand", without a bag on our head.. unlike Arabesque cartoons on Blogger and his own blog).

Is this another "use you real name, coward" argument?

See, there is one group of people who very loudly push this idea--there is something less honest about using a pseudonym and if you want to "build trust" you're obligated to give us personal details--the fake truther noplanes stalker crew.

This is of course bollox. Credible writers have been using nyms to protect their privacy for centuries; it used to be the norm, examples being George Orwell and Mark Twain. Online anonymity is a right--assuming its not abused.

There is only one reason anyone demands personal information in this game--so it can be passed on the the Nico/Webfairy/Kunttown wq2rx stalker operation:

Sorry, Rob..but your analysis is a bit of a mess, IMHO.

Hello Rob Balsamo

Hi Rob, Bruce Sinclair our good friend here in
Edmonton speaks highly of you, Hope to talk and meet
you sometime in the new year...

Thank you Richard

Bruce is a good man... also a Capt on a 73... :)

Hope to speak where you are.. soon...

Arabesque and Fellow Agents Have No Answers For Photo Evidence

rob balsamo says, "I especially love the fact "johndoerami" still thinks our data is faked and never came from the NTSB, yet refuses to fill out an FOIA request of his own. When are Blogger mods gonna get the hint?"

Imagine Pilots for 9/11 Truth lying about Flight 77 NTSB data. Interesting that this lie is supported by Pentagon police and civilians who affirm that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station, and that the five Pentagon CCTV stills show a small, long and pointy aircraft heading for the Pentagon.

Rob, have you noticed that Arabesque and their agents don't much care for discussing the actual evidence we do have on hand: The Pentagon photographic evidence of what flew into the Pentagon. That's because it's obvious that the object heading for the Pentagon is not a 757 (see my comments above for my analysis of the Pentagon photographic evidence). They do however hide my comments by voting it down enough times, but they won't engage in a counter reply, because they can't!

Dean Jackson/webmaster
Washington, DC

a loving commentary

In two words I'll just put it: one sided (+dangerous, there goes the 3rd). If your are genuinely accusing other theories, no matter how flawed they might sound, the most honorable and honest way to do is to make an interview with the guys involved to come clear and debate. BUT forget assumption and expectations if your genuine purpose is truth and nothing but. Thank you for pursuing that, but beware and trust at the same time. + remind of your unconsciouss.. study C.C. Jung and other forerunners on human psyciology and symbolism and surrender to the idea that the pig picture can be put together on subtle, loving and inspiring ways as well.

Message in the space on existance, relevance. How do you define. Why define, observe, the future is already in our minds. And it is here also for me to say this. And that I deeply trust your integrity to bring the truth for everyone to see.

Stick to the core -expand the limits.

saw my name

Balsamo makes some noise about Arabesque being anonymous, contrasting Balsamo's own putting his name out there shtick.

Balsamo himself was anonymous for several years. Hypocrite.

Then me:

"I especially love the fact (sic, as usual) "johndoerami" still thinks our data is faked and never came from the NTSB, yet refuses to fill out an FOIA request of his own."

Actually, I pointed out in excruciating detail and repeatedly that the sourcing was weak for that particular data. I never said it was fake, or not fake, only that it was not sourced particularly well. A basic understanding of rudimentary English should have made this apparent to you after the first several posts. No real news organization ever acknowledged it, and one would have to rely on internet characters like "Snowygrouch" when citing a source.

I have no intention of revealing my name to the NTSB FOIA officer (despite your repeated calls for me to do so). I found that particular data not important to me or the arguments I make about 9/11, and I have little interest in it.

You, Balsamo, on the other hand, I suspect of being on the dark side of the force, and I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw a 757. Maybe you should watch the above video again, because I was thinking of you and your cohorts, and your tactics, all the while I watched.


My criticism of the above video is the repeated falsehood that there is "no evidence" that a plane struck the Pentagon. Yes, there is evidence. It may not be convincing TO YOU, but there is certainly plane wreckage in the photos released of the incident. Apparently it was convincing enough to the hundreds of investigators who went through there afterward.

Making false claims, like the "no evidence" claim undermines our credibility, even in a supposed video designed to bolster credibility by fighting against disinformation. I dare say we're in a hall of mirrors at this point, and determining fact from fiction is near impossible. That is why disinformation thrives, and honest cold hard factual research is generally ignored. Much to the delight of the treasonous faction pulling strings.

Lastly, several people are implying this video was produced by Arabesque, which I don't believe is true. The credit on youtube is "WarCrime911."

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Several Years?

johndoerami says... "Balsamo himself was anonymous for several years. Hypocrite."

and gets it wrong once again.

I was johndoex when i first came on the "scene" on May 18, 2006 at the first LCF.

(and even then i wasnt really "anonymous" as everyone at LCF knew who i was within a few weeks and verified my credentials.)

Less than 3 months later when i started to really get serious about our research, i started P4T using my real name.

As usual johndoerami.. you're full of shit.

The rest of your post is probably the same color so i wont bother to read it.

Jenny, if people are serious about their research and attacking others as Arabesque is notorious for... he would use his real name.

We are prepared to go to court with our work. Who else here can say the same? Beside of course Jones who also happens to be a member of P4T and perhaps Aidan. Both whose work i respect.

ETA: Keep in mind, the Nico/Webfairy/KT crowd all think P4T are "plane huggers". So please get your story straight.

How about responding in thread like a normal person?

"Jenny, if people are serious about their research and attacking others as Arabesque is notorious for... he would use his real name."

What you call "attacks" are disagreement. In some cases, simply posting your own conflicting quotes. Give us a break. As long as he is not breaking any laws or threatening your safety in real life, neither you or anyone else has a right to his personal information.

In case you haven't notice, the owner of this site uses a nym.To the best of my knowledge Arabesque is not planning a court case. Even if he was, that would be separate from how he posts online. Grow up and get over it.

"ETA: Keep in mind, the Nico/Webfairy/KT crowd all think P4T are "plane huggers".."

Guess you missed my post where I lay out it does not matter which side you are on. It's the behavior that reveals intent.

But thank you for reminding me that I forgot to highlight the "debunker" and Zihop connections to Kunttown's gang----here they are:

See, Zihoppers--also "plane huggers"-- have been passing information to the fake no planes crowd through Kevin Barrett, Fetzer's radio co host. So no, it really doesn't matter what the alleged allegiance is--its the behavior. Every attempt to harvest personal information on activists can be traced to the Kunttown's stalking gang. If you don't like the comparison, stop sounding like one of them.

" So please get your story straight"

My that sounds bitchy.

addendum: for more clarity--since you seem to want it--the Zihop plane huggers are the ones who believe ONLY Israel/Zionists did 9/11. You'll find them lurking at wtcdemolition dot com calling everyone who doesn't agree with them LIHOP. The hysterical thing about this is, by definition, ZIHOP is LIHOP--anything theory that says Bush and Co let someone else do it--even if it was the Zionists they let do it--is LIHOP.

We'll let them chew on that.

Is there any particular reason you shortened Kunttown to KT? Why not "Killtown"?

I see...

"Guess you missed my post where I lay out it does not matter which side you are on. It's the behavior that reveals intent."

...and you are here to tell us all what behavior is acceptable and what behavior isn't?

If you haven't figured out

If you haven't figured out

death threats
email harassment
privacy invasion
working with people known to do all the above

are unacceptable behaviors, yeh. If you really need to be told this.

Next question?

I have read no death threats here...

nor have I noticed any stalking. What I have seen, is your own link to a site where you are trying to figure out where someone named "Killtown" lives, and several facts about his life, written by you, are exposed in a slanderous way.

Now, I don't know Killtown or what he did to piss people off, but would that article you link to fall under any of these categories you talk about?

And you know full well, the "behavior" the 9/11 Pilot guy is talking about has nothing to do with what you are claiming here. He is saying if someone believes in their work, they should stand by it, openly.

My name is on everything I write. I stand by it. So is Steven Jone's so is this Pilot's. That is his only point. He is not making death threats, and you know that.

way to deflect and change focus

Okay, "JohnDoeX" (no, that's not an attempt at anonymity!), perhaps I can't be bothered seeking out what you were doing prior to whatever date in 2006 you cited.

You waited 5 years after 9/11 to show an interest? Is that what you're claiming?

Fine by me.

Could you be more honest when making claims about what I allegedly said? Or Arabesque for that matter? Or anyone who finds P4T or CIT less than conclusive about anything?

No. I don't think so. You're an attack dog, and have been since the beginning. I don't think I'll find myself trusting your theories anytime soon.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

"no evidence" that a 757 struck the Pentagon

Yes, I have to agree. There is a lot of evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, not "no evidence." I'm not sure why that would be put in the same league as Building 7.

There are many errors and misrepresentations of the evidence out there on this. A good place to start on understanding that is here:

Pentagon Attack Errors

There are numerous pieces of evidence that point to the attack on the Pentagon being an inside job. These include:

* The location of the attack: The portion of the Pentagon that was struck was nearly empty due to a renovation program.
* The aircraft approach maneuver: The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver to strike said portion of the building from the southwest, opposite the direction from which it approached the capital.
* The incompetence of the alleged pilot: Flight 77 was supposedly piloted by Hani Hanjour, about whom a flight instructor said: "He couldn't fly at all".
* Signs of a cover-up: Numerous actions by officials indicate an ongoing cover-up of the facts concerning the attack.

These and other undisputed facts, constituting highly incriminating evidence of involvement of officials in the attack and coverup, have been largely eclipsed by an ongoing controversy over whether the Pentagon was hit by a jetliner at all. From early 2002, some skeptics of the official story have maintained that the Pentagon was attacked, not by a jetliner, but one of or a combination of a truck bomb, a missile or cruise missile, an attack drone aircraft or commuter jet, a flyover by a 757, and internal demolition charges. 9-11 Research provides a history of Pentagon strike theories.

The debate over what hit the Pentagon has thrived due to the apparent contradiction between the eyewitness and physical evidence. Whereas a large body of reports of eyewitness accounts strongly supports that a twin-enginer jetliner swooped in at a very low altitude and exploded at or in front of the Pentagon; photographs of the damaged facade and lawn show an apparent near-absence of aircraft debris and a pattern of damage to the Pentagon's facade showing unbroken windows in the paths of the outer wings and the vertical tail section.

Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.

* 'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'
* 'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'
* 'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'
* 'Aircraft crashes always leave large debris'
* 'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'
* 'The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'
* 'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'
* 'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'
* 'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'
* 'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'
* 'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
* 'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'

Victronix says, "'The

Victronix says, "'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'"

A Major working inside the Pentagon called 9/11 saying a 737 had just hit the Pentagon. 737s are easy to distinguish from 757s. 737's are short and bulbous-like, whereas 757s are long and thin (like 767s).

Dean Jackson/webmaster
Washington, DC

Agree or disagree

"Those errors include the following":

1) 'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'

- Agree, this is an error.

2) 'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'

- Agree. Some people might have seen the C-130 piloted by Steve O'Brien. But most witnesses did describe a much larger plane.

3) 'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'

- Agree. There was some debris left. Whether or not it has been shown conclusively to come from American Airlines Flight 77 is a different matter.

4) 'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'

- The ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) does not mention the size of the hole created by the plane. It mentions an area of column damage and distortion extending from column line 9 to 17. Some people describe this as the dimensions of the hole. An area of columns damage and a hole are not necessarily the same thing.

5) ''The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'

- The PBPR reports, "In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building." Of course, this does not imply that the wings or the tips of the wings should have been visible outside the Pentagon, but it does make what happened at the Pentagon more ambiguous.

6) 'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'

- The PBPR does not mention what happened to the engines. It would have been helpful if the report mentioned where they were found. Have they already been moved in those pictures? We don't know.

7) 'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'

- This doesn't preclude the fact that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, but it certainly doesn't help build a case for it either. The PBPR reports, "first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing." The plane supposedly impacted at column line 14. The fact that the columns so close to the impact point are still attached doesn't lend credence to the notion that a 757 impacted the facade. Hoffman's and Adam Larson's(aka caustic logic) suggestion that they are actually the 2nd floor slabs having fallen down is possible, but just a guess at this point.

8) 'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'

- Agree. It was probably not made by a warhead. However, this does not mean it was made by the impact of a 757 either. What impacted the E-ring and caused the hole in the C-Ring could have been two separate events. The hole appears similar to one created by a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit. The PBPR gives no explanation for this hole.

9) 'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'

- True, but would it would be quite a difficult maneuver. We can rule out Hani Hanjour as the likely pilot though.

10) 'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'

- Agree, not enough evidence at this point to say either way.

11) 'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'

- Agree, this is just a guess as well.

I'll go with Robin Hordin...

I'll go with Robin's analysis -- whom I've met briefly -- that since flight 77 was lost on radar for a time that we cannot be sure what happened nor what hit the Pentagon. Prefer to stick with the hardest evidence to make the case.

Under hard evidence I would include:

The inconceivable "collapse" of the towers including speed, squibs and energy calcs, etc.
Eyewitness testimony to explosions
Professor Jone's analysis of dust samples
Molten metal and temperature anomalies
The lack of timely military response
Minetta's testimony
Flight 93: scattered debris and lack of significant fire at scene
Ted Olson's alleged cell phone calls, et al, contradicting FBI
Lack of coherent "official" theory including FBI's "no hard evidence" re Bin Laden

There are others, but this is what comes to mind at this time.

I would agree, except...

I would have to ask if you would also consider April Gallop's first-hand eye-witness testimony in that group. It's eye-witness testimony, like those of the first responders talking about explosions. She walked right through that hole in the Pentagon that the entire 20 ton 757 was stuffed into, so when she says she didn't happen to see any plane, why would we not support her case and her efforts? Just a question.

terrible argument

"It's eye-witness testimony, like those of the first responders talking about explosions. She walked right through that hole in the Pentagon that the entire 20 ton 757 was stuffed into, so when she says she didn't happen to see any plane, why would we not support her case and her efforts?"

This is a ridiculous argument. A woman with a baby escaping for her life through fire and smoke is expected to see -- what?

The point she passed through just had a 100 ton object going 500MPH plus pass through it, exploding with thousands of gallons of fuel and disintegrating as it travelled (Newton's law about momentum) through the large building laterally.

Just what was this woman supposed to be seeing?

You've got to be kidding me.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Have you actually heard her

Have you actually heard her testimony? There was no smoke, there was no fire. it wasn't even hot, not like you would expect it to be. Soon after she got out her section collapsed. What makes you sure a 100 ton object had just passed through? Have you seen her testimony? Too many questions remain to make positive statements about what actually happened.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

good points

all I have suggested it that this woman should be given our support for coming out with her eye-witness testimony. and instead people want to run her down, or her lawyer down... I don't even know what to make of that.

Missing the Bigger Picture

In my experience, the main impediment to giving serious consideration by the public to 911 truth arguments is the ingrained attitude of "I just don't believe that the US government could allow it's own citizens to be killed (LIHOP) or kill them itself (MIHOP)."

This is kind of like saying that "I don't believe in LIHOP/MIHOP as a serious position since I don't believe LIHOP/MIHOP is possible."

In terms of getting a serious re-investigation to 911, I don't think anybody can seriously argue that we've made progress, when you consider the near universal silence of Congress critters (or, just as bad, the "form letter" response that they are pleased with the 911 Commission report). What, then, if the 2008 Congress continues in this fashion (exactly what I expect), and the Obama Justice Department does absolutely nothing positive wrt 911?

IMO, 911 truthers should broaden their perspective, and focus on educating the public on government disinformation and media dysfunction in the case of not just 911, but other scandals that speak ill of the integrity of the US government. While viewing 911 as some sort of Rosetta stone in 2005/2006 MIGHT have made sense (and thus justified single issue activism), in 2008/2009 this certainly doesn't strike me as a rational viewpoint.

What I'd like to see the 911 activists who participate in direct actions do is not so much push "911 was an inside job" meme, but rather push the meme of systemic corruption of the US government, aided by disinformation and a dysfunctional media. A 911 coverup would then be a dramatic example of these phenomena, but by no means the only one.

Such an enhanced 911 movement needs to focus on attainable short term goals that can move us, as a society, to the only long term goal that makes sense to me - which is a government which is ethical. What should such short term goals be? Well, I am posting this in the hopes of stimulating a debate/discussion on exactly this subject. But some short term goals I consider worthwhile are:

1) get 50% + of the population viewing, and 10%+ supporting it with regular contributions. The Real News does not accept government or corporate funding, and depends wholly on subscriber contributions. They want to create a television network, which is the only way to achieve this particular 50%+ goal, anyway. (They currently mostly get out their programs via internet streaming.)

2) get 50% + of the population to embrace an alternative replacement TV media, where corporate and government funding is banned. Such a subscriber supported media would have what I called "uncommercials" instead of commercials. I elaborated on this idea a bit below (copying my post from, but my original proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" is currently unavailable.

3) reach out to 100% of college freshmen with some DVD's about the history of propaganda, history that isn't skewed to make the "winners" more palatable or praise-worthy than they deserve to be (I'm thinking along the lines of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of America", where, e.g., brutal imperialism is not white-washed; I am not proposing that a leftist view of America be presented, only an honest one), the history of false flag operations, and the history of betrayal by subsets of American elites, sometimes with their main target other American elites. E.g., I recently found out that Nixon, or people close to him, had approached the North Vietnamese during the 1968 Presidential campaign, and communicated to them that they should "hold out" for a better deal with a President Nixon. Well, if this ain't treason, I don't know what is. Somehow, even without checking, I feel confident predicting that 99% of US high school history books will make no mention of this. The real news segment now provides a smoking gun in the form of a President Johnson conversation on this, but again, I doubt there are any immediate plans by US high school history books to bring this treasonous affair to light.

So, the "hook" to approach the college freshmen with is to take 5 or so stunning examples where the history they were taught make them think one thing, quiz them on it, and when they flunk each and every question, start pointing out to them that how and why they came to be such ignoramuses about their own country's history.

4) reach out to 50%+ of the US population to strongly support populist movements within both Democrat and Republican parties. As a start, that means making 50% of the American public keenly aware of the fact that populist options exist. E.g., for Democrats and Greens, they can support the Progressive Democrats of America (see For Republicans and Libertarians, they can support Ron Paul's efforts to reform the Republican party.

5) help third parties (such as the Greens) achieve electoral success at the local and state level. (IMO, national success along the lines of Congressional seats and the Presidency are long-term goals)


Note that 4) and 5) are different from 1), 2), and 3), in that 1-3 are meant to attack the pseudo-reality inflicted on the US public via endless lying and skewing by politicians, the media (probably manipulated, to some extent, by professional propagandists and disinformationists, as was talked about in the movie posted), and their "education". (See also Noam Chomsky on "controlling the public mind"). Because of the public's internalized pseudo-reality, 911 truth (etc.) is viewed as what I call "high strangeness" (this phrase borrowed from J. Allen Hynek of UFO research fame). The idea is that 911 won't be such a high strangeness notion if you move the public's center of gravity of their conceptual framework, by which they view the world. And this conceptual framework or model includes assumptions about the often hidden exercize of illicit power.

4) and 5) do not entail taking on "high-strangeness" phenomena, but can indirectly work toward that end by disempowering deceitful elites. In fact, as "Politics is the art of the possible.", I don't think individuals pursuing 4) or 5) should be up front about any of their "high-strangeness" beliefs. At least until such time that efforts such as 1), 2) and 3) succeed to the point where "high strangeness" becomes "uncomfortable to think about, but very possible". :-)

Finally, for activists that wish to stay within the confines of 911, I have a question which doesn't seem to get any serious effort or even consideration. And that annoys me because I see a lot of activists' energies wasted, in many different areas (not just 911). 911 Truthers say they want a serious re-investigation, but such a reinvestigation requires, for the most part, state power. You and I cannot go around issuing subpoenas. Correct?

However, nothing prevents private citizens from knocking on doors in Venice, Florida, or Germany, where questions could be put to fellow citizens regarding the non-invisible Mohammed Atta and his non-invisible associates - some of them Dutch and German, according or Daniel Hopsicker.

Considering the 911 Truth movement's record in getting Congress or the Justice Department to pay serious attention to 911, doesn't it make even more sense to organize citizens to support investigations that don't require state power? Does not the work of Daniel Hopsicker on 911 deserve to be either validated by independent investigators, or else exposed as mistaken (or worse)??

I take it as a very bad sign that, after all these years, the 911 Truth Movement has not done so. And the failure to have done so is more the 911 Truth Movement's fault than the US government's. Why isn't this failure to organize effectively of more concern than disinformation "destroying" the 911 Truth movement??? Is it really Morgan Reynolds' and Judy Wood's fault that you and I haven't gotten together to check on Hopsicker's findings, as Hopsicker himself has called for? Of course not.

My conclusion is that this is yet another example of sub-optimal functioning of a group of activists. Unfortunately, not very impressive, when you consider how important 911 is thought to be.


Serious Programs, Fluff, and the Uncommercial Glue that can bind them in IM
( IM is shorthand for the internet-based media replacement I have called for)

As I've mentioned, some fluff is good. By fluff I mean pretty much what fiction you're getting on the tube now - Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, etc. The main reason fluff is good is because the public demands their fluff, irregardless of any idealistic notion that you or I may hold about how other people should prioritize their non-working hours. Capturing the attendant revenue stream that satisfying such a demand can generate means that part of that money can be used to fund more serious, public-minded content. Secondly, getting people into the habit of viewing their fluff through an IM system means that they are that much more likely to 'turn the channel' from one IM source to another. That's certainly better than them switch from ABC to CBS or NBC. They will eventually want to check out the serious content, and if it's compelling enough, they may become educated on serious matters, in spite of themselves.

Uncommercial Glue

Fluff needs no more elaboration. However, before discussing some suggestions for serous content, I want to talk about the glue that can bind them. The 'glue' is non-commercial commercials. (Sorry! I can't think of a better term. So, I'll just refer to them as Uncommercials.) The best graphic (non-video) analog I can think of are what you see in Adbuster magazine. (See I think you can pick up a copy of the magazine in big bookstores such as Barnes and Noble) Adbusters has some videos at , which I haven't watched, yet. Some uncommercials I have seen that really impressed me were from (See which shows some 'Bush in 30 seconds' ads that they made).

Of course, IM Uncommercials should not only be on various public-interest issues that can be commented upon in 30 or 60 seconds. They should also advertise serious IM programs. Although IM forbids advertising, not only can an exception be made for Uncommercials, they should be made for them. If subscribers want to, they can simply opt out of them. However, if the ads are interesting enough, I don't think many will do so. In this way, we may be able to turn large numbers of clueless "idiotes" ** into public-minded citizens, over a period of time. As always, it would be better to allow subscribers to choose their own filters for uncommercials, also.

Serious Programs

I wish I had more time to make a polished list and presentation. However, this will have to do for now. The format for the following is either a suggested program name (in quotes), followed by an indented description, or else it's a category of programs, followed by either some description and/or named programs which fall under this category.

"Then and Now"
Various aspects of people's lives now vs. how they were in the past, AND HOW AND WHY THEY DIFFER. In many ways, our lives are better. We also need to understand why this is so E.g., I've met old-timers who regularly worked 70 hour work weeks. Not because they chose a demanding profession, but because they basically had little choice. Those of us who don't have to work crazy hours should appreciate what we have. And those who do, should understand what has happened to the US economy to make us regress (e.g., unions being decimated).

"Here and There"
Various aspects of people's live now vs. how they are in the present, here (in the US) and abroad, AND HOW AND WHY THEY DIFFER
As I have previously mentioned, a key example of this is health care. All adult American citizens should have good idea of what health care options and cost are like in modern, European countries, at the very least. It should not have required Michael Moore to do this (though thank goodness he made a start.).

"Follow the Money"
Who paid for various technological developments, and who profited
Secretive Public/Private entities as described by Walter Burien. See also works of Catherine Austin Fitts
Why only 2 or 3 (or 5,6) dominant companies in various industries (Cola, Gasoline, etc.)
Special Interest Triumphs via Legislation, and the infrastructure (PR, lobbyists, revolving door*) that make this possible

Reality Shows
"Buck the Trends" (speaking out at work, church, school; following how activists are treated)
"Doer vs. Drinker" (i.e., activist vs. idiote/party animal). These two need to be related in terms of the Activist doing something which would materially benefit the Party Animal/idiote. The idea is to show how the idiote is so negligent ito
their civic life that they are hurting their own future, and making the effort of the activist which would help the Party Animal, less successful.
"Kicking the habit" (follows people who undertake some program to make significant changes in their life - lose weight, quit smoking, get a job that they like, change from idiote -> Activist/Doer)
"Ebony and Ivory" In this reality show, you pair up Rush Limbaugh dittoe-heads with similarly obnoxious liberals, who have to live together X months without killing each other. Or, you could pair up educated, polite conservatives with educated, polite liberals. There's all kinds of possibilities. To really make it interesting, you also throw in Green, Anarchists, Joe-six-packs (who couldn't care less about politics), etc.

Social Engineering
How positive forces for good, historical and potential, were/are coopted by elites
"Control of Language". Which phrases commonly in use short-circuit critical thinking. E.g., "Support the troops".
"Gatekeepers of Power" (and how they came to their positions of power). Mostly focussing on politicians (who are, in fact, the ultimate gatekeepers, which is why they should get the most scrutiny by the public), but also on regulatory agencies, courts, and opinion-makers such as talking heads and scientist-whores. Additionally, there needs to be more coverage of interlocking boards of directors of major corporations.
"Public vs. Elites"
inspired by (see about 15:00 into the BBC interview) Noam Chomsky makes the claim that on issues in which the public is at odds with the elites, the public's viewpoint is simply not seriously discussed during elections. (He's actually says that the issue "doesn't arise", but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
"Cooption" This is bolded for the simple reason that it is a subject that I find particularly fascinating. What the hell happened to the environmental movement? The unions? In short, other aspects of civil society that are supposed to represent non-moneyed interests. Were they simply ineffective due to a jaded public, opposition by vested interests, etc.? Or were they also undermined from within, deliberately, by their enemies? IMO, trojan horses are worth their weight in gold, as a tactic for taking down honest activist or more public-minded efforts. Thus, even if I had no facts on the matter, I expect them to be there. However, the point of a "Cooption" program is to ascertain the facts of the matter, document them, and present them.

"Imperial Overeach"
What are the characteristic of Imperial Overreach, historically? (especially in more modern times, when there was an intelligentsia serving as apologists for ruling elites). Which of those characteristics does the US share? Contrast with commonly accepted collective self-image.

Blowback (fiction)
This could be one or many futuristic shows. Themes might include:

Lower Manhattan going underwater, due to the effects of global warming
Another Great Depression, due to foreign lenders giving up on the notion of ever getting their T-Bill purchases fully honored
Americans soldiers, captured, then tortured by "terrorists" , who cite the US approved torture as their justification. After all, if Geneva conventions don't apply to them as victims, why should they apply to them as perpetrators?
Dissidents "disappeared", due to the decimation of Constitutional protections in our drift to fascism
Public Assets Sold Off, since the public is too broke, having been impoverished by uncontrolled borrowing on the one hand, and a "free market" on the other.

Satire News (semi-fictional)
Should allow guest 'newspeople' (also satirical) from various political perspectives - Left, Right, Green, Socialist, LaRouchean, you name it. Saturday Night Live news skits often feature guests. The real difference here is that all newsreporters need to have a serious bite, not just be entertaining. So, I guess Jon Stewart is more the role model in terms of, hmmm, what to call it? 'Pointedness', I guess.

Propaganda Debunk
Day by day reporting on what various governments and institutions SAID, versus what is true, or probably true. We recently found out how many hundreds of lies the Bush Administration told to get us into Iraq. We should have had a daily update, so that this orgy of lying have been widely known in it's early days. What else is the government lying about, and how many total lies does it have to tell before it can be reported?
Day by day reporting on the 'debates' of the day, as experienced in mainstream media, and what viewpoints were not represented
Day by day reporting on what the elite media did not report, or how their reporting was skewed (this is already done by FAIR ( ; it's been a while since I've listened to them, but my vague recollection is that they were a bit dry, were gatekeepers, and were only presenting a left viewpoint. My apologies if I'm mis-characterizing them).

Video-ized Book Serializations.
There are many excellent books which will never be read, for various reasons. If they were condensed and serialized, jazzed up with interviews and video so that they looked more like PBS's "Frontline" rather than, say, just a talking head reading from a book 100% of the time, I think there'd be a huge audience for this. Audio-only versions could also be created, for non-premium IM subscribers, as well as high-end subscribers who simply want to consume the information away from a TV set.

Foreign Media
What is the foreign media saying about the US, and about international affairs? We can watch BBC, but I'd like to see summaries, with quoted excerpts, from various foreign media. I'd also like to know details about any corruption in their media, as well the range of opinions which get expressed in their media. One of the disturbing things about the US population is that there's many Americans who are so dumb or propagandized that they think that there's only two sides to a story - a "liberal" and a "conservative" one.

* what happened to the phrase "revolving door"? I remember encountering it quite often many years ago. I have wondered whether it's been deliberately suppressed.
** The word 'idiot' come from the Greek 'idiote': From wikipedia:

A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot', which finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ??????? (idi?t?s), meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning. In his Funeral Oration, Pericles states: 'it is only we who regard the one not participating in these duties not as unambitious but as useless.'

Analogy of suppression and displacement of evil actors

"4) and 5) do not entail taking on "high-strangeness" phenomena, but can indirectly work toward that end by disempowering deceitful elites. "

I was reading Dr. Karpa's "Bacteria for Breakfast" just yesterday, which provides an illustration of this concept, from the world of gut bacteria. I kid you not, fearless reader! Karpa's book is about good bacteria (probiotics), bad bacteria, and prebiotics. It is thought that two mechanisms by which good bacteria help suppress bad bacteria are via competition for nutrients and binding sites on the intestinal wall.

However, there is evidence in the scientific literature for more aggressive means of suppression:

For example, various lactobacillus species prduce hydrogen peroxide, carbon dioxide, and diacetyl, which are detrimantal to food-borne pathogens (Kailasapathy and Chin, 2000). Also, lactobacilli produce a wide variety of bacteriocins such as nisin, lactobrevin, acidophilin, acidolin, lactobacillin, lactocidin, and lactolin. These bacterial toxin actively kill numerous species of bacteria (Kailasapathy and Chin, 2000).
Another example of a toxin produced by "good bacteria" directed against "bad bacteria" is the toxin produced by Bacteroides. Bacteroides organisms are the major gram negative obligate anaerobic bacilli found in the colon. Bacterial toxins produced by these microorganisms are believed to selectively destroy disease-causing Clostridium difficile. Many people suffering from life-threatening, chronic, persistent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea have been cured when bacteroides species were replaced in their colons (Borody, 2000).

The point is that if you displace deceitful elites with elites who are probiotic (so to speak), even if your new and improved elites aren't particularly inclined to 911 truth, you would now be dealing with a government which is more life-affirming. By necessity, if such a government was to become convinced that a serious case for a 911 reinvestigation exists, then it is far, far more likely to happen. Just like a probiotic bacteria likely evolved it's bad bacteria suppressing functions for the benefit of it's own species, but this nevertheless benefits the host, we can expect a more ethical government actors to eventually be more willing to tackle the dark side of the US government, even if this wasn't their original motivation to get involved with politics. (I ignore complexities of categorization when we are talking about a species which has a symbiotic relationship with a host, and thus a shared evolution.)

Pushing the analogy further, if we consider the US political system to be a human GI tract, with elected and non-elected elites to be the bacteria, I don't see sufficient change in the intestinal flora to merit optimism re a 911 reinvestigation in the next four years. If we consider the host (i.e., human that the GI tract belongs to) to be the body politic, the fact that some pre-cancerous cells may have been killed outside the GI tract in no way means that the conditions predisposing towards disease emanating from the GI tract have been alleviated even one iota.

If you want to read all about the really nasty diseases which originate in the GI tract, and can even kill you, you can read Karpa's book. If you want to be honest about what is required to restore health to the US political system, you would do well to consider what is required to have probiotic elites replace their opposite. I will go further and say that if you don't give this any thought, you are likely to simply be spinning your wheels, ultimately for nothing. Karpa's journey into the world of probiotics was precipitated by life-threatening illness of her two-year-old, which was cured by the used of probiotics. It's my impression that had she simply continued with the ineffective treatments her physicians were prescribing, her son would either have grown up chronically ill, or even died.

Off the front page.

Dear participants in the comments area,

Refrain from calling other users here "liars".

Refrain from calling other users here "agents".

Continue in this vein, and your account will go to the moderation queue.

It is 0525 Central Time.

How to destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement

Thank you for stepping in.

Anyone else notice the irony here?


This pattern of self-destructive behavior is not helpful.

Some of us are self-destructing with silly in-fighting.

If we can be more mature, more progress will be made.


Not a PET-THEORY arguments of what hit the Pentagon etc.


If we can humble ourselves, admit it and get a REAL AUTHORITATIVE INVESTIGATION, then Real Progress is made.

The Truth Movement IS NOT GOING TO DISTRACTED by provocative behavior.

Many of us are mature enough to realise that we have to agree to disagree.



Why are we fighting over "theories?"

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Good Decision Reprehensor

Its silly how we WASTE so much time arguing like small children and we forget WHO the REAL ENEMY IS.

I am sure the ALPHABET AGENCIES monitoring this site are laughing at OUR COLLECTIVE FOLLY.

Can we agree to disagree and MOVE ON?

Why can't we be mature and look for common ground to GET A REAL INVESTIGATION and COMPREHENSIVE PROSECUTION?

Heck whether it was a PLANE , A DRONE OR EVEN SANTA CLAUS THAT HIT THE PENTAGON , the question remains WHY WAS ANDREWS AIRFORCE BASE (only 10 miles away from the Pentagon) ASLEEP ON 911?

C'mon people, we are being distracted by petty and silly arguments.

I don't know what hit the Pentagon.


Real Convinient.

So we have questions. Lets not turn those questions to "Gospel Truth" PET THEORIES that forces us to FORGET THE BIGGER PICTURE.





Work Together and we WILL Succeed.

We want Justice. Then pls do act with Maturity.

The Neo-Cons/ Neo-Liberals are benefiting from our destructive behaviour.

All the best for those who have worked very hard at this.

Don't get distracted by argumentative people.

Focus on what's really important.

We still have much to do.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

"Common Ground" With Those Hostile To Actual Evidence?

constitutional911 says, "Why can't we be mature and look for common ground to GET A REAL INVESTIGATION, and COMPREHENSIVE PROSECUTION?"

If a video of a small, thin and pointy object heading towards the Pentagon (see first link below, and fast forward to 25 seconds) fails to prove to Arabesque and their supporters that a 757 didn't fly into the Pentagon, then why would the 9/11 Truth Movement be concerned with "common ground" with entities like Arabesque? The 9/11 Truth Movement should be concerned about the EVIDENCE. "Common ground" is NOT evidence, and only serves to dilute, hence, backfire on 9/11 Truth!

If the 9/11 Truth Movement has interlopers in it, then “common ground” will always mean “compromising away” the best evidence.

For those of you on the streets preaching 9/11 Truth to pedestrians, why not have blown-up pictures of the nosecone of the object heading towards the Pentagon and a picture of a 757's nosecone. Then ask pedestrians if the two objects are the same. Now that will awaken a lot of pedestrians to ask questions for themselves on 9/11. You can then register a knockout punch and direct pedestrians to The NORAD Papers articles at When pedestrians see that the Federal government (and media) continue to lie about NORAD and its monitoring capabilities on 9/11, well you've just recruited a convert to 9/11 Truth!

Now compare that long and pointy nosecone with that of a 757 nosecone:

Dean Jackson/webmaster
Washington, DC

? ? ?

"If the 9/11 Truth Movement has interlopers in it, then “common ground” will always mean “compromising away” the best evidence."

Not so. We are all free to use the evidence we want.

If you think "blown-up pictures of the nosecone of the object heading towards the Pentagon and a picture of a 757's nosecone." will work, go for it.

I have found that anything that requires analysis doesn't work on most people.
We need to get their attention in a single statement or question. IMnsHO
My personal favorites for the Pentagon are:

A hijacker would nose over and fly straight into the Pentagon. He would not attempt a 270 degree turn while descending 7,000 feet at 480 mph.


The Pentagon is the most heavily defended building in the world. Do you really think they couldn't stop a plane, that they knew was coming, from flying into it?

It is not necessary to convince anyone, just get them thinking. They must then convince themselves by looking at the evidence.

A new Investigation Will Answer those Questions

That which is evidence to some of us will be conjecture to others.

The Pentagon strike is a great controversy for far too many of us to be distracted from the Ultimate Goal of getting a Proper Succesful Investigation and Prosecution.

All of us here who are genuine and sincere Know beyond a doubt it is an Inside Job.

Our Job is not to be Perfect in our Understanding of what happened on 911. Including of what did hit or did not hit the Pentagon.

Missile, Plane, Boeing, Drone etc.....

I think only Cheney and Co know for sure.

So why not we work together and Focus on Distributing Fabled Enemies, Loose Change, Terror Storm etc, avoid unnecessary arguments and help Launch a Real Comprehensive Investigation?

Those who believe it was a Missile instead of Flight 77...

Those who believe it was a Drone.....

Those who believe IT WAS Flight 77.......

We ARE ALL RIGHT about 1 Thing.

911 WAS an Inside Job.

That should be a central focus.

We don't have to prove every detail about 911.

All we have to prove is there was no way 19 men with "Box Cutters" could have hijacked 4 planes, beaten NORAD and SUPRISED US Intelligence.

That proof is in



The next step is to get the Masses involved in QUESTIONING LOUDLY EVERYWHERE.

It is not about our personal egos. I don't want any awards for having the best "theory" of what happened.


19 Hijackers ALONE did not carry out 911.

The Military Industrial Complex is the REAL ENEMY.

Let's save our energies and bring the battle to them, instead of wasting time and energy in-fighting.

Cheers to You Dean Jackson.

I respect your opinion. You have a God Given 1st Amendment Right to it. And You MAY be right.

But in the interest of the Bigger Picture of Co-operation, Working Together, Even if you are right about exactly what hit the Pentagon, should we not agree to disagree with those who don't necessarily share the same Perspective but ARE QUESTIONING OTHER ASPECTS OF 911 WHICH WE CAN AGREE ON?

Let's Find Common Ground.

Not every disagreement of opinion is Co-Intel.

1) Yes there we planes.
2) Possible that a Plane Hit the US Military HQ.
3) Andrews AFB was on STAND-DOWN.
4) Arab Hijackers could not have done that ALONE
5) Something Blew Up the WTC Towers . and no not energy beams. High-End explosives I guess. I don't need to know what grade and what type EXACTLY of Thermate/ Thermite was used.

ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS THAT OSAMA BIN-LADEN former ALLY of the CIA could not have Carried out 911 the way it happened.

My suspicions are raised. I question. I want answers. So do millions. I will work with ANYONE AND EVERYONE who is SINCERE, GENUINE irrespective of individual perspectives on different aspects of 911 to HELP GET A NEW INVESTIGATION.

So God Bless ALL OF YOU GUYS, Merry Christmas & Happy 911 Truthing New Year to all.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions.

The COMPLETE TRUTH will come out once there is a Real Investigation. We are getting there.


The Patriots Are not Sleeping.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Sorry, guy

I went and had a look at your big alleged smoking gun video (again):

When I froze it, and looked at it carefully, it seems to prove the opposite of what you are saying.

The thin pointy part appears to be the wingtip, and there is a larger rounder part being clipped at the edge of the frame, which appears to be a nose cone.

You have assumed the plane was flying straight across the frame, when the story, for better or worse, is that it was approaching at an angle (approx 40 degrees from face of building, or perhaps 50 degrees from camera?)

The freeze frame seems to suggest a much larger object being cropped at the edge of the frame.

I am not claiming that this video is authentic or not doctored along the line. It is however consistent with the government's specific claim about a large jetliner at ground level. I have no idea the identity of the aircraft. That's another story.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Alright that's enough.

About the only thing going on in this thread is argument.

This thread is closed. Please take up your beefs with other users via email contact.