9/11 Truth and the "Big Tent" Approach - A short essay by John Bursill

9/11 Truth and the "Big Tent" Approach

A short essay by John Bursill

If you haven't heard of the "Big Tent" approach before then I will give you a quick explanation of why it is an ongoing problem for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The "Big Tent" approach is all inclusive approach, that believes all people professing to be "truth seekers" should be welcomed and supported by us and we should allow them a platform to push their ideas and theories regardless of their merits. By merits I mean; are those ideas and theories supported by evidence based rational arguments that are peer reviewed and accepted as credible? The great majority of the 9/11 Truth Community reject ideas or theories that are without merit as they believe this will marginalise, dilute, confuse and isolate us as a movement. They "the Big Tenter's" feel that we "the people" can figure out what is garbage and what is not and they should be able to present their ideas and theories on an equal footing to us in the name of free speech, regardless of their quality. On the other hand do I "hope" that these people publish our proven arguments, yes and am I thankful for this service, absolutely!

In recent times a few new groups have formed that support the "Big Tent" populist approach, such as "Truth Movement Australia" for one and I would ask all of you to be careful not to get to caught up with any group that might be getting off track with ideas that lack merit! Direct involvement and advertisement of these groups will only slow our progress to achieve their and our proclaimed aim: "the truth"! We must continue to be disciplined with our approach to "the truth" and maintain our push for a re-investigation of 9/11, which is simply the best chance for real change and peace in this world today. I know it seems like an impossible task sometimes but the formation of these "Big Tent" groups may be an indicator that we are closer than we think, as general interest and awareness that there is a "truth" problem increases? I fully accept these groups' right to exist, but I feel it is my duty to point out their flaws, and I know that many in these groups understand my point of view on this matter. They simply hold another view, primarily being that we need numbers and popular subjects and issues to get interest and that is simply more important than perfect credibility, as they feel exposure to the greatest number is the "key".

We as "9/11 Truth Advocates" are part of their "Big Tent" because our "9/11 Truth" issue interests them, that's great but it does not follow that we need to be involved with issues or causes that hurt our aim by discrediting us. As with all successful social movements we must keep our campaign sharp and it must have a clear direction and focus.

Truth is not ENTERTAINMENT, for entertainment and titillation are the enemies of truth, as they distract the mind and blur it's focus. I love to be entertained and distracted from time to time especially in this war torn world, that is normal and healthy. But just as I do not "drink and drive" I will not allow myself to be intoxicated with wild ideas or theories while pursuing "the truth" that we know is proven and concise.

While socializing with like minded truth seeking people is important, we must be on the look out for those marginalising influences, associations and half baked attempts to populise "free thinking" for entertainment or for profit purposes. We are currently at war for our reality, more confused thoughts and ideas will not bring answers, only more questions. Clarity is the key to our ongoing success! Just because some one is a great speaker and is correct 99% of the time, that does not mean that the 1% rubbish that is spoken will not become 100% of the news story when they are talked about on TV that evening! We do not need 99% right people as we have 100's of 100% right people who only profess what they know to be true, we must support these people!

There are some groups like WeAreChange for example that aim to broaden the 9/11 Truth Movement in a logical and relevant way. I fully support WAC's formation in Australia and I hope the founder and spokesman Luke Rudkowski's attendance at the November Sydney Event(The Hard Evidence - 9/11 was an Inside Job) put on by 9/11 Truther's will boost the goals and numbers of that group. WAC has always supported evidence based arguments and has stayed away from unneeded speculation. Their main goal is the pursuit of truth and justice for victims of the 9/11 Attacks while exposing the fraud of the "War on Terror", it's consequences and the Globalist NWO agenda. This is a highly practical and logical approach indeed.

Any chink in our 9/11 Truth armour will be exposed and as in any battle these holes must be kept to the absolute minimum or possibly fatal wounds will be incurred!

The millions dead and dying due to the "War on Terror" born from the 9/11 attacks should remain strong in peoples' thoughts! While I know some are compelled to carry on researching the "Illuminati" or speculating about "Alien Invader's" I would suggest that "that" may be best left to more peaceful times in the future, that will come with the exposure of the 9/11 lies!

Recently I have been asking myself and others what is the best approach to take with these "Big Tent" populist groups? After much thought and talk I believe maintaining communications and doing our best to make argument directly or indirectly with them is simply the best way. We all "9/11 Truth Advocates" realize that "9/11 Truth is the key" to unlocking the door to the real "reality" and we must use any opportunity to convince others this is the case whilst staying keenly focussed on our aim of 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Scientists, Politicians, Peace Activists and the average Jill or Joe will not have their reality challenged by a broad, unbalanced and lost movement of "free thinkers", that will simply supply an excuse to go back to sleep!

I hear ya. Rep posted a good piece along these lines-->

On Disinformation and Damaging Associations

"It is you who are the torch-bearers with respect to that truth.... ...Steel your spines. Inspire your children. Then when the moment is right, rise again...." W PEPPER


If the individuals you spoke of didn't exist, the debunkers would have nothing to do. Think about the debunkers... :)

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?

I didn't think of that.....good point.... :)

Still laughing John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Show "Absolutely off topic" by constitutional911

"Clarity is the key to our ongoing success!"

You're calling "NWO agenda", clarity?? From my perspective it's vague to the point of meaningless - a big-tent conception, if you will; disguising an unstated ideological framework derived from nationalism and "patriotism" (as in the last refuge...) My point is that there are widely differing view-points within this "movement". They need to be kept in perspective and handled maturely, if not reconciled. But IMO your teatise does not contribute very much to clarifying matters. "...be careful not to get to caught up with any group that might be getting off track with ideas that lack merit!" Sort of begs the question (s) doesn't it ?

Valid point...but the NWO is admitted...

Valid point...but the NWO is admitted and obvious. Can we point to a specific Globalist Agenda that has been accelerated with the 9/11 Attacks? I believe we can, but some may call it "Pax Americana", so again your point is valid.

Anyway I don't talk about the NWO while talking about 9/11 Truth, but you must agree that although "broad" most of our scholars agree their is one trying to form and we have slowed that formation?

The reason I wrote this essay was because out of thin air a new group in Oz was formed. They had a slick site and an obvious marketing strategy. The organiser was a young guy that did a promotional video with his shirt off and his launching event was to bring David Icke to Australia? This fellow has resources and is travelling the country meeting up with people painting a very broad picture indeed just as we in Sydney are trying to narrow our focus with an event this year called "The Hard Evidence - 9/11 was an Inside Job" which will be looking at our strongest argument controlled demolition. We are called "Truth Action Australia" while he has called his site "Truth Movement Australia"? He is full time on the job and he lives in Perth and is putting Icke on in a massive(expensive) venue in Melbourne 2,000 miles away? Not one activist in Perth has ever met the guy? Now on the other hand he has offered us his help and is linking to some great sites, he is also happy for us to attend his events to distribute info about our events. He is a populist and aims to make money off his events bringing Icke first and then the creator of Zeitgeist another influence that does not bring cohesion to this movement.

It's all very interesting and all I'm trying to say is lets keep our eye on the ball and not get caught up in groups that are niether proven or careful with what they promote using the words "Truth Movement".

This is my first attempt at an essay and I hope you all found it at least thought provoking?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

I think we can agree that Icke is not

to be trusted , and that "shape shifting reptiles" does indeed fall in the category of unproven theories (putting it generously). I found your more specific comment more informative. I for one am against dividing up into camps and promoting suspicions of peoples motives. At the same time I don't consider myself naive. If the criminal elite hasn't made significant effort aimed at derailing this truth explosion, they simply aren't doing their job and heads will roll. Some sense of balance and realization of what is at stake here. Oops, that's pretty vague also.
Keep up the great work down under. We all appreciate your activism and videos.

Yes agreed...and..

thanks for the thanks, it is appreciated!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

>>The reason I wrote this

>>The reason I wrote this essay was because out of thin air a new group in Oz was formed. They had a slick site and an obvious marketing strategy. The organiser was a young guy that did a promotional video with his shirt off and his launching event was to bring David Icke to Australia?


That's an excellent reason for writing this essay. And it's good that you're there to keep track of this stuff! Keep it up.

I know this will get voted down, and I don't care.

Too many of you are afraid to stand alone for the truth. Any organized resistance will eventually be infiltrated. Blogger is no different.

I absolutely disagree with this essay.

Simply calling for a new investigation is not enough, for if it comes at all, it will be a very long time before we get one that is completely impartial. Therefore, people who are continually cautioning us to "not say too much," don't speak what we know, just say we need an new investigation, are actually harming the movement. They are working against getting the truth out.

Neither have I observed a huge problem re. the movement being discredited by alternate views. This is a red herring that is used to enforce a single, monolithic view about what happened on 9/11.

The movement is primarily discredted by our direct enemies in the media, CIA, NSA and other shadow government fronts. They do us far more harm than even the most vocal proponent of space beams or no planes. No one I have spoken with, who still believes the OTC, is even aware of the disputes within the movement. They only know "my government would never do that!" It's not space beams that get them riled up, it's the mere suggestion that the US government would attack "their own people."

I know people who think Steven Jones is disinfo. That Alex Jones is disinfo. That WAC is disinfo. That Michael Ruppert is disinfo. Same for DRG. Seems like everybody is suspected by somebody.

I question the intentions of those who would focus truthers' attentions on fighting amongst themselves, rather than fighting those who truly oppose us.

There is also a direct contradiction between saying:

1) we don't really know what happened, so just call for a new investigation and don't offer any theories, and

2) we know exactly what happened, so we are entitled to decide which theories get the official stamp of approval and which are verboten.

Which is it?

How many downvotes can I get for this? Five? Ten? Come on, you know Rep, Jon Gold, Col. Jenny and Arabesque disagree with me, so pile on and let them know you are a solid card carrying Big Tent hating truther.

Please let me be the first to downvote;

John's right... I don't think we should be cautious not to say too much, but rather not to say too much that we can't prove/don't know about instead of being a water carrier for someone who may be maliciously muddying the argument... citing "some people say" that x y and z groups/individuals are disinfo without anything to back it up is an example worthy of Fox News. There's too much hard evidence on the record that contradicts the official story that chasing holograms becomes entirely destructive; especially since when we are attacked publicly, they use the holograms/space beams/racism that would be included in such a big tent.

Show "when we are attacked publicly they use the holograms/space beams" by Sheila Casey

Alright I'll give you three and let you google the rest...

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028 <---"Meet the No Planers"
"They believe there weren't any planes on 9/11, just missiles wrapped in holograms - and there weren't any London terrorists on 7/7 either. The new-wave conspiracy theorists aren't green-ink types: they're educated; they have secret service connections; they live in Highgate. By Brendan O'Neill"

Show "admittedly this is hard to prove either way" by Sheila Casey

shiela, daricus' assertion is valid

and should not be underestimated.

i live in nyc and people are sharply divided here. new york is a media epicenter and financial capital of the world (or used to be?) and there are a large number of journalists, pundits, and industry moguls who reside here. in my travels, it's happened on more than one occasion where the subject of 9/11 comes up and people will look at me as though i have two heads for entertaining the idea of government complicity. i've had really smart and otherwise informed professionals make brash assumptions about why i might be holding such ideas... and in one encounter -- before i could even lay out an argument or framework -- one woman accused, "you aren't one of those people that deny planes hit the towers are you?"

i was stunned that this was the first thing out of her mouth.

disinfo is an enormous liability to 9/11 truth; nay, disinfo is the antithesis to truth. i used to think that the subject simply needed greater public attention and that if more people were talking about it then that would be an overall "positive" because it would provide more exposure to the controversy of 9/11... but this simply is not true. there was a massive propaganda campaign leveraged against the truth movement back in 2005/2006 and i believe total vigilance is required in order to avoid the tar pits and poisoned wells that were sewn as a result of that campaign.

also, i would like to point out this same logic should be applied to potential "upstream" alliances, too: while some of our goals are shared with the anti-war movement and to a large extent, the yet-to-be-fully-embraced and potential "truth commission" (dedicated to exposing other crimes of the bush administration; such as illegal wiretapping, politicization of the DoJ, and torture) we should be careful trying to bolster our numbers by aligning with other movements. in short, i would also assert the OP's position on this topic: we should remain focused on the facts of 9/11, because it was *the* event which enabled all of these other crimes and injustices. if we fail to adhere to the facts of 9/11, then just as mr. bursil asserts, we risk giving the average jill or joe "an excuse to go back to sleep".

it took me a while to figure this out and if you disagree, i would greatly appreciate you or anyone pointing out the flaws in this logic.

the flaw in your logic

Is that I never once said we should embrace "disinfo," or as someone else says below, that I advocate views other than those that are "sober and sensible."

Rather, there are wide variety of interpretations about what is true and what is not. A month or so ago, there was a heated discussion here about whether a plane hit the Pentagon. I happen to believe it did not, and I and the plane doubters were subjected to a lot of ridicule and were even called "no planers." It eventually got so contentious that Rep shut down comments.

Not everything is as clearly wrong as the "space beams from space" theory.

I see a lot of damage done by the attempt to clearly demarcate the Official 9/11 Truth Catechism.

I know three people personally, in the 3d world, who have been banned from blogger who are sincere, well-informed and well intentioned, who had some degree of separation from those we all disagree with, or who expressed a view that blogger did not want to hear. We are poorer for not having those people here.

We are all still learning, and even DRG has posted retractions and corrections, as new information comes to light.

We need to be ever watchful about the power of this forum to divert us from the most effective path.

I read a quote recently -- sorry, I cannot now find it. The essence was, that any effective dissident groups will be infiltrated, so small self-directed groups are safest. If the orders from the top seem wrong, just ignore them and carry on.

I've never been to New York city, I'm sorry to say.

Thanks for this, I'm not trying to be personal about my response as I myself have made mistakes in the past with who I'm quoting... I once used a Judy Wood quote in a very early local radio interview I did back before I understood where she and Fetzer were coming from, about redwood trees becoming sawdust? I thought it was a clever point to emphasize the collateral immolation of the building in such a short time rather than a transfer of energy type mechanical failure.

One day I'll have the courage and resources to go to new york to try pay my respects in person. I almost feel like I know alot of the people of NYC due to their video activism, which is weird but that's just the age we live in I guess.

Sheila, here are a couple more for you...

If you haven't seen it, check out this Paula Zahn smear piece. She seizes upon a viewpoint held only by a teeny tiny minority of truthers (who might even be working for the other side for all we know) that "The Jews Did It!" The piece does a very masterful job of making it appear as if much, perhaps a majority, of the 9/11 truth community is anti-semitic. The piece starts out by dismissing all 9/11 conspiracy theories as simply being an internet phenomenon, btw.

On another tangent: As far as people/documentaries which are 99% correct but 1% pure poison, and how that 1% poison is seized upon by the corporate media to create a hit piece, check out the following clip. The "cruise missile with wings" error was one of the first trojan horse poisons to infect the movement back in 2004, and the documentary "In Plane Site," (which was the hottest doco on the subject before anyone had heard of Loose Change) featured this clip at the beginning of the film as a suggestion that a missile hit the Pentagon. You know what the establishment propagandists say about "conspiracy theorists": that they start with a conclusion, work backward and seize upon fragments of quotes, etc., while ignoring the entire context of a statement and discarding any data that doesn't fit the pre-determined conclusion. Well, watch Glenn Beck and James Meigs smear all 9/11 truthers as gullible people who seize upon flimsy or incorrect information to support their conclusions.

OKAY... well, after searching for it, I find out that the clip has been removed from youtube. But check out this blog entry on the subject:

Bollyn says nothing there that I disagree with

I am also a critic of Zionist policies, and no, that doesn't make me an anti-semite either. Christopher Bollyn did nothing wrong here. Of course Mossad was involved!

Actually, you're right

I actually embedded that video without having watched it... in a couple years. I did watch it back when it was fresh, and upon reviewing it just now, the actual "conspiracy theorists" aren't using the words "Jews did it." And no, Bollyn doesn't say anything I disagree with either. However, they did flash a couple of screenshots across the screen which did have anti-semitic cartoons, and "JEWS DID 9/11!" Ironically, those images were from a SATIRE site, so CNN either didn't look at the site thoroughly before deciding to flash it on the screen, or they did so deliberately, knowing that the site wasn't even a real theory-based site, but seized upon it in order to conflate "Jews" with "Zionism/Mossad." I definitely do believe the Mossad was involved in 9/11.

Anyway, the point is, there have been a number of MSM hit pieces on 9/11 truth, many of which have attacked straw man arguments. Think of the millions from coast to coast who are probably seeing them. Compare that to the non-millions who are seeing Richard Gage's website.

Bollyn has done other things wrong

Bollyn has done other things wrong related to the evidence in the attacks, not just anti-semitic statements --


But if you need an example of Bollyn's views on "Jews" --

"Zionist Jews established their media empire in the United States in the early 1900s and have been able to control how Americans think for generations."

Bollyn has also been a guest on David Duke radio talking about how people of different colored skin should not be allowed to date and how white people are the supreme race . . .

"You can ask direct questions, live, of Mr. Bollyn by registering an anonymous screen name here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/index.php?referrerid=5122. Once registered on the world's first, biggest, and fastest-growing pro-European website, Stormfront.org, you will find us listening to Christopher Bollyn as part of the written Town Hall Forum."

By "pro-Eurpoean" they mean white, as in white power, as in other races don't belong in the US, and should not mix with White People.

Lots more with just a few minutes on the internet . . . starts to get pretty ugly though.

Give us all a break

"I haven't seen it but maybe once"

You haven't noticed both the MSM and "debunkers"--(usually fakes working with the fake truther stalker crowd)--when losing an argument, reach for the "straw man in a box" and try to say X truther is no different from Killtown or Judy wood...?

If you really haven't noticed this, then you haven't been paying attention enough to know what's going on.

It is true, sometimes these things are used to ridicule...

... the movement in general and us specifically. But not always. Let me give you a very recent example, and maybe some people here would care to visit the site I am about to tell you about in order to help further my attempt at getting us into a different "Big Tent".

Recently on a thread at After Downing Street, the owner of the site had asked for donations to send him to a gathering of activists (Peace, accountability, Impeachment, AntiWar, anti Globalization, ect.) and I was the first commenter and I was respectful and earnestly supportive of what he was suggesting. There was just one caveat; I wanted to know if he would use his influence with the group to get someone like Richard Gage to speak there as well.


I know it's rather optimistic, but I have long since hoped to see 9/11 Truth included in that "Big Tent" as well.

The person who runs ADS was rather insulting with his responses. In fact, not only have I been banned but other 9/11 Truth advocates were as well. And they even blogged about it afterward as some sort of "victory".

This is a site dedicated to "exposing the truth about the criminality of the Bush/Cheney administration" in an attempt to hold them accountable. And "truthers" as we were called, were loonies and paranoid... and David Ray Griffin was called by that same person that runs the place, a "charlatan".

I only mention this because I want to see us all included in an even bigger tent.

I agree that we are often ridiculed by those who don't know the first thing about the events of 9/11 regardless of what "methodology camp" you belong to; if we don't buy into Bush's story, then we are all nutters anyway.

"... … and heartily encourage 911ers to discuss 911 nonsense on sites dedicated to it, i’ve only blocked people who libeled, not people who expressed dumb or off-topic opinions, er, sorry, indisputable scientific facts." ADS owner

"Is Bush and Cheney sitting in on a 9/11 Memo meeting? NO????!!! Then you do not have any DOCUMENTATION that Bush and Cheney had anything to do with 9/11." commenter


I only put this out there so people will see, it's not always just the "radical fringe" beliefs that are attacked, you know.

this is my experience

I get attacked all the time, and it's not for espousing fringe beliefs. I live in an area with lots of military. A Navy guy I know greets me almost everytime with "so Sheila, how's the conspiracy going?"

I am actually finding that the resistance to 9/11 Truth..

... topics seem to be increasing among "dissent" or "activist" sites, though oddly, one-on-one, person-to-person I think people are generally more receptive. I think people in general are angry about what is going on with the economy and the apparent lack of interest from our elected officials (that's not meant as a political statement, just an economic one). At the same time it would appear that many site mods are looking to clamp down on what is being discussed, and unfortunately that means anything that deals with poking holes in the "official story" of 9/11.

It might be getting better?

I've seen pretty favorable pieces lately in the huffington post and on crooksandliars.com, the latter site I was banned from for referencing Rudy Guiliani's conversation with Sabrina Rivero in the republican primaries.

The myth of American Exceptionalism

is too deeply ingrained into their military psyches.

Jiminey Crickets!

Those ADS people are vicious! Once again, look at the denial! Eyewitnesses, explosives experts, et cetera, don't seem to be enough to make those peoples' heads turn! "Oh, you're just theorizing!" What a classic case of "la la la, I think I'll stick my fingers in my ears!"*** Of course, Richard Gage's ae911truth.org is merely a "truther site," so it must be a circle jerk and those 600 a's and e's must all be wrong!

If something were to happen to you, or if your life simply became difficult, because they posted your e-mail address without your permission, you could probably threaten to take THEM to court, as what you did (hypothesizing that Swanson is controlled opposition working for the other side, under an anonymous screen name) surely does NOT fall under the legal def. of libel.

***Next time someone does that in a debate I'm involved in ("oh you're just theorizing, give me some hard documentation that bush did 911"), you could point out that there does not exist a document saying: "Dear Heinrich, I hereby order the extermination of Europe's Jews in gas chambers. It's official. Yours, Adolf." We don't have that. But we do have the huge piles of bodies being bulldozed into large pits, etc. Likewise, we have scientific facts and data which point to the WTC collapse fitting the controlled demolition model to a tee. Only the most naive human being would think that any paperwork re installing explosives in the buildings has not been destroyed.

911 is a symptom

We had many 911s before of sorts.

JFK,RFK, Martin Luther King...

Gulf of Tonkin etc.

USS Liberty....

People who cannnot accept the truth with the reasoning the govt. cannot do this to their own people just don't understand the true nature of the Military Industrial Complex.

Ignorance is the Real Enemy.

As long as we Educate and Inform People sincerely, I am prepared to work with anyone and everyone who is sincere (regardless of differences in opinions).

The Truth of 911 is that 911 ALONE is not the only issue. Totalitarian Global Government IS.

We all can see that from the cafe cameras in the Streets of London to the SWAT teams in Middle America.

People who are Constitutionally Educated will have a better chance of stopping this.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

I agree that government/military is the problem...

...and 9/11 Truth is the best place to start bringing it down.

All the previous causes you list have helped us in our cause and we will help them as we continue with ours. They are as you say "symtoms" of a shadow government that puts self interest ahead of country and the common good.

Building 7 is our "magic bullet" just that we have more evidence, experts and videos! So lets keep at it....

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

WTC7...Feature Film

"How many downvotes can I

"How many downvotes can I get for this? Five? Ten? Come on, you know Rep, Jon Gold, Col. Jenny and Arabesque disagree with me, so pile on and let them know you are a solid card carrying Big Tent hating truther."

If you insist, luv.

Sorry you have you're knickers in a twist, but there are more serious consequences to embracing Big Tent bollox than offended sensibilities:

" If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas"


I can guarantee anyone using the Big Tent to excuse or try to "rehabilitate" anyone connected to these people will be reminded of what these dogs have done and the price of lying down with them.


That's a bit strong Jenny...

" If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas"

Now be nice.... :)

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!


Unfortunately, its true--especially when the fleas are carrying a PR plague.

Obviously this applies to people who knowingly and repeatedly lie with dogs, not someone who made a mistake, then promptly rectified it.

K, I'll be nice--er, probably. ;-)

disinformation, etc.


"Therefore, people who are continually cautioning us to "not say too much," don't speak what we know, just say we need an new investigation, are actually harming the movement."

"He who thinks he knows what he does not know is sick in mind." -Zen proverb

It's not that you shouldn't say "too much;" it's that you shouldn't say things that aren't true if you take it upon yourself to join a "truth movement." This isn't rocket science, but the numerous half-truths and the numerous deliberate lies we have suffered through since nearly day one, are quite a serious matter. They destroy the credibility of the very idea of challenging the government's claims.

The movement, and therefore everyone in it, has been demonized in the press, using such endearing terms as "whack jobs," and "nut cases," and other disparaging terms I really don't need to belabor. The point is, they usually can find a bonafide "whack job" to serve as the poster boy when they need to . Do not be that "whack job."

How can you avoid being that "whack job" you say?

Well, start by critically examining all of your beliefs, and researching the sources you have thus far blindly accepted as "true," without subjecting those claims to careful scrutiny and hearing the opposing criticisms.

Which claims are facts, and which are inferences based upon insufficient evidence? Every word used is crucial when describing an opinion vs. a fact. Many claims are controversial and hotly disputed by many people. Some claims have no merit at all, or were disproven by later evidence.

There are libraries of information about 9/11, and it is quite impossible to get through it all. Therefore it is imperative to simplify the case into a small amount of incontrovertible claims.

My fact list, regarding the 9/11 attacks (critique all you want):



Big Tent costs too much

Only sober and sensible material should be presented to the uninformed. There is no excuse for propagating material which fails to meet this criterion.

I recently attempted to educate users of a normally non-9/11 forum, at http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/358008-9-11-time-another-look.html (Name used=John Marsh).
Much hostility and ridicule ensued. Now imagine what would have happened if I had promoted Dr Judy Wood's output, or 'no planes', or Eric Hufschmid's Holocaust denial. The mindset of the uninformed is a challenge, even when there is no ridicule. We cannot afford the Big Tent. 9/11 Truth is not a Summer fair.


"I recently attempted to educate users of a normally non-9/11 forum, at http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/358008-9-11-time-another-look.html (Name used=John Marsh)."

Yikes! I just checked out that thread. Wow.

The funny thing is, I don't think all those people could be paid debunker shills. I think most if not all of them are ordinary citizens who are fixed in their paradigm of belief; namely that any alternative interpretation of 9/11 is wacky and paranoid from the outset. Look how many posts in just the first couple pages on that thread lump us in with "holocaust deniers." Just one example: "You will have to excuse my being "presumptious" in lumping the 9/11 truthers in with the Holocaust deniers, the doubters about the Mooon landings, those who think that KAL 007 was on a spy mission and a whole lot of other eye-rolling types with only one oar in the water that have crossed my path over the years and taken me for some sort of likely customer for whatever they are peddling."

I Think that thread shows how sheer denial is an extremely powerful force. It also serves as a sobering reminder of something else: For us, who have done the REAL research, it's obvious the official 9/11 story is false. But to many people, the idea of an "inside job" is indeed still considered as offensive as "holocaust denial." No matter how many credible people are on our side, the OCT defenders will close their ears and shout "Occam's Razor... Occam's Razor... I invoke thee! Ahh, yes, Occam says the truthers are all wrong!"

Marsh / Mushroom: Tell them this.

Name the "foreign governments" who "assisted the hijackers" mentioned by SENATOR Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time. Source PBS Newshour, Dec. 11, 2002:


And also mentioned in the congressional record, Oct. 28, 2003:


At that point, they will either:

1) Ignore you
2) Pretend it's not important
3) Name Saudi Arabia (ignoring the plual "governments"), and pretend to be annoyed at the Saudis, with no more investigation needed

Then ask them why protecting these "foreign governments" should not technically be prosecuted as HIGH TREASON?


thanks for the facts list johndoraemi.

This is a very useful tool. I appreciate the work you have done compiling it.

Points of view and propaganda

"Sheila" has completely discredited herself multiple times on this website.

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

Please quote me on this Shelia. It's not polite to make stuff up about people.

Sheila: "Therefore, people who are continually cautioning us to "not say too much," don't speak what we know, just say we need an new investigation, are actually harming the movement."

Making false/slanderous statements about people in the truth movement is doing harm. Fairly criticizing and voicing critique/opinion is not. That's all that needs to be said here.

Sheila on "Missing Links": "However I see no danger in exposing myself to all points of view, especially if it involves criticisms of a powerful group, which Jews surely are. Their per capita income is 150% of average and they essentially control the media. See the book "How the Jews Built Hollywood." I have before me the 9/10/08 issue of the New Republic and the cover says "Plus Nussbaum, Solow, Stiglitz and Wieseltier."

I do not have a problem with "points of view", but transparent and manipulative propaganda designed to mislead an audience is another matter.

It seems like common sense that being critical is simply necessary. For example, everyone who says, we can be critical of the official 9/11 story, but turns around and says, don't be critical of alternate 9/11 theories... this is a type of Orwellian double think. you are either critical or you aren't. And everyone has a right to express their critical thoughts. I question those who say otherwise.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

"Sheila" thinks it might help if you clicked on your own links

It's not polite to pretend this hasn't already been answered.

Also, per the rules at: http://911blogger.com/rules

>>Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread.

I'm sure Rep was just about to pop in to remind you of that.


He's not continuing an arguement from those threads...

...He's linking to proof of how uncredible you've been in the past. It does color what you say now--especially if its still uncredible.

Remember the first rule of holes...

Arabesque and Col Jen are deliberately deceiving blogger readers

What part do of this do they not understand?

>>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.

(at http://911blogger.com/node/18908#comment-202775)

So clearly they both know EXACTLY why I said Arabesque "calls people he disagrees with morons," because the narrator in the video, that was posted with a link to Arab's blog, says exactly that at 2:06.

Why would Arab and Col. Jenny Sparks attempt to defame me with a deliberate misrepresentation? I must be saying something that scares them. You know you're over the target when you're catching flack.

Their fellow clique member then informed me that the video was not made by Arabesqe, and I posted this:

>>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. 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.

Col. Jen then made an unfounded allegation, that I had:

>>>jumped on the "Arabesque is an agent" bandwagon

Another lie. What I said was:

>>I flinched when he called them "morons"

Not at all like calling someone an agent, is it now Miss Jen?

Anyone reading this should now realize that these two people cannot be trusted. They are trying to discredit me and hoping you won't bother to go to the links to find out the truth for yourself.

Later in the thread, Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, wrote:

>>"Arabesque" is all smoke and mirrors combined with mostly attacks on others.

Based on what we've just seen, I would have to concur.

You've also said that Jews

You've also said that Jews "essentially control the media." Would you like to clarify that, too?

Why aren't you concerned about the lies I just exposed?

If not, why not?

You think the behavior of Col Jen and Arab as exposed above is okay? When they deliberately attempted to misrepresent a previous thread?

Let's stay on that topic for a bit first. It's important that truthers tell the truth, don't you agree?

You attempt to immediately divert attention from a flagrant deception here on blogger -- why?

>>Let's stay on that topic

>>Let's stay on that topic for a bit first.

If you share that view with Bollyn -- that Jews control the media -- why not just say so? How simple is that?

Great post

Great post John.

Discrediting by association is real and it is used because it works. We have all been discredited with a label -- "conspiracy theorists" -- which was repeatedly presented to the public since 9/11/01, directly to millions via the MSM and the president, as a synonym for "nutcases". Even as vote fraud was taking down Democrats one by one in the elections in 2004, the Congresspeople would preface their arguments with "Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but . . ." Despite the obvious, they were so terrified to be associated with that phrase that they allowed themselves to be pushed out of office so Bush could continue his work unimpeded. Better to lose an election than to be a "conspiracy theorist".

And there are many more examples of how one person or theory or belief can be tagged as "toxic" and everyone will steer clear or turn away as soon as they see it. I was originally turned off to the idea of demolitions because the people posting about it on Indymedia were using all caps and screaming about it and mixing it in with "real planes didn't hit" etc. It just looked nutty, so I turned away.

Shiela defends Big Tent because the newspaper she writes in -- Rock Creek Free Press -- engages in Big Tent, mixing "AIDS is a hoax" with "9/11 Truth" with "alternative health" claims, etc. To me, it would be a better paper if it mixed issues that are not an automatic turn-off to people with one controversial issue, like mixing 9/11 truth with anti-war issues, environmental issues, health issues that are not extremely controversial (i.e., meditation, yoga), etc. Packing all the most controversial claims into one paper will whittle down the audience, story by story and ultimately distance itself as a paper from the idea that it is presenting real but unexposed truths.

Here are the top headlines in Rock Creek on the website --

Top Scientists Ask Journal Science To Retract Original AIDS Papers

A Call for a Re-evaluation of the AIDS Dogma
By Matt Sullivan / RCFP

Everything You Know About AIDS is Wrong
By Sheila Casey / RCFP

Then come the rest of the stories, which someone will get to as long as they are pretty sure AIDs is a hoax, or okay with the idea. Unfortunately, although the stories name names, there are no links to do more research. Just speculation, statements, facts without references, and quotes whose context is removed. That doesn't give a lot of credence to the idea that strong research backs up the stories.

Yes, we could write fluff pieces about yoga

But we do serious investigative reporting and we save the space for the stories that really count. It is a newspaper, not a 9/11 brochure. Although we have one of those too, see our new one at: http://www.911blogger.com/node/19124

I stand by my work on AIDS-HIV. We have received dozens of letters from people applauding our cutting edge work in this area, and the science is sound. As Constitutional911 says above:

"The Truth of 911 is that 911 ALONE is not the only issue."

The Big Tent ain't that big...

The point is, the Big Tent needs to have admission criteria - the theories must meet scientific standards of falsifiablity and need to be based on observations which can be reproduced. You can't just chuck out an idea because its not popular.

Video Fakery and space beam theories were filtered out because they did not meet those criteria. The 9/11 Truth tent is not big enough to accomodate them.

This is a bit off-topic but those who claim that questioning of the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis is unscientific or disinformation really need to buckle down and do some independent research. They will find nobel laureates, acclaimed biologists and an impressive list of credentialled and respectable professionals (not UFO nuts!) who question the official truth of HIV and AIDS. There are several excellent documentaries on the subject.

Editor - www.911oz.com

Don't agree with either of you

Victronix and Sheila,

Firstly let me say that I do agree with the thrust of John's article. I published it first at 911oz.com.

However, I do disagree with Victronix's interpretation of it. The "Rock Creek Free Press" publishes stories on a variety of subjects (some of which you disagree with). You can't demand they only publish on one topic, and you can't demand they always match your personal views.

I think you have misunderstood the point of the article, and so has Sheila.

John is not saying that dissenting viewpoints must be suppressed. He is merely saying that all theories and views need to meet a minimum standard of scientific criteria in order to be incorporated into the movement's key publicity material. For that reason, and that reason alone, we don't invite people like Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds to our conferences. It would serve no good at all. Their hypotheses have not withstood examination. We are not excluding them because they are deviants or dissenters.

So I think both yourself and Sheila need to re-evaluate the real point of this article, and you'll see you are both on the same side really.

(: Hereward
Editor - www.911oz.com

>>You can't demand they only

>>You can't demand they only publish on one topic, and you can't demand they always match your personal views.

No one's demanding anything.

All I'm doing is letting people know what RCFP is writing about and what I think of it. It's called critique. And it's how activists learn about things they haven't bothered to read fully, haven't clicked on, haven't had the time to look into, etc.

>>I think you have misunderstood the point of the article, and so has Sheila. John is not saying that dissenting viewpoints must be suppressed.

And neither is anyone else. That's called a strawman.

And as far as the article, I think I get the basic premise pretty well.

Victronix that link to the 911 Research...

is absolutely tops. It's really a great tool for new truthers.

Please all intrested have a look!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Hmm, well I for one think

Hmm, well I for one think your criticisms are a bit outrageous.

It is an alternative media portal - obviously they are not going to present the Fox News reality!

Your main criticism of RCFP appears to be its coverage of the HIV/AIDS dissidents' theories. This is not wild UFO specualtion - it is science based, just as questioning C02 driven climate change is science based.

Your whole post smacks of a rigidly orthodox and inflexible mentality which has really nothing to do with science but alot to do with control. I only say this for the benefit of others reading this page, having already felt the brunt of your disdain on another forum.

Editor - www.911oz.com

>>Your whole post smacks of

>>Your whole post smacks of a rigidly orthodox and inflexible mentality

That's a good example of attack, not critique.


by the way..

The article you linked is indeed very good.

Editor - www.911oz.com




We should be happy for papers like Rock Creek publishing our arguments if they put the best ones forward. If they wish to speculate and question any other issue that's their prerogative. A good example in Australia and the US is NEXUS magazine which covers some very fringe issues and perspectives but also supports things like Project Censored and 9/11 Truth. Is that good or bad? All I know is that we need to make the transition from fringe to mainstream if we are to make real change in this world.

So what I am suggesting is that the 9/11 Truth Movement must have a core of people and ideas that are solid and beyond scientific attack. Not that we need to attack the very broad and open minded groups that have supported us rather we need to draw clear lines between us and them.

Disinfo is dissinfo and it should be called as such and when people that profess to be 9/11 Truth Advocates support obvious disinfo they should be exposed!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

>>We should be happy for

>>We should be happy for papers like Rock Creek publishing our arguments if they put the best ones forward. If they wish to speculate and question any other issue that's their prerogative.

John, neither you nor I nor anyone else on here is saying RCFP doesn't have the right to publish whatever they like. I am shining a light on what they ARE writing about and expressing my opinion, since I have as much of a right to critique the paper as they do to publish it.

>>Not that we need to attack the very broad and open minded groups that have supported us rather we need to draw clear lines between us and them.

Critique and attack are 2 different things. If I were to personally attack Shiela, which I would not do, that would be an attack. If I were to sling labels at RCFP, that would be an attack. Instead, I am linking to the stories and merely copying them and stating my concerns and thoughts. That's critique.

The reality is that 9/11 articles being mixed with "AIDS is a hoax" will amount to turning away people who believe that AIDS is not a hoax from considering that 9/11 is an inside job, meaning scientists, engineers, chemists, professors, etc. -- people who work in science and medicine. And some will be offended, not just turned off. That doesn't help our cause, but hurts it.

Point taken...

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Thanks, I've been sort of

Thanks, I've been sort of terse lately, but don't mean to offend.

RCFP is not a 911 newspaper.

RCFP is not a 911 newspaper. It is a free press put out by DC 911 Truth. Because it covers many topics it can get into many more hands than just those of truthers. They work hard and Sheila sure does. I think a newspaper will always have articles that someone doesn't like. Long live RCFP.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars


I believe that it's wise to be wary and mindful of what goes on in our movement, but when you get down to it, it is the hard core science and evidence gathering that a few in our movement are actively pursuing that will make the most difference in getting a new investigation. The irony is, that that investigation is unlikely to happen given the emergency condition the US is in right now and the deteriorating financial condition within it and the rest of the world.

What will drive a new investigation are 2 things, one is very possible, and one rests on a prayer and a miracle: The miracle and prayer? A high level informant(s) comes forward. What is possible? A sophisticated array of well conceived civil and criminal lawsuits aimed at the perpetrators, their agents, and those engaged in the various levels of cover up associated with the crimes of 9/11 (Cristy Todd Whitman, for instance). With the exposure that well planned and numerous lawsuits will achieve, the pressure for a new investigation will be unavoidable. We have to start thinking about what the purveyors of a new investigation really need. They need science, evidence and the facts of course AND they need a pile of civil and criminal convictions to give them the necessary cement and leverage to enlighten and convince the public that such an action is VITAL. to the common good

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth where are you?

I'll be posting more on this soon.

Show "Big Tent" by dmcgee77

Two different issues...

There's at least two different issues at stake here:

1. The question of which theories/hypotheses are acceptable.
2. The question of mixing 9/11 research with a variety of other issues

The best method so far that I know of for sorting theories is the scientific method.

* Is it testable?
* Is it falsifiable?
* Does it match the data?
* Are the findings reproducible?

Once you apply these criteria to say, "video fakery" theories, you'll see very quickly why they have been discarded by scientific researchers. They fail the test. It's simple.

In regard to point 2 (other issues), it is more complex. It is also more political.

If a group came along calling itself "Pedophiles for 9/11 Truth", I don't think I would want to advertise that on my website, and I think just about everybody who frequents this site would agree. Why? Because it would be a very damaging association (to put it mildly).

If a group which was prominently associated with holocaust revisionism started promoting 9/11 truth, some people on this site would see no problem with linking or promoting that site, whereas others would find it offensive.

If a 9/11 Truth website was promoting David Icke and discussion of UFOs and Aliens, some people (myself included) would wish to distance themselves from that website.

These examples show that the question of what we "mix in" with questioning 9/11 is a complex one and there will probably always be conflicts and controversies.

Editor - www.911oz.com

But I think the "Big Tent" question

... is more relevant to the first issue (which theories/hypotheses are acceptable).

Editor - www.911oz.com

big tent is a problem

There is no doubt that the big tent approach creates problems for the real 9/11 truth movement. Having been involved in the debate which took place when control of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website was taken over by Jim Fetzer, I know how much stress was created. All this stress came from the simple fact that this website started supporting the ideas of Judy Wood. No amount of persuasion could alter Jim's view that big tent was the way to go.

The scientific method required rejection of beam weapons which Judy promoted. A huge majority of members could not stand being associated with beam weapons when use of explosives was so obvious. Out of this clash arose the new website, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, which adheres to presenting material which is scientifically sound.

The members objected to being associated with unscientific material for two reasons: it made them look stupid as individuals, and also they believed that it made the movement look stupid. As they sincerely wanted the movement to succeed they took socially difficult steps as they believed success of the movement was more important than personal peace. They took the necessary painful steps of separating themselves from an originally sensible friendly group.

If the readers of this blog are not impressed by the case for sticking to the well founded arguments, I hope they can be persuaded by the size of the majority who moved to set up the Truth and Justice website.

Well written, John. I agree most definitely.

In a similar vein, here's a brilliant article by Joël van der Reijden that I've just stumbled upon:

Twenty-six ways to slander and intimidate conspiracy advocates

It shows which tactics are used against us (focussing on hoaxes or associations with hoax advocates among them) and I would suggest to use it as a guide not to fall into these traps. We should not blindly run into the line of fire, but try to avoid the shots and overwhelm our attackers by surprise. Most debunkers are dumbfounded when you confront them with impeccable evidence about FBI obstruction, warnings, war games, insider trading or the cover-up. There are incontrovertible facts that indicate demolitions as well, but they get watered down when you mix them with weak points. And debunkers will jump onto the weakest link in your line of reasoning and ignore all other points, no matter how strong they are. That's why it's so important to apply rigorous standards of evidence and stay away from discredited theories and people who stubbornly advocate discredited theories.

You know, John, Icke has a peculiar take on some things,

but keep in mind that he was very early on to 9-11 inside job. Now he is doing a pretty fine job of trying to disabuse the liberal sheeple about an Obama administration. Just saying that there is no clear indication of outright insincerity (agency) in his case IMO. We do need to give the benefit of the doubt and stay open minded so we dont devolve into a completely fractured and paranoiac movement.

Yes I agree...to a small degree!

It's just the 1% B/S that's the problem and the fact he has not stated that he was tripping when he wrote and talked about the "shape shifting lizards". I do listen to what he says and occasionally he has a interesting perspective on the NWO and the Police State.

He does help our cause in a way but in another he weakens us greatly just like Tarpley does with his continual false predictions and slanderous accusations etc....

A majority of truthers support Icke in OZ and he will get many more to attend his event here that we will to our science/evidence style events, but I still believe we are much better off without that sort of popularity! The people that into the "New Age" type people, issues and subjects are not normally ones with influence in either politics or academia...

Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!


The primary mission of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to wake up as many people as possible. All other goals are secondary to a mass awakening. I think the best method involves the following:

1) The courage to speak publically. Tell your friends and co-workers, "The war on terror is a fraud starting with the fraud of 9/11. Etc. Etc." Be honest with yourself; an explicit one-on-one wake-up statement like this is difficult and rarely done. We all have to be better. Join our brave colleagues like RG, DRG, SJ, and others with the courage to speak publically and often about 9/11 Truth. Its the key to our success. If we all did it more we might just find ourselves at a tipping point.

2) Convincing information. We have less of this than we think. Only Richard Gage's presentations, Steven Jones' tests on dust, and the ample video history of explosions and foreknowledge are especially convincing to a rational person paying attention. So much 9/11 Truth information lacks the punch of the aforementioned.

I do not support "big tent." Even more, stick only to Richard Gage's arguments, Steven Jones' experiments, and video evidence of explosions and foreknowledge. No more is needed and any more confuses the sheeple. Stay pure, stay rational, and increase the energy with which you spread the truth.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Well said....but we got to stop using "sheeple"...

...to describe the community!

I know it is an accurate term in allot of situations, but this does not help us, agree?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

I will not use that term

I will not use that term again. I have no ill feelings toward anyone.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Hey Johnny...

I've had that term come back and bite me, because our enemies will drag words like that up to make us look elitist and nasty.

Please don't think I was telling you what to do, I thought your comment was excellent and just thought you would like to know what I thought!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Show "We already have a big tent......" by 911Peacenik

Hi Peacenik!

I'm not sure if you understood my definition of "the big tent" the way I see it?

The point being that the "big tent" I was talking about was to do with "truth seekers" not the general population. Those people that can be linked to us through their questioning of the government and their belief in conspiracy's etc and their interest in the 9/11 Truth issue.

I thought what you said in your post obvious and accurate and is exactly what we should do and most of us are doing!

You said "Clarity, brevity, simplicity, and distinguishing between fact and speculation is what works and gains respect -- big tent or no big tent." This is fine if your an individual, my essay was about groups and associations?

Could you explain your understanding of the big tent so I may understand your point better?

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

I agree with John...

...I don't think you grok the idea of the Big Tent. It's not synonymous with Melting Pot-- the Big Tent is the idea that all theories, approaches, even people--no matter how slimy-- can co exist in a political movement and the movement will still be effective.

This is simply not true. It never has been. If only for reasons of pure strategy, savvy political movements learn to focus on what will help them accomplish their goals and ignore everything else.

Part of the problem seeing this distinction is our concept of "Truther" as being synonymous with the Truth Movement. A reasonable assumption, but not necessarily true. The Truth Movement's goal has been to raise awareness about 9/11, its place in history, and push for a new independent investigation.

Other people who identify as Truther's have ancillary goals, some of them not compatible with a push for a new investigation. Nothing's wrong with this as long as no one is forcing us to "play together".

Let me introduce you to the Big Fence as an alternative:


In fact the only people who as a matter of habit insist on the Big Tent--meaning all Truthers must be willing to accept all ideas and theories, in all circumstances and if you don't you're a "shill" or worse--the only people who insist on this Big Tent, are people with a history of disruption themselves. And woe be unto you if you challenge them--they have a stable of cyber stalkers ready to punish you if you do:


Leaving out the issue of shape shifting lizards and space beams, every successful political movement needs to be focused. Focus doesn't necessarily mean you're leaving out something because you think its crap--it can be just because its political dead weight. A group for immigrant workers justice does not include Save the Whales material because its a distraction, not because they don't think whales need saving. If members are interested in cetacean activism, they will join a save the whales group as individuals and divide their time accordingly. If the immigrant rights group wants to support save the whales as a group, they'll vote on it(or however they come to consensus) and endorse/cross endorse where appropriate. But what neither group does is dilute their message by including "off topic" materials at their events, websites, and legal actions.

This is what effective activism looks like. If you sincerely wish to pursue speculative research re: 911truth fine, but don't try to mix it with the activism side of 911 truth if you want that activism to succeed.


Sense spoken, me listen.....

"This is what effective activism looks like. If you sincerely wish to pursue speculative research re: 911truth fine, but don't try to mix it with the activism side of 911 truth if you want that activism to succeed."

Yes mam right on!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

OK, party's over.

Comments are locked on this thread.

All combatants are advised to take their arguments offline, and contact other users via their contact forms, if you feel this is necessary.

Do not carry arguments from this thread over into another blog post, or you will be blocked from the site.

There have been enough accusations posted here to last for a good long time.