"Grandparents for 9/11 Truth", "Working Parents for 9/11 Truth" and "Soccer Moms for 9/11 Truth"

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/grandparents-for-911-truth-working.html

Given the false claim being made that people who question 9/11 are terrorists (and see this), I encourage people to form groups that show how mainstream questioning the government's version of 9/11 really is.

For example, I encourage people to form groups such as:

  • "Grandparents for 9/11 Truth"
  • "Working Parents for 9/11 Truth"
  • "Soccer Moms for 9/11 Truth"
  • "Sports Fans for 9/11 Truth"
  • "Weekend Athletes for 9/11 Truth"

There are already many excellent expert groups questioning 9/11, such as Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. And there are many excellent websites rounding up those who question 9/11.

But those don't necessarily reflect the mainstream, everyman quality of those who question 9/11.

Great concept. Excellent postioning.

I like the concept and its the positioning of 9/11 Truth in the eyes of the Public. "Construction Workers for 9/11 Truth" has always been one I would like to see. One time a bunch of construction workers and I were joking around because they were poking fun at my huge banner "9/11 Was an Inside Job". After a lot of fun talk, I gave them DVDs. A few days later when I walked by this group of a half dozen, they started talking 90 miles an hour about how 9/11 was an inside job, and telling me an assortment of highlights in the films.

Thanks GW

Thanks GW and you know I always appreciate your work. That is why I hope you will take a bit of constructive criticism in the spirit in which it was intended.

I am all for forming new 9-11 groups such as the examples you mentioned as suggestions. However, I feel I have to speak up and comment on your statements which follow and I quote;

"There are already many excellent expert groups questioning 9/11, such as Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. And there are many excellent websites rounding up those who question 9/11."

While there are a couple of very good sites in this list, I am a little more than puzzled to see some of the inclusions you have listed and the fact that you call them "excellent expert groups" is somewhat troubling to me. Case in point, the website Veterans for 9-11 Truth-

Here we have a clunky website brimming with disinformation. Included at this website are many prominent links to the various "no plane" promoting websites such as pilots for 9-11 truth (also in your list above), links to infamous disinfo like Judy Wood, holocaust denier and all around trouble maker Eric Hufshcmid, and of course a link to Jim Fetzers "scholars" site. Many other recognizable disinfo can be found and is being promoted at this website. Don't be fooled by a great sounding name like Veterans for 9-11 Truth and Pilots for 9-11 Truth.

There is more, but you get the point. When is the movement going to get up to speed on disinfo and how it's being used against us???

Sorry, but...

...I stand by the work of Pilots for Truth. And CIT.

Hello all...sorry I missed this!

The main concern I have is with P4T and the "No Plane at the WTC" position...? Well frankly there is none.

Rob's words..."he leans towards planes ath WTC"? Unfortunately that does not cut it with me at all or with any serious activist I know?.

Next problem the membership at P4T and their attitude to our movement. They care not for our credability or for our purpose and their membership will have any body on board as long as they have a pilots ticket.

If you noticed the membership there is not that great considering how they have been around for many of us in aviation are embarrassed to mention the group incase some one see's the NP at the WTC garbage.

If you for insance look at Gages site the memmbership grows and grows because they stand for something and they vet their members...so they have credability...get it!

Sometimes you have to play the game smart because if you lie with dogs you het fleas, it's that simple!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

John

Is this true? Do you have a link to him saying that? If it is true it is not good.

From Rob Balsamo...

Stated again last month in an email to a discussion list...as you can see ambiguous? "Lean towards planes"..this is not what you want from the head of P4T or is it?

Rob on me on Lear on NP at the WTC....quote

May 17, 2008
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12285&view=fi...

"ok folks... im getting a bit tired of being misquoted and flat out lies being spread about what i have said. So, in the interest of clarity i will give you my opinion. This is not a position of P4T since the organization as whole does not offer theory (or opinion). This is my opnion only.

I feel remote guidance at the WTC is highly possible.

I lean towards planes hitting the WTC for the fact i know several crews who watched it happen while waiting for departure at JFK and EWR and due to the numerous witnesses and video.

I dont know if the speeds are possible for a stock 767. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont know if the 767's were aerodynamically modified. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont have the expertise to determine "video fakery".

Feel free to quote ME and me only, not pilotsfor911truth.org as we do not offer theory.

END

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Michael, contact Alfons and volunteer to clean up his site.

He is not disinfo. Just sloppy. Veterans Truth: alfonslof at yahoo.com

http://www.711911.webs.com/
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/

I work with Vets and none of

I work with Vets and none of them ever would be drawn to a site showing an upside down flag, as v911t does. They feel strongly about their country, and defending it, even if they disagree with the war or the Administration. This is very basic. To assume that most vets will support that is pretty presumptuous.

Also, it shouldn't be the job of activists to tell a group to keep up it's website. It's reasonable to post a comment critiquing it, and if people want to contact them and have the time, fine, but if it's a site that is going to potentially TURN OFF vets, maybe we just shouldn't link to it.

Here's an example of a Vet's

Here's an example of a Vet's watchdog group --

http://www.vawatchdog.org/

See any upside down flags??? They are deeply critical of their own government, but would never fly an upside down flag on their own site. They are proud of their country no matter who or what is in charge.

Michael

I didn't know Veterans and Pilots promote no planes.

They don't.

Pilots does agree with CIT's 13 (and counting) witnesses along with the flight data recorder of AA77. The eyewitnesses and FDR point to a different flight path upon approach to the building than the official one. While that might at first sound like a very minor point, it opens up a can of worms which, when examined in depth, points to a military deception at the Pentagon every bit as much as CD at the WTC.

Pilots most certainly agrees that a large airliner was on the scene approaching the Pentagon, and they don't endorse the missile hypothesis at all. It is very disingenuous of Pilots/CIT detractors to bunch them up with the NPTs at the WTC.

Not Disingenuous at all....

It's not disingenuous at all to "bunch them up with NPTs at the WTC". While Rob Balsamo might be careful with his words, it doesn't take a genius to see what nonsense his "brother "organization (CIT) is promoting. Perhaps they do not use the exact words "no plane at the Pentagon" it is very clear what they are advocating. OK Kameelyun.....exactly what are they saying friend? If the pilots "most certainly agrees that a large airliner was on the scene approaching the Pentagon", what happened to it??? According to pilots and cit, it flew over the Pentagon in some sort of grand slight of hand deception.. Where did it go? What did hit the Pentagon? You tell us Kameelyun and maybe that will clear it up eh? Or perhaps Rob himself can stop over here and clear this up for us.

As far as "NPTs at the WTC", perhaps Rob Balsamo doesn't come out and publicly say there were no planes at the WTC. However, one of his "core" members and arguably the most well known member of the pilots group, John Lear certainly does. I hope all will go and check out a collection of John Lear information at the following website and please give us a fashion statement on his rather dapper tin foil hat won't ya?

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/menu.html

I actually think there are more turds in this punchbowl than punch. Would you like some punch with your turds???

Here is John Lear talking about what he thinks happened at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

Again, nothing disingenuous here.....

There are witnesses

and witnesses are to be taken seriously. I don't give a toss what CIT's conclusions are. So tone down the judgemental bs. Not everybody who is interested in CIT's work or in the witnesses they've interviewed shares their conclusions. OK?

Witnesses

"Pilots does agree with CIT's 13 (and counting) witnesses "

You can stop pretending to care what the witnesses have to say.
If you did you'd know the overwhelming number that describe a large plane impacting the pentagon, including the ones you mention. But that is to be ignored according to you, and your BS Con artists known as CIT and P4T. The rescue workers who went in and took out the debris-the plane parts that matched what all these witnesses said they saw, all that is to be ignored according to you. Instead accusing elderly cab drivers and reporters and priests of "being in on it" is what you want to do, based on nothing but a preposterous fantasy of a plane flying over the pentagon. I don't see how you could make the truth movement look any more ridiculous if you tried. The sole existance of CIT and p4t is to convince you a plane did not impact the pentagon. Because if it did they would both be out of Bussiness. That is the top of their priority list--the truth is further down. On 9/11 planes flew into buildings-get used to it. The only thing you've proven is how guillible you are to con artists with not so hidden agendas.

Keeping with my word re conversation derailing,

I will not respond to your vitriolic post beyond this current sentence.

GW, great blog entry.

Now more than ever, we need

"Jews For 9/11 Truth."

Fair enough

Just one thing, and really, I don't mean to pick a fight, but a few questions: what is wrong with forgetting about CIT and listening to the words of witnesses who saw the Pentagon approach? What can ever be so wrong about that?

Couldn't it be conceivable that it is important to have these witness statements on tape? Why does this have to be linked to a 'camp'? Do you think those who take these witness statements seriously are somehow not on your side?

In sum: why is there this polarization amongst us based on the preconception that we automatically share CIT's conclusions?

Do you want to know what my conclusion is? My conclusion is that the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon is in doubt.

If you project division where it is not, your projection becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a shame, and it is a road to nowhere.

While I don't want to presume to speak for Pilots For 9/11 Truth

I think that Rob Balsamo made it pretty clear recently that the group does not take a position on the Pentagon, but follows the credible evidence wherever it leads (as we all should); and that individual members of the group are free to express their own opinions.

I have never heard anyone from the Pilots group espouse a no planes at the WTC theory, either.

I hope that Rob Balsamo will drop by and correct me if I have misstated their position on any of this.

We need to keep most of our focus on the external threats right now and not pick pointless fights with each other over unsettled issues that can only be settled by a new investigation.

This is not to say that we shouldn't sever all links with the very few racists who continue to bring grief down on the movement. Did we learn nothing from the Phoenix fiasco?

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, brothers and sisters, we ARE winning and this is OUR future we are fighting for.

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

Amen

"We need to keep most of our focus on the external threats right now and not pick pointless fights with each other over unsettled issues that can only be settled by a new investigation."

What do people here think really happened @ the Pentagon?

~

Rep posted a poll...

...about a year ago, asking whether people agreed with the premise of a fly-over. 100 people voted, and as Rep points out, the poll was monitored for double-dipping and sock-puppetry; none was found. 55 people voted yes, 45 voted no. If I had been aware of CIT's work then, it would have been 56-45.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15478

thanks kameelyun

Wouldn't a decent amount of folks have seen the fly over?

Has anybody come foward on this?

You must understand:

If you were an eyewitness who saw a large airliner heading for the Pentagon, and you already knew about what happened at the WTC, and then the plane approaches the building and then there's a huge explosion and fireball and the plane "disappears," and then you hear on the news that the plane HIT the Pentagon, that will be your final conclusion. This is the same type of David Copperfield - style deception which fooled millions into believing that the planes and fires caused the buildings to collapse.

That being said, CIT has, in their more recent work, produced an honest-to-goodness flyover witness, Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts.

To be fair, this man was IN the Pentagon when the explosion occurred. However, he was very close to the E-ring exit, and he immediately ran and was outside in "ten seconds tops." In other words, virtually immediately. He says that in the immediate seconds after the explosion in the building, he saw a "commercial airliner" at a very low altitude, flying just barely over light poles and heading away from the building. This rules out the possibility that he was referring to the C-130 plane high in the sky. Roberts told his story to the Center For Military History just weeks after the event, and independently corroborated it with CIT in 2008. You can hear both Roberts' 2001 AND 2008 words here:

http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

It's in part 2 of "The North Side Flyover."

I would think a lot more people would have seen it

& I would not show that video that you linked to any of my serious minded friends.

Well,

We'll discuss this further next time a Pentagon blog entry surfaces. For now we'll just have to politely agree to disagree.

cool

.

Sorry wrong....LeftWright

"I have never heard anyone from the Pilots group espouse a no planes at the WTC theory, either."

Balsamo "leans towards planes at the WTC" for he is considering his front page listed famous friend and confirmed ex CIA, Area 51 expert, living moon and underground cities advocate etc etc etc tin foil hat wearing(serious) John Lear position on them being fricken HOLOGRAMS????

Some people here need the smelling salts...sorry to be a tad aggro but my ass is on the line for this campaign and THIS REALLY CONCERNS ME!!

In good faith John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

>>I have never heard anyone

>>I have never heard anyone from the Pilots group espouse a no planes at the WTC theory, either.

Whether it's "no planes", "no Boeing", "flyover", etc., these all amount to the same thing -- all the witnesses were duped and only we know what really happened. And if there's a debate about what did really happen? (Like for 8 years). So what? We know what happened. Those people at the scene only know what happened if they say a plane never hit.

LW, have you ever looked at the pilots website? I recommend poking around on the site and and looking at the DVDs they advocate to membership. CIT's PentaCon is not credible stuff, regardless of what specific scenario (flyover, no Boeing, no plane, etc) is being advocated.

I agree with keeping the focus and thanks for making that point. There are a lot of distractions right now which means there are also a lot of opportunities.