9/11 Truth Leader Teleconference

9/11 Truth Leader Teleconference
By Jonathan Mark

A coalition of 9/11 truth leaders and groups has been communicating on a monthly basis (via teleconference) about supporting critical campaigns to expose the US government and media cover-up on what really happened September 11, 2001.

This came out of the Week of Truth campaign (1) in support of Steve Alten’s cautionary 9/11 thriller, The SHELL GAME. The plan was to use our collective buying power to help place the book on the NY Time bestseller list. I estimate a quarter of the active 9/11 truth community participated, and our buying power for the chosen week (Spring, 2008) was about 1100 copies. This was a humbling experience for Steve Alten and the 9/11 truth community. I estimate that the truth community active in the cause is only a few thousand strong. Some people have a lasting persistence in this campaign, and others eventually burn out, and retire. But to break through to reach a mainstream public it will take unified lasting efforts. What Margaret Mead said is true to "Never doubt that a few, thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

A founder of a coalition of 9/11 truth leaders, Richard Gage, AIA, left his high-paying salary as an architect, and works full time to expose what natural physical laws reveal regarding the 3 WTC demolitions. Richard is a special inspiration and has collected more than 700 registered architects and engineers (www.ae911truth.org) calling for a real investigation. Other inspiring people that have joined this call include William Rodriquez (www.william911.com), Janette MacKinlay (www.JanetteMacKinlay.com), Tom Tvedten (www.911DVDproject.com and www.mp911truth.org), Sander Hicks (www.changeandtransparency.blogspot.com), Frank Morales and Ted Walter (www.nyccan.org), Steve Alten (www.stevealten.com), Gabriel Day (www.sharethetruth.com), and others.

These teleconferences are held on the last Wednesday of every month. This month, Jonathan Mark (www.valley911truth.org and www.flybynews.com) is facilitating the call. Those invited have the right to make any new proposal and call for a vote. Those participating make decisions by a majority vote. This month we will be getting updates from Ted Walter on the NYC CAN campaign, and also from Sander Hicks on plans for this 9/11 in NYC.

If you have an accomplished record as a truth leader and/or represent such an active truth group and want to join the call to listen and work together, write to Jonathan Mark by email => flyby[AT}mtdata(dot}com. I also plan to post the minutes when available in the following comments of this blog entry.

In solidarity with all truthers.. thank you!

# # #

(1) For background on Week of Truth and forum to move ahead, see: http://weekoftruth.org/forum/

Show "Minutes for June telecon" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - July 29 - Teleconference" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - August 26, 2009" by jonathan mark

Donald Meserlian

>>Donald Meserlian, P.E., National Leader, "Citizen's Campaign for 2009 Year of 9/11 Truth & Justice"
Tel. (973) 228-2258, dmeserlian(at}voicesofsafety[dot)com Please contact Don for more on this individual's initiative to demand justice.

Donald Meserlian links to Fetzer on his site and has been a guest on Fetzer's radio program. I suggested he remove the links, given Fetzer's history, but he refused.

Huge red flag there.

Last I saw, his email list also included Morgan Reynolds on it. He appears to not be interested in what anyone is advocating, as long as it's not the official story.

Show "the deal with meserlian" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes for September 30th, 2009" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - October 28, 2009" by jonathan mark
Show "Jonathan," by Mokeyboy
Show "most welcome" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - November 25th - Teleconference -" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - December 30th + 2010-Actions Proposal" by jonathan mark
Show "new proposal draft" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - January 27, 2010 -" by jonathan mark
Show "Draft - Misprision of treason" by jonathan mark
Show "Working Draft - 9/11 Peace Action - Feb 24 Minutes" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - February 24, 2010 -" by jonathan mark
Show "For 911truth.org - Notes from teleconference.." by jonathan mark
Show "latest draft.." by jonathan mark
Show "Fwd additional comment posted for Paul Zarembka" by jonathan mark
Show "Minutes - March 3, 2010 -" by jonathan mark
Show "3 Proposal Drafts to consider" by jonathan mark
Show "draft minutes from 3-31-10 911 truth leaders' conference" by jonathan mark
Show "draft minutes from 4-28 conf call" by jonathan mark
Show "draft minutes from 5-26-10 conference call" by jonathan mark
Show "draft minutes of teleconference 6-30-10" by jonathan mark
Show "Draft MINUTES of National 9/11 Leaders Call 8-25-10 " by jonathan mark
Show "Addtion to minutes from Paul Zarembka" by jonathan mark
Show "Mission Statement - list of those invited to participate" by jonathan mark
Show "Draft minutes of National 9/11 Leaders Sept. 28 Call " by jonathan mark
Show "Draft minutes of 911 Truth teleconference 27 October, 2010" by jonathan mark
Show "Draft MINUTES of National 9/11 Leaders 01 December, 2010 Call" by jonathan mark

Not an actual leaders call, despite a few leaders on it

Just wanted to point out, for anyone not that familiar with the 9/11 Movement, that although this teleconference is described as a 9/11 "Leaders" event, it was organized and created by one person, Jonathan Mark, who invited a large group of people to discuss topics on phone calls and does not represent a group of "Leaders" who organized amongst each other.

Some participants, such as Richard Gage and Bob Bowman, are perceived by activists as leaders, and have done work that one would attribute to a leader to grow and publicize the work of the movement. Certainly Richard has done a huge amount of work and devotes his life to the cause.

There are many others who would be considered leaders who have also made huge sacrifices or who help to organize, who choose not to participate on this call, or are not invited to.

Again, it is unfortunate that this call is described as a leaders call -- it is not. It is a call amongst activists and certain leaders, and even some individuals whom people consider disruptors and worse. Mixing together those doing dedicated work toward exposing the truths of 9/11 with those advocating hoaxes or nonsense, is often referred to as Big Tent.

Show "my opinion.. all truthers are leaders.." by jonathan mark

I'm not a big fan of conference calls

as they are generally not efficient ways to communicate in a productive manner.

The call that I participated in suffered from poor facilitation, which only exacerbated the inefficiency of the call, imo.

I recommend that the agenda be carefully written and well ordered, that participants review the agenda carefully and that the facilitator keep the discussion on topic.

I would also recommend that you start a google group or other discussion list/forum to better leverage the talents/ideas/activities of the participants, and to create an archive which can be reviewed in the future.

We are all leaders in this movement (some more than others due to personality and/or circumstance).

Don't expect me on any future calls, unless it concerns something I am working on, or unless I am specifically invited (as was the case this time).

We have to avoid inefficient and/or unproductive time sinks if we are to achieve our goal(s).

I hope that you and yours are well.

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


That you are propping up some of these disruptors like Zwicker, CIT and the Rock Creek Free Press as "leaders." The dis-info attack is so blatant and obvious now. Attempts to look like official statements from the movement by presenting radical angry extremists as alleged leaders. Thanks for letting me know what you are up to Jonathan. And also thank you for taking the time to address the Rock Creek Free Press attacking 9/11 Blogger incident, with out even posting the LINK to the incident itself. Perhaps Jonathan you withheld the link because RCFP was completely called out on their baseless claims, ad hominem attacks and childish behavior. There is no "controversy." If you keep playing blatant disrupting games though, you will continue to be called out for it. Just like RCFP. The blatant disruptions don't scare away the critical thinkers at 9/11 blogger. Don't be upset about critical thought proving you wrong. It's not your fault.

Watch the Pawking Metaws....

Show "Re: unbelievable" by jonathan mark

Jonathan Mark said: "Who's perfect? "

This type of flawed reasoning is a great excuse to not be critical. It is not "positive" to attack victims friends and family members from the pentagon attack. It is not friendly to baselessly accuse 9/11 blogger of being a compromised or censored blog. Jonathan these people and magazines are not our "leaders." It is important that we in 9/11 truth make a clear stance that we do not condone the divisive antics being promoted by the people you (J mark) want to prop up as our 'non-perfect' leadership.



Have any of these "leaders" ever provided guidance? When have they ever been on the right side (which is the opposite of everything posted above in Jonathan's post) of things? Whether it be Webster Tarpley's 2007 shenanigans, or Rolf Lindgren/Kevin Barrett's crap, or CIT's bs, these individuals are always on the wrong side of the equation. How can you call these people leaders? In my opinion, some of these people have led this entire cause down the wrong path.

I hope to see those who still care about this issue more than creating controversy that wastes everyone's time, at the White House on 1/31/2011.

Show "When?" by jonathan mark

NSA is a fraud and a farce

The flyover theory is absurd on it's face and CIT's witnesses confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane hit the Pentagon. For CIT to claim these witnesses prove "flyover" is nuts and all those endorsing or promoting NSA are making the Truth Movement look stupid.

It's time to clean the camel dung from the tent.

* * * * *
All seven CIT witnesses that could see the Pentagon said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon and another one said it did not fly over the Pentagon.

Sean Boger - Official interview 11-14-01
"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."

NSA Supplemental
Craig Ranke: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert Turcios: Fly over the Pentagon??? No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (it)Collided.

37:56 Craig Ranke: Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon which is currently located over there...directly.

42:38 Sgt Lagasse: And it flew into the building with very slight control movements. Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.

9:36 Keith Wheelhouse ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building."

Albert Hemphill "He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level."

Penny Elgas "It just flew in,. . . . . Just when it got to the wings I think, then there was an explosion which was all black smoke."
"I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building."

Terry Morin
Terry: @ 7:00 I was inside. It flew right over the top of me, which is like, it's right on the edge and I'm right here, OK? I then, because I'd already heard about the Twin Towers, immediately ran to the outside. That's when I watched the airplane. I moved into a position where I could see it. . . . . If the Air force Memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it. [a 757 is 125 feet wingtip to wingtip - if it were on the edge the left wing would be 60 to 70 feet over the building and would have hit the Air Force Memorial]
When you're sitting here like this, and before, see that tree line? As he starts to descend he's 50 feet above this and as he descends he basically starts to disappear. OK?, and so the bottom of the airplane and the engines disappear the bottom of the fuselage, the wings, and the tail fade away, OK? The aft end of the airplane. When he comes down

Craig interrupts Terry mid sentence and changes the subject just as Terry is about to say the plane impacted the Pentagon. He is NOT an investigator by any stretch of the imagination. An investigator does not interrupt and would want to hear about the most important part - the impact. But Craig is only interested in proving the NoC flight path. He does not want to hear Terry say the plane hit the Pentagon because that blows his precious theory, so he cuts Terry off before he can say it.

Had Craig let Terry finish he would have repeated something like what he said in his original statement:
"As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

Despite Craig's blatant attempt to hide the truth about the impact, Terry had already established that he saw the plane descending down the hill and mostly disappearing behind the tree line. He could see the plane the whole time. The plane was therefore south of the Citgo station the whole time. If it were north of the Citgo station, he could not have seen it descending because the Naval Annex would be blocking his view.


DRG get well soon and...

...please write a book about the flyover dispute to lay this painful phase of the TM to rest

Show "fyi" by jonathan mark
Show "new term that i'll be using" by Douglas Hilton

Why would he do that?

Douglas Hilton said ".please write a book about the flyover dispute to lay this painful phase of the TM to rest"

He thinks the cab driver is really suspicious, and recommends watching this trash.

" I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."

He also thought a missile hit the pentagon. My guess is he writes that book right after he writes his book about how wrong he was about fake phone calls.

Which brings me back to the 1:28 mark of this video..


new term that i'll be using

pentagon 757 crash skeptic
as i want to be more polite
no tongue in cheek - i don't think we should insult each other - CIT to us or us to CIT

after reading the CIT s page of praise you linked,

I think some of the people there will eventually distance themselves

i don't necessarily think there is infiltraition in this matter but there is amongst the CIT types such a deep seated mistrust of the govt that all the perps of 9/11 had to do was withhold evidence to allow spurious claims to seed

this may seem little simplistic but:

if a plane can land itself automatically in the fog on a runway then couldn't it be programmed to not open the undercarriage and go as if to land at near ground level into the ground floor of the pentagon?

on the way to the wall of the pentagon there are similar elements to a landing strip - ie air above and land below

then there is a generator and a bit of curbstone/low wall and a tree as seen in :


Landing gear up:
Hemphill, Albert; Lagasse, William; Thompson, Philip

Tried but couldn't see:
Sucherman, Joel

Landing gear down:
Sepulveda, Noel


is noel sepulveda the camera person as mentioned in

The Pentagon Attack
and American Airlines Flight 77
by John Judge
researcher and founder for 9/11 CitizensWatch
21 February 2004


I have spoken to dozens of other witnesses to the event, and to others who know the reports.
Wayne Madsen, a respected local journalist, spoke to a camera person at WJLA-TV 7 who
had been driving to the Pentagon on instructions from his office, expecting a public
statement from authorities there in response to the events in New York City. Shortly after the
crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and
apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed
him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of
the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby. Others I have spoken to,
including pilots, either saw the crash happen and identified the plane, or saw parts of the
plane in the wreckage days afterwards.

Show "obsession on fly-over" by jonathan mark

As long as the comments are civil,

I see no problem with people making their objections known with regard to issues brought up during the teleconference.

I don't believe anyone is asserting that they are 100% correct on everything, but I think that we should all strive to be as correct as possible when it comes to facts, physics and logic.

While truth can be a very broad and complex concept, objective empirical analysis of empirical data is a rather critical part of 9/11 research, imo; and all 9/11 activism should be grounded in sound research and reasoning, presented with empathy for the audience.

As long as the flight path and ultimate outcome of the air vehicle thought to be AA77 remains unsettled and disputed by some, I think we can expect those who feel strongly about this subject to continue to correct the record (as they see fit).

I think it is a mis-characterization to re-frame appropriate critiques as attacks.

We are all students and teachers. As students we have a responsibility to question everything. As teachers, we have a responsibility to make sure what we are teaching is accurate, to the best of our abilities (we are required to do due diligence).

Can you honestly say that you would want anything else?

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free (and we must always keep seeking the truth).

Love is the only way forward (love demands the truth, communicated with empathy and consistency).

Show "thanks for this comment.." by jonathan mark

Still trying to re-present this

Even though it has been refuted thread after thread?


It is so obvious what you are doing J mark and I frankly am sick of it. I posted these links to help you maybe clear up some bad info you have embraced and continued to re-iterate. I know you have read these though which is why I'm afraid you are just going to ignore the facts. You can't just claim that you are not sure because I have seen you post on other threads that clear up this idea that the pilots group is pushing. Your games are old and outdated and hurtful to the truth movement.

Show "accusations and lack of understanding" by jonathan mark


I won't comment on anything else you have said, but your trust in the expertise of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is unfounded. There is a saying that goes something like: "You know just enough to get yourself in trouble"

I've realized how easy it is to sit back and try to poke holes in any story (falsification) without coming up with direct evidence for an alternative explanation (verification).

The sad truth is that P4T's comments about the Pentagon and related issues reveal nothing about 9/11, but about the limits of P4T's skill sets and competence. If you want to wither away until you're 80, captivated by the exciting, but deeply flawed and cognitively biased conjecture proffered by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, then go ahead. It's totally undoable to engage every single individual out there and explain, detail for detail, and step by step, why this claim makes no sense, why that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny, et cetera, et cetera.

Years were lost.

Show "videos minetta demand real investigation not infighting" by jonathan mark


I'm certain a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, probably AA 77.

I'm way more certain about that than I am about most other things I see in the news, because this one I've spent extraordinary amounts of time on, to get to know every aspect of.

As far as I can tell, the videos are being withheld because your government is obsessed with secrecy. They are withheld for no good reason. That's all there is to it. Ask Steven Aftergood. The government's ridiculous official excuse is that the videos do not actually show the plane. That might be true, but that's not the only thing possibly interesting about these videos, so this argument is moot. What I'm saying is that the true motivation for coming up with this ridiculous excuse is an obsession with secrecy. A society where everything is secret and nothing is transparent... by default.

There are other theories and other possible explanations, including the possible divide & conquer benefits of not letting any of us be in the know.

But I know why the videos are not being withheld. They are not being withheld because they show something other than what the dozens of witnesses saw happening. So while it is a justified question to ask, asking it is meaningless in the context of the question of whether or not a plane hit. A 757 airplane hit the Pentagon. I'm 100% certain.

It is, however, very seductive to weave a complex web of reasons to justify the ongoing no plane crash at the Pentagon .... delusion ( I can't put it any friendlier, I'm sorry) .. And I've seen the extent of it, and I'm convinced that people will continue to believe this.. perhaps until they die. No amount of evidence will cure the hardcore group of Pentagon flyover/missile theorists... and that... is very sad indeed.

Show "Draft Minutes for 29 December, 2010" by jonathan mark
Show "New Web site for 9/11 Truth Teleconference" by jonathan mark

9/11 Truth Leader Conference













more -