Journalists and Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth (JOMP911T) launches a website


Journalists and Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth (JOMP911T) launches a website calling for a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

JOMP911T joins other professional groups in the call, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.

The organization has garnered initial support and recognition from many 9/11 Truth activists including David Ray Griffin, Graeme MacQueen, Thierry Meyssan and Giulietto Chiesa.

JOMP911T invites all media professional and journalists, from around the globe, and their supporters, to join our collective call for a new inquiry by visiting our website to review and sign our petition.

Awesome. About time.

Awesome. About time.

EDIT: As of 5:43 p.m. e.s.t., the link to the site is bad.

It's working now...

Finally! Now we need the signatures of Charlie Sheen and *many* other Hollywood actors. (I'm thinking that actors are media professionals.)

A different take on that.

I personally hope this critical new group "stands alone," as does Architects and Engineers. Yes, ae911truth welcomes others to sign on as supporters, which is very positive, but the focus remains with the professionals in that group.

Instead, I hope that that actors, etc, form their own group. I don't know what the overarching descriptor might be for such group, but the more groups there are, the better. That way, more people are included under each separate "umbrella." The goals of each group would, in this way, be undiluted and, a result, more strong and directed.

On a side note, I've been wondering on and off whatever happened to Charlie Sheen. I'm glad that he's resurfaced and I hope that he's "in" for good in an active way. Greater numbers of actors and screen professionals may be at a point where they will join him in some kind of professional organized way.

As has been written in these pages before, the formation of many additional new groups.
is awaited with anticipation and hope. Each group has their own powerful role to play.

I agree, Mokeyboy.

I agree, Mokeyboy.

This is great! But I'm not

This is great!

But I'm not sure why Meyssan is highlighted. Some info on Meyssan below, for anyone unaware . . .

Meyssan's books contain a good deal of analysis about who had the means and motive to commit the attack, but their treatment of the attack itself focuses exclusively on promoting the idea that the Pentagon crash did not involve a jetliner. Because this idea is almost certainly false, it undermines the books' conclusion that the attack was an inside job. The effective marketing of Meyssan's books assured that the no-Boeing theory would be the first alternative theory of the attack that most people would encounter, and hence the one that they would associate with questioning of the official story.

Pentagon 9/11: Getting the Facts Straight
The New American | August 23 2004 Issue
Instead of providing an alternative explanation, however, he simply demanded that the U.S. come clean. "The official version is only propaganda," he wrote. "But the facts remain that 125 persons died at the Pentagon and that an airplane carrying 64 passengers disappeared. What became of American Airlines flight 77? Are the passengers dead? If so, who killed them and why? If not, where are they? The U.S. administration should address all these questions." Such questions, of course, ignore publicly available evidence, including the fact that some passenger remains were found. Diagrams presented by the American Society of Civil Engineers, in its report entitled The Pentagon Building Performance Report, show the relative positions of passenger remains found within the damaged structure of the Pentagon.

October 7, 2001
French political activist Thierry Meyssan posts a webpage claiming that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. His initial claim was that the attack involved a truck bomb, not a plane, and the no-plane claim started off his book The Horrible Fraud (published as 9/11 The Big Lie in English). The Horrible Fraud was an instant best-seller in Franch in early 2002, and its success led to a sequel later in 2002, Le Pentagate. These two books were translated into 28 languages, ensuring maximum distribution around the world. (Few books manage to be translated into more than a couple of languages.) Meyssan uses photos taken between the impact and the collapse of the facade to base his "no plane" claims - but the photos on his website are carefully selected, with most of the damage to the building obscured by firefighting foam and smoke. While it is true that the fuselage made a fuselage sized hole on the second floor of the building, the wings and engines made a much wider hole on the ground floor (and the wingtips caused damage but not a complete hole at the very end). Photos show that the damage was the size and shape of a 757, thus refuting all of the no plane variations: no plane, other plane, Global Hawk, cruise missile, plane plus missile. Most revealing is the fact that Le Pentagate's cover highlights a photo from the inside of the Pentagon that includes obvious plane debris, an indicator the "no plane" claim is just a mean joke.

October 12, 2001
War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Parade Magazine, uses the word “missile” to describe what hit the Pentagon. This was probably a deliberate intent to mislead gullible researchers. In military parlance a missile can be anything from a bullet, to an airliner striking a building, to a real missile. The first dictionary definition listed for missile states, “An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.” Thus the airliners were used as missiles and Rumsfeld’s choice of words was literally correct. How could anyone who understands the rudiments of evidence consider that as proof of anything? The same interviewer for Parade highlighted the "missile" mis-quote in a September 2004 article that debunked the no-plane claim, suggesting that the whole episode was just a carefully planted piece of bait.

As unbelievable as it may seem,

perhaps he was highlighted because of his ideas, not in spite of them.

"The times they are a changin."


With all due respect, this is ridiculous. You are in essence saying that Meyssan should not be welcome in the 9/11 truth movement. Meyssan was the first ordinary public citizen in the world to write a book openly claiming that the US govt orchestrated 9/11. And your husband was wrong in his interview with Wolsey that "all" Meyssan promoted was the missile-at-pentagon hypothesis. I have "The Big Lie," and after espousing his missile hypothesis, he goes on to document reports of explosions in the buildings, the air defense stand down, the put options, and more. For early 2002 that's a darned good start.

Someone should not be unwelcome in the community of activists because they propagated a theory that might be incorrect. Now, I can understand Jim Fetzer not being welcome in the community, because he not only actively promoted bad stuff, but he was extremely uncivil to Dr. Jones and called well meaning activists cointelpro agents. So that's different. But Meyssan has never engaged in such blatantly agent provocateur type behavior; he simply espoused a hypothesis that might not be correct, so expressing this sort of concern about his name being on a petition is out of line.