Should Individuals That Use Sockpuppets Be Tolerated?

Recently, it has been discovered that "Insane Hussein" that posts at my personal psyop, "Hussein," that posted at, "kameelyun," and Adam Syed are all one and the same. Should individuals who participate in this practice be tolerated?

According to wiki, a "sockpuppet" is "an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community."

Show "should loose nuke and Rancho Truth be banned?" by Sheila Casey


We all know who loose nuke and Rancho Truth are, and he isn't being deceptive, promoting nonsense theories, propping himself up on a pedastal, or bashing other people, and then coming here, and acting as if he's done nothing wrong.

According to Britannica, a sock puppet is "a name or identity used online to deceive others and that is often used to direct praise or attention to oneself."

None of which Erik has done. All of which Syed has done. There's nothing wrong with anonymity. There is something wrong with using sockpuppets.

You keep telling people they don't know what a sockpuppet is. You, Sheila, are the one who doesn't seem to know.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

sockpuppets and related abuses

"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person, [1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet. In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company. [2] The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt" which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer or acting under their control for their benefit."

"Definition of: sock puppet A phony name made up by a user in order to masquerade as someone else on the Internet. Sock puppets can make controversial comments or vote for or against a cause without revealing their identity. They may respond to their own Usenet or blog posts praising the articles they wrote themselves or disagree with comments criticizing them on other sites.",2542,t=sock+puppet&i=57353,00.asp

Squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares. One person using multiple aliases on a forum is sockpuppetry, but the primary definition is broader; see above, and Jon's britannica link. Having different user names on different forums is not necessarily evidence of sockpuppetry; if someone were doing that to praise their self in the real world, or their user name elsewhere, then it would be- especially if they implicitly or overtly represent themselves as not being that person. In addition, after having been banned at a forum, regaining access by using a new user name is inherently deceitful; sockpuppetry. And denying one is the banned person after being confronted, asked and even presented with evidence, is sockpuppetry. This is what Adam Syed recently did at - see the thread starting here:

A 911blogger user, david.watts, was discovered using 2 user names at 911blogger (aka Jodie Mudd) to promote Steve Alten's book. He would've been banned, but after publicly apologizing in a blog post, he was put on permanent moderation:

In my own case, i'm loose nuke here and a few other places i don't visit much (dailykos for instance), i'm rancho truth at, better world order at and nornnxx65 at I often make up a new name at every site i register at, but if a site has fields for the info, my bio has my given name, Erik Larson. At and, my avatar is my photo. I am not 'anonymous', as I've chosen to make my name and photo public. In addition, I've commented at various times that these are my user names at these sites.

There is nothing inherently wrong with anonymity, though sometimes people intent on disruption will hide behind anonymous identities, including using sockpuppets. There's usually no easy way to tell if someone is a professional provocateur, or simply deluded and/or badly behaved. It's far simpler to identify problematic behavior; for instance, using sockpuppets in itelf is considered bad form by most people, and those that do it are discredited by having done it, if they're exposed. In addition, what someone has done while using a sockpuppet will also reflect on their reputation, once exposed. Our credibility at truth activists at 911blogger, on the internet and in the carbon world, is enhanced or degraded by the evidence, arguments and behavior we exhibit. We all make mistakes, and that can reflect poorly on our reputation, but not as badly as insisting we're right when it's obvious that we're wrong.


sockpuppet? What's that?

loose nuke said..."A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person"

You mean like this?.....

Hussein wrote:
"I'd rather not discuss my identity"

Of course you'd rather not.

Adam Syed wrote:
"I could never hold a candle to Adam Syed."

Adam Syed wrote:
"[Adam Syed is] amazing."

Adam Syed wrote:
"[Adam Syed is] a great guy and we need more like him."

Adam Syed wrote:
"[Adam Syed] has a point"

Adam Syed wrote:
"To his credit, [Adam] Syed doesn't fall for the makin'-it-personal bait, and instead stays cool as cucumber, focusing purely on facts"

Adam Syed wrote:
"Bwahaha, another excellent post by [Adam] Syed gets voted down"

Adam Syed wrote:
"Adam Syed puts it very eloquently"

Adam Syed wrote:
"Adam Syed said it best"

Adam Syed wrote:
"That Adam Syed dude has been slaying the Pentagon anti-truth dragons!"


I don't know. I'm just asking questions, and in this case not necessarily demanding answers. Again, a thanks to John Schröder for a good laugh.



The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

Response and apology for personal attacks


Loose Nuke is correct that there's nothing wrong with using a different alias from site to site. That is completely different than having more than one account on the SAME site.

I do not, and have never had, more than one account on this site.

Up until May 2009 I posted here as "kameelyun" with this very same account. I decided I no longer wanted to be anonymous, so I asked the blogger team to change my display name.

It is also true that I briefly posted as "kameelyun" rather briefly at truthaction, before my account was banned around May 2009 because I was defending the work of Citizen Investigation Team (over there, CIT discussions is essentially off limits). Recently, however, discussion of the topic was briefly allowed over there because John Bursill started a thread about his debate with Craig Ranke. (The thread has since been locked.)

After I made a couple posts over there recently as "hussein", one or two people did some cyber-sleuthing and discovered that I was indeed Adam Syed, and hence guilty of re-registering at truthaction under a different name after I'd been banned there. But that's truthaction's business.

Finally there is the issue of my posting as "insane hussein" at Close to 2 years ago, when Reprehensor was in charge of this site, he took exception to some content at WTCD and decided to undertake a mass banning here of everyone who had an account over there. There are currently a number of people who have accounts both here and there, but those who know of the Reprehensor purge choose to stay quiet out of fear of maybe getting banned here. In this sense, my "outing" is a good thing because it shows the newer moderation team is not quite so "wtcd phobic," as one other person said.

I do have a public apology to make.

I do regret, and apologize for, saying the words "I hate Jon Gold" using my "insane hussein" alias over there, and for calling him "transparent." This undoubtedly happened during a day where the debate/contention between us was so heated (probably on a pentagon thread) that I felt the need to vent at a place where such language would not be deleted. But I should have gone outside and gotten a breath of air and cooled down, because saying such negative things obviously yields bad karma which is bound to come back and bite, which obviously it did. This is an obvious adulthood confirmation of what we all learned back in first grade or so, which is, when you say something bad about someone behind their back and they find out about it, nothing but hard feelings will result.

As far as the accusation of "putting myself on a pedestal" by way of "insane hussein" praising "Adam Syed's" posts here: Lighten up, folks. I was having a chuckle while doing it. My self praises were so over-the-top, that, as one wtcd user privately said to me on facebook chat, "it was obvious who insane hussein was, and it was pretty comical." We all need a little comic relief while working for such a thankless and stressful cause sometimes.

However, in a sense my self praises were something of a backhanded response to Jon Gold's accusation against me that I was ONLY posting CIT related stuff. If anyone scrolls down my list of blog entries going back the past several years, it is clear that I've discussed and promoted far more than just the CIT issue.

But once again, I'm sorry for bashing Jon Gold. I do not think he is a "fake truther" even though we disagree on a number of issues w/r to what to research and discuss.

One of these things on which we profoundly disagree: I do not believe that the efforts of Citizen Investigation Team should be marginalized and ignored. Jon has expressed distaste for what he believes is my "promoting nonsense theories" in this regard. Quite a lot of very smart people believe that CIT's work is very credible and "deserves serious attention" in the words of Richard Gage. I absolutely do not apologize for being one of several conduits of CIT's information and arguments here in light of the fact that they were banned from posting here in mid 2008 under Reprehensor.

Anyway, I think this sets the record straight.


Props to you for being man enough to apologize. But I don't buy the whole " I was just kidding around when I was commenting how great my alter-ego is" line for a minute.

Shit like that could be used to make us ALL look like nuts......but hey, isn't that the point?


But the individuals that post on WTCD do not care about this cause. They care more about me than this cause. Reprehensor did the right thing by banning those individuals. Perhaps loosenuke can post, again, the site where Reprehensor explained himself. All I know is that it wasn't censorship. It was being responsible.

I'll accept your apology, but listen to every word in this interview.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Good, I'm glad you accept.

One of the things that leads to tempers boiling which can result in negative personal things being said, is the inability to agree to disagree.

When people disagree to disagree, nothing productive ensues.

When people agree to disagree, things can move forward.

The fact that I have an account at WTCD does NOT mean I endorse or support everything that's posted there. But other people have posted some good stuff there. It was there, for example, that I found out about Rodriguez' story of seeing one of the hijackers in the WTC months before the attacks, which I suspect might be ground work for the fall back of "al Qaeda planted the explosives."

Incidentally, Paul Tassopulos e-mailed me the link to the Roberts - Gold interview a few nights ago before it was posted here, and I have listened to the whole thing.

In principle, I absolutely agree with you that "bad info" should not be promoted. Where we have so far "disagreed to disagree" is on what we consider bad info. Because you're so positive in your own mind that CIT is "disinfo" and that anyone defending them should be automatically suspect, which would include me, this has led to tensions. You have accused my defense of CIT's work as "tacking on years to this cause." It is of course your right to believe this and my right to disagree.

Once again, agreeing to disagree is a good thing and absolutely necessary when working within a large movement which is bound to have many different points of view and differences of opinion.

After all, anyone who watched Jesse Ventura's final episode last night knows that all of us only have 2 more years to live anyway. ;-)

As far as I'm concerned...

Anyone that brings attention to that site should not be trusted. Period. Since you have been shown countless times by me, Erik, and others that the information you are promoting with regards to CIT is "bad info," and still continue to promote it, I have to question your intentions. I do not trust you Adam. I accepted your apology because it is the "right thing to do," but that doesn't mean I think you should continue doing what you're doing. Please STOP what you're doing, because it's not helping, and it's taking up valuable time that could be better spent elsewhere.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Pretty Clear that Insane Hussein was Jerking Our Chain

It was pretty clear to me upon a short reflection that "Insane Hussein" was jerking our chain in praise of Adam Syed.

"I think this sets the record straight"

Adam has publicly apologized and expressed regret for "bashing" Jon Gold as 'insane hussein'; this is good.

Adam has acknowledged using 'insane hussein' to praise himself, and registering another user name to gain access to after having been banned; this is an important step, though it was already shown to have been Adam at both places. I notice that Adam did not renounce or express regret for these actions. Instead, he used a good amount of text to explain and justify them.
"Lighten up, folks. I was having a chuckle while doing it", says Adam.

About WTCD, Adam says, "There are currently a number of people who have accounts both here and there, but those who know of the Reprehensor purge choose to stay quiet out of fear of maybe getting banned here. In this sense, my "outing" is a good thing because it shows the newer moderation team is not quite so "wtcd phobic," as one other person said."

WTCD is a site whose users regularly attack anything they deem "LIHOP", sites like 911blogger and, and credible researchers and activists such as Jim Hoffman, Arabesque, Jules and Jon Gold are frequent targets. They've even been attacking me lately; for instance, see this poll:

People like Jon Gold, Loose Nuke, and "Jules"...
...are frustrated because they know they are failing at their various attempts to control the movement and suppress the truth. 74% (14 votes)

Anyone wondering why Reprehensor purged a number of known WTCD users in 2008 should read this:

Responding to Libel.

I don't understand why anyone seeking truth and justice for 9/11 and the post 9/11 world would tarnish the credibility of themselves and the truth movement by associating with that site.


internet arguement techniques

How many of these techniques have been implemented in this (and the multiple previous/ongoing) debates found on 911blogger:

People really do seem to have balls when laying out their opinions, but I often wonder if they've grown up enough yet to actually have any hair on them.


3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (and maybe 1, 4, and 10)

Sheila's thoughts

As Sheila's comments were put into moderation a few days ago, her comment in support of myself has not been posted in here. Here is a screen shot of her preview. I'm not quite sure what in this comment could be considered inflammatory or a violation of the rules that would cause it to not get posted. Thanks for the support Sheila!

Another thought from Sheila:

"Of course the site is controlled, with an agenda to prop up the OCT and weaken the movement."

(referring to, under the pseudonym "NorthSide" on

sockpuppet, pseudonym....

the term "wingman" is more apt, as it sounds more pathetic

Use your real name!

My view is that sock puppeteer's should be banned, but ultimately I would like to see all comments that wish to sway opinion with an opinion have a real verifiable name posted!

I know this is unrealistic, but if people want to change this world they should come into the light.

Things have changed with this campaign we now are the majority, there is nothing to fear but fear itself, stand up and be counted people!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!