Staying Reasonable with 9/11 Truth - A Powerful Path to Success! An Interview with Ken Jenkins

Interview and notes by John Bursill

Visibility 9-11 is excited to welcome for the first time long-term activist/organiser, film maker, writer, engineer and psychologist Ken Jenkins. Ken's qualities of patience, fairness, optimism and clear logical thinking are well displayed in this interview! I consider Ken a cornerstone of this movement pursuing 9/11 Truth, which he has devoted nearly 9 years of his life to. Ken's work is primarily as a film maker. He has produced and directed documentaries for the likes of Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin and Dr Steven Jones, just to name a few. Ken's skills have been invaluable to the 9-11 movement and given us all valuable tools to help us all take many scientific and academic presentations to the the general public. Ken is a professional videographer and consistently provides these films at a high level of production value and offers them at a tenth of the cost to us to use in our activsm. It is true to say that without the efforts of Ken Jenkins and his right-hand man hummux our movement would be less successful! Visibility 9-11 sincerely thanks Ken and hummux for this very important and tedious work.

Listen here:

Ken is also a very popular speaker and generally talks about the psychological barriers to 9/11 Truth. He recently published an excellent article The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth which was requested by the magazine editors of Global Outlook for the 13th edition.

In this episode of Visibility 9-11 we discuss what's reasonable and what works for 9/11 Truth. Some of topics we consider include;

> Are we to quick to label people or ideas as influenced, owned or controlled by our opposition?
> The destructive nature of exotic theories and wild claims, including the recent claim of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that flight 11 and 175 obtained "impossible speed" approaching the Twin Towers.
> The question of who did 9/11 in the light of claims recently made by Dr Alan Sabrosky.
> Symbiosis, is it the best way of thinking about the possible perpetrators of the 9/11 Attacks?
> Why can't we get support from the peace movement and is it important anyway?

Towards the end of the interview we talk about the upcoming events on May 7th and 8th in California, where a new DVD will be produced combing Firefighters and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage and Erik Lawyer on one DVD will be possibly the most powerful presentation for activism to date!

Films made and distributed by Ken and his partner hummux can be found at

Music by Polatik.

Thanks John and Friends...

Great Interview and Great Topics.
Support the Show if you like it and can:

Show "Very sorry to see this attack on the Pilots" by zmzmzm


This simply something that must be done it is not an attack!

Claiming the speed of Flight 11 and 175 is impossible is not backed by any hard evidence or any verifiable data. Robert Balsamo is not open for debate and has rejected attempts by people at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice to revise his claims.

Lt Col Robert Bowman agrees with me and so do many other pilots I meet in my work that a 767-200 could and did do the observed speed, the industry standard simulator did the speed also.

It is a shame that Pilots do not have a board of directors (that I know of) as do many of our successful groups, it appears to be a one man show publicly which is a problem.

Listen to the show, I do not attack Pilots just their (Balsamo's predominantly) wild claims!

Did you ever wonder why this site, and A&E's don't link to Pilots for Truth any more? Do you think we don't want a successful group like them with us? Take a deep breath listen to the show and ask me questions and I will endeavour to answer them for you if you are fair dinkum...

Regards John

Show "One can disagree without attacking" by zmzmzm

On semantics, and honesty

The phrase "wild claims" is an accurate description for arguments which are completely void of evidence, and the use of that terminology to refer to such arguments could only be seen as divisive to those who favor the person making the wild claims over the truth.

Interesting video....

It will be interesting if I and Ken come under attack for being reasonable, which is the most effective path to peace and truth!

This is a good video about this subject I saw at Michael's blog at Visibility 9-11

I as does Ken do not think there is any mileage in calling people agents, rather we simply judge people by their actions and with draw energy from those that act to damage us...

Kind regards John

Show "Aerodynamics are way over my head" by zmzmzm

Point taken...

Yes that is true, but there needs to be some strength in an effort to influence, or none will be felt?

Any way I see your point!

Regards John

Wild claims....? Would you prefer I used dissinfo?

It's hard not to offend in these matters, and offence was not intended.

Unfortunately the claims have been made and a reasonable view is that they are wild...well in my and Ken's view...

Regards John

New Paper Referenced by John at Journal of 9/11 Studies

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report:
A Study in Theoretical Adequacy
Anonymous1 and F. Legge2

A Word on Interpretation
It has been said that the world is one continuous Rorschach inkblot test: we see what we expect to
see based on our fears and desires. All sides of the World Trade Centre (WTC) collapse issue
can see definitive corroboration in the same photos and videos, the same laboratory tests and the
same reports. In this way both authors of this paper initially accepted the official explanation for
the collapse of the buildings, as set out in the technical report of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST),[2] but they now undeniably approach the report from a
skeptical perspective.
The NIST Report is not a special case in which logic and rationality do not or should not apply.
Given proper resources for investigation, there can be nothing mythical or unexplainable about
the collapse of the towers. If the accumulated explanation falls short of making sense, it should
give anyone—regardless of ideological leanings—a reason to be suspicious and a cause to look
more deeply into what happened that day. The official explanation should be a testable theory
outlining a sequence of events. It should be able to explain the physical evidence and should not
dismiss incongruous empirical data as irrelevant. On this, we can all agree.
Theoretical Adequacy-....

There is NO WAY that free fall is compatible with doing work

Any argument that disputes that is disinformation.

You're saying that during the collapse there was work done?

Therefore the official account is flawed etc and this paper points that out with the free fall argument...

Some may have misunderstood you?

Regards John

Free Fall means Falling Freely - without doing any work

This is so simple as to not need any explanation. The destruction of material (supporting columns - concrete - office furniture - anything and everything in the building and of the building itself) - requires work. If work (destruction, displacement, deformation) takes place while something is "falling" at gravitational acceleration (free fall rate) - then if follows that there MUST be a force at work in addition to gravity.

Free Fall means Falling Freely - not encountering or overcoming any resistance.

I don't know how it could be any simpler.

Thanks to everyone ...

Thanks to everyone who has downloaded the show and supported us at Visibility 9-11 for all of these years. Hat tip to John Bursill for filling in for Michael, he's doing a great job. I really like this new show because it will have wide appeal. Let's continue to focus only on the best information out front, to help us in the PR department, and we can all argue together all day long about the other stuff that is more speculative.

IMO saying "wild claims" about Pilots is being charitable, so I appreciate that John and Ken took care here to discuss it. It for sure is NOT an attack.

Wild Claims?

That's the official story in my opinion.

I don't like the title

Staying reasonable with 911Truth ..... A powerful path to success???
What, we still want to sound so credible and reasonable so that they finally see how earnest we are and they listen!! Oh, please! I say we can be as wild and free - thinking as we need to be. Who is calling us nuts and conspiracy crazies?? Yeah, let's keep those terms for the Real Crazies and Wild Claimers!

Let's keep to the truth

There are plenty of wild claims on both sides of the issue, and claims which utterly lack evidence to support them get in the way of our quest for the truth, regardless of what side makes them.

You're Correct - Lillyann

So many people treat this as though it is some sort of honest debate and honest disagreement, and if we were simply more pure - then we'd win.

That's not the problem. The Official Story is patently false and over the top ridiculous.

The difficulty lies with the fact that very many Americans trust at least portions of their government and at least portions of the Mainstream Media, and because this Movement is not accepted in those Circles and ridiculed instead, these people then conclude that the Movement must be fundamentally defective.

It's very, very, very difficult to appear "reasonable" on this subject with those people in a sound-byte World. You have to be skilled and trained in that. Ventura is fairly good.

Being "reasonable" only comes into play in an honest debate or discussion, or where you have an audience willing to take the time to listen, watch and/or read long enough to where reason comes into play. If a person is willing to do that - you're going to get them anyway.

What you need is access to Americans within some Medium that they trust. There are different ways this can happen, but it's not being held back by some absence of being "Reasonable."

Show "Questionable talk" by Alison

Your concerns are legitimate ones.


I have been aware of a very disturbing trend in the 9/11 truth movement for some time now that I think you have just touched on. What I have noticed is that some individuals fancy themselves as the credibility police for the 9/11 truth movement. They appoint themselves as the judges of what is and is not credible and tend to be very aggressive with what they say about people who have viewpoints that don't agree with their notions. I have seen CIT and PFT relentlessly attacked. I have seen Alex Jones attacked and ridiculed, Webster Tarpley attacked, and even DRG attacked. I have seen people who don't think flight 77 hit the pentagon attacked and I have seen people who believe the mossad may have been involved likewise attacked. I have even seen those who believe CD is our strongest evidence attacked.

It all basically comes down to one thing with the credibility police, they think they know more, have researched more, and are smarter than, the people who disagree with them. I find that attitude to be not only arrogant and insulting but also extremely counter productive and misguided. It has never set well with me to attack other truthers even if you disagree with their viewpoint simply because I have to wonder why the time spent attacking other truthers was not spent exposing more falsehoods in the official story or expanding the areas of investigation to uncover more facts about 9/11 that might blow open the whole damn thing? I really do not care for the credibility police at all and I think they should trade in their badges for 9/11 investigator badges instead and in the process do some good for the truth movement instead of further deviding it. The issue is one of priorities to me, and correcting errors in other truther theories is WAY DOWN my list, far below investigating deeper aspects of 9/11 and FAR BELOW getting involved in 9/11 activism. It also seems comical to me all the worry I see expressed about the credibility of the truth movement as though somehow if we are 100% perfect with everything we say and do (an impossible standard) that the MSM is going to suddenly do an about face and quit attacking us and actually report the truth and show us respect. I have some news for the 9/11 cred police, IT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, the MSM and almost the entire government is our mortal enemy in this struggle for truth and justice. No matter how good we are they are still going to work against us, ridicule us, hassle us, set us up, lie about us, infiltrate and disrupt us, and try to stop us any way they can. GET OVER IT, we are not going to win them over. You know why? Because many of them were either directly involved in the crime itself or directly involved with the ongoing cover-up.

The truth is after all the years in this movement I don't listen to the cred police anymore, I just ignore them. I have found most of their arguments to be just as suspect as the ones they are attacking and in some cases complete bunk. I recommend all truthers do the research and make up their own minds about CIT, PFT, Alex Jones, the pentagon attack, the mossad, and all the rest because in the end the only information you can really trust is the information that convinces you.

Cred Police....mmmm...

Pointing out arguments without evidence is not wrong! If you don't like the show don't listen, do your own research as you say.

We all see issues that concern us and some of us have a platform to speak from about those issues. It has been my experience and many other long term activists that we don't need more lose theories, wild claims or junk science. We need more of what is working....and that's well organised groups making rational well supported arguments like AE911Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and the Journal of 9/11 Studies which are prominent examples.

Yes freedom of speech is important and as we say in this Podcast attacking each other is not the way; although being critical of people who are influencing people with unsupported claims is our duty.

All I know is that being reasonable is what is working in my world and the world I see, if you don't like that well that's too bad:)

If we were a political party which we most definitely we are not, you would see people arguing for a very small and select set of talking points for this cause with a much narrower focus than I support.

Jon Gold does not agree with the CD argument being at the forefront of our movement, we disagree but we are still friends. I have an understanding with Craig Ranke although we don't agree with the strength of the "flyover" theory which he says is fact. I have challenged Balsamo to a debate on Barrett's show but he declined and I and many, many others find him extremely difficult to deal, talk and e-mail with.

I am open and as fair as I can be and I will continue to encourage this movement to do what's working, if that's being the Cred Police so be it!

Regards John

Show "I will say it again." by Adam Ruff

Sounds fair to me, so do it...

You make perfect sense so do it, activism is where it's at!

Regards John

Show "Well said Adam" by influence device
Show "Great posts Adam." by Adam Syed


>>For the record I have seen CIT's presentations about the Pentagon strike and the cred police counter arguments in exhaustive detail and in my opinion CIT has a much stronger argument.

That about sums it up.

See: To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'


"At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise: 'Everything was faked!'"

Seen it, read it, considered it, and rejected it.


When I said I have heard the anti CIT arguments in exhaustive detail, I meant it. I am not impressed with those arguments at all or with the cred cops attacking CIT and P4T. When you get your own one on one face to face interviews with witnesses I will be interested in looking at what those witnesses have to say. As it stands now CITs interviews are much more powerful evidence then any list of statements compiled by cred cops in support of the (flight 77 hit the Pentagon theory) so far, you know why? CIT's interviews are on video tape in the words of the witnesses themselves while your lists of witness accounts are almost all second hand from the MSM who is notorious for lying about 9/11 and destorting the truth. Your evidence essentially consists of what MSM reporters claim that witnesses said. Your evidence is therefore suspect because second hand MSM accounts cannot be trusted.

Do you know why I respect and listen to Richard Gage, DRG, Steven Jones and a few others? I listen to them because they do not spend any time attacking other truthers, they spend their time investigating, developing new evidence, researching, and ADDING to the knowledge base of the movement. I sincerely wish the cred cops would do the same and quit assuming that they have the credibility market cornered. I have looked at the arguments and I am 100% confident that cred cops have nothing on the rest of the truth movement and are in no position whatsoever to school anyone.

By the way Victronix have you been to the Pentagon and have you interviewed witnesses yourself?

I concur

Seen it, considered it, rejected it.


Wow, with all these down votes, the CIT/P4T supporters MUST have it all wrong!!! (rolling eyes)

"Everything was faked!"

Victronix, you said

the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise: 'Everything was faked!'"

You do realize, don't you, that if you believe in CD of the WTC, then you believe that the "natural" collapse of the buildings was "faked?"

Why take such incredulous exception to the notion that the damage was staged, especially in Rumsfeld's own back yard?

Adam the collapse happened, we were just fed a lie!

This comment is not logical, the collapse was not faked it was a real event...

Regards John

Even if you disagree with the analogy

my question still stands. Why do the AA-hit-the-pentagon advocates seem to use, as a primary argument, the argument from incredulity against the idea that the damage was staged? As if it's such a far-fetched or out there idea. Check out the now public "CIA Manual of Trickery and Deception."

Debate with Balsamo

I have challenged Balsamo to a debate on Barrett's show but he declined and I and many, many others find him extremely difficult to deal, talk and e-mail with.

As an observer to the whole thing, that's not quite how I believe it went down.

For the record, P4T's important presentation regarding the speed of the planes during the WTC attack is available for everyone to view and make their own minds about here:

In that presentation, he refutes John Bursill's report "Simulator Proves 'Impossible Speed' was 'probable' for Flt 11 and Flt 175" available here:

Rob Balsamo is an airline pilot, while John Bursill is an airline mechanic, so it's clear who is more qualified to speak on this issue. This reminds me of Frank Legge's "What Hit the Pentagon" paper. How is Legge, a CHEMIST, qualified to reject the findings of pilots, which is not his field?

After months of ignoring Rob Balsamo's debunk of his "probable speed" claim while attempting to falsely link P4T's new video with "no planes" or "holograms" at the WTC, John Bursill had the discussion brought to him directly here:

Bursill promptly locked the thread and allowed nobody but himself to respond. The thread is locked to this day.

Rob Balsamo joined the forum and created a thread to respond to Bursill's allegations in the locked thread here:

Bursill has failed to provide a full technical response or engage in direct discussion and instead offered to have an audio "debate" regarding this highly technical information on a non-technical time-limited radio show hosted by Kevin Barrett. Definitely the WRONG place for such a discussion.

Since Balsamo is an actual pilot and interviews 2 additional pilots in the presentation (757/767 Capts from United and American Airlines, one of them actually flew as a captain on Flt 175) who strongly back him up on his analysis it's clear he is much more qualified than Bursill to make this determination in the first place. Why should he agree to "debate" technical information verbally on a non-technical radio show (where the info will go right over the listener's heads) with someone who does not even have the training or expertise to debate the information?

That would be like Steven Jones agreeing to an audio debate on his nano-thermite findings against Jon Gold!

What's clear here is that Balsamo did NOT decline debate. In fact he states that Bursill is even registered at the Pilots forum but is not actually going there to respond to this issue appropriately.

Show "I found Balsamo was treated VERY unfairly at Truthaction." by Adam Ruff

Hello Adam what a pleasure to see you here...

Well first of all what I said was accurate, so the premise of your response is in error...but we will struggle on:)

Firstly a am a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer in Avionics on the actual type of aircraft that hit the towers, I am not a mechanic although I was and I do certify for their work. Balsamo I believe is not currently employed as a mechanic or as a pilot and has had a few problems with his may be able to give us some info on that? Balsamo is not qualified on heavy passenger jets I believe, please correct me if that is not true?

The whole premise of "he would know better about the top speed of a 767-200 than me" is ludicrous, pilots are not allowed to exceed certain limits on aircraft or they lose their jobs and he is not even rated on that type of aircraft. The pilots he asks about it wouldn't have a clue how fast the plane would go as they have not been even close to the speeds seen on 9/11. As I have said previously many pilots I meet that fly 767's "believe" they could do that speed, THEY DO NOT "KNOW" ANYTHING, that is called being reasonable....yes? I know you have trouble with that concept from time to time, especially it seems when some one like me suggests it's a good idea for us as a group to be "reasonable". I know this is because it's such a threat to our success in your view...?!

Lets get a few things straight that are not controversial or if they are please let me know?

1. Two twin engined planes that looked just like 767-200's hit the towers on 9/11.
2. Robin Hordon has said that in his research he has found that continuous ground radar tracks were established for those flights 11 and 175, that is from take off to crash.
3. There is no hard evidence demonstrating the planes were swapped.
4. There is no hard evidence establishing supped up 767-200 (high speed) exist. There are freighters and fuellers that are strengthened for heavier loads.
5. No test data can be obtained from Boeing which would give us the Dynamic Airspeed and the Mach Number where it might be expected that the 767-200 would break up flaps up, and this data is available.
6. The only test that could be done to get any idea what speed the planes could achieve could be done in the Boeing Approved simulator (based on their test data), which I did and it achieved in excess of the speeds seen by a considerable margin, without, that is doing wind tunnel testing with scale structural models.

Don't worry Adam I will do a show on this later in the year, and I'm sure you'll love it!

Meanwhile why don't you stick to helping the campaign by not supporting clearly unsupported claims of "impossible speed" when logically and scientifically they hold no water.

Evidence Adam might be important to establish a claim like that.....even a mechanic knows that;)

Regards John

PS - Oh sorry I should be quite about such claims....sorry...(sarc)
PPS- Yes I know we don't have much evidence proving 11 and 175 were just that, that is no excuse for making a story up to disprove it....what an insult to those that died and those they left behind!!

Show "The main point is that Rob did not refuse to debate you" by Adam Syed

Lies lies and more dirty in the tittle of a new book..

..I'm reading at present:)

That reminds me Adam you have told a lie, actually the same one twice!

You said "However, the main point of my last post was that you falsely claimed Balsamo refused to debate you on this issue"

NO I DID NOT, I said " I have challenged Balsamo to a debate on Barrett's show but he declined and I and many, many others find him extremely difficult to deal, talk and e-mail with." You quoted me.

Please don't waste my time with more garbage, my reasons for staying away from the Pilots forum are pretty obvious for those who not what goes down there, I am a member because I originally thought they were ok and I love getting the bulk e-mails from the recent one.....where he suggested for mothers day why not get her a WTC Attack DVD etc, just what all the mums out there would want:) (sarc)


PS - I won't do the show with just me I will have a pilot then Adam


Show "How is "declined" different" by Adam Syed

Adam, it's not the MSM we need to consider,

but the heavily propagandized general public that we need to appear credible to.

Think of it like a job interview and you're not on the top of their list.

Do you go in dressed appropriately with your A game or do you go in looking like a mess and hungover?

Speculative theories and less-than-solid facts are clearly not helpful when trying to convince people to take a second and longer look at the events of 9/11/01.

While I think that people within the movement should be more tolerant of others' opinions within the movement, the message we present to the general public needs to be as credible as possible as the root connotation of "conspiracy theory" is "not credible", and that is something we have been saddled with since day one (not by accident, either).

The fact that so many people still don't know about WTC 7 means we still have a lot of public education to do on just the basic facts of 9/11/01.

As for the "credibility police", yes there are those who are extremely concerned with how the 9/11 truth movement is perceived by the general public and they tend to take a very conservative approach regarding what is and is not credible. While I think they may be a bit too rigid and overbearing at times, their conservative approach is far less harmful to the public perception of 9/11 truth than those who throw everything out to the public without regard to its credibility (granted this is an oversimplification for arguments sake, but the point is a valid one, imo).

What is called for is a greater sense of balance and humility.

We need to accept that individuals will not always agree 100% on everything, admit that there is still much that we don't know and agree on the need for broad, complete and transparent investigations.

We are much stronger working together, brothers and sisters, so let's keep our eyes on the prize and carry 9/11 truth past the tipping point (we're closer than we think).

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

I can decide for myself what is and is not credible.

It is just possible I have done research or learned something you have not and vice versa right? Therefore the only thing I should do is put out the information I think is best and let you decide from there. I think the cred cops should show the same respect, which they do not. For example I have personally been to the Citgo (now NEX) station near the Pentagon in 2007 and in 2010 and taken pictures of the area and examined it closely, have you? Maybe, just maybe, I know something about it many others don't?

I just don't have much respect for cred cops who critisize people like CIT or PFT yet have not done any of their own original research. It sticks in my craw and I am sick of it to be honest with you, all the arm chair quarterbacks who never went to the Pentagon or talked with any of the witnesses themselves telling me what is what about it and telling me what is what about PFT and CIT. You know what I have to say to CIT and PFT? Thank you for your hard work and research guys you have all my respect and support. What I will NOT do is belittle their efforts, attack them, gripe about how they do their work, or ban them from my blog for daring to defend themselves like Truthaction did to Rob Balsamo. The cred cops like those drive truthers away from the movement in droves and that is a fact I know as surely as I know the towers were demolished.

As far as "appearing credible" to the general public goes, that is a pipe dream in my opinion and pointless to even worry about because the ONLY thing we can do is try to tell the truth and present the best evidence we have and let the chips fall where they may. There is not one damn thing we can do to stop media attacks on us or change the publics perception of us. We can tell the truth and try our best and that's it.

That's great but it dose not help me...that's your opinion!

Emotion will not win this fight but I grant you it's felt by those that care a lot like yourself.

Good luck to you sir and good day!

Regards John

The only one talking about emotion here is you.

Good luck to you sir and good day.



Emotion not allowed by credibility police!!

John, can't you see it, emotion and passion is what drives any real endeavor!
The perpetrators are cold and calculating and know just how to look and sound "good!!".
" ..well - organized groups .... Making rational well - supported arguments " ????
What IS working, John, is sincere truth - seekers in all shapes and sizes continuing on, refusing to back down or go away. I appreciate AE911truth and I also value an old man of eighty wondering ... Just wondering!!

You don't know me from a bar of soap:)

Passion....I've got a fair bit of that going on....

We need emotion and passion by the bucket load I agree, but we don't need it demonstrated while putting forward scientific arguments if it's causing errors and false conclusions...your talking in circles?

I still did think you made an important observation, that emotion is a big part of what we are doing!

Regards John

Show "Good Post Adam" by zmzmzm
Show "Thanks I will." by Adam Ruff

Credibility police

Alison and AdamRuff, you said all that I was trying to say and couldn't. When I stepped into 911Blogger, Jon gold was just stepping out, or quitting!! He was definitely involved in this credibility police business, which I find dangerous to 911Truth.
Thanks for saying what needs to be lived as we all proceed.

Jon Gold has given his life to this campaign!

He or his views are not bad for 9/11 Truth....I am getting a little angry now:( breathing...all good now:)

Do some research and ask yourself who's doing what, and judge them by their fruits! Gold got his ass arrested for Bobby who died on 9/11 for a start.

I don't agree with Jon on many issues and I don't think he should of left here, but I know it was because of attitudes like yours that he did. So your in the right place it seems;)

Regards John

What attitude do I hold

That sent Jon Gold out of here? He isn't shown total respect and appreciation for his hard work for the 911families?? He has laid his life down and not everyone here cares ?? In Jon's own words, "I decided that I was going to allow myself to be arrested in order to keep an eye on Cindy.". Well perhaps his intentions weren't bad and Cindy Sheehan was grateful, but that's enough, isn't it. And when Jon Gold quit 911blogger, who was he helping?

Point taken...still think you were out of order!

He dedicated it to Bobby...your right about why he chose to get arrested.

Regards John

Hello Alison...


Dr Sabrosky basically called for war with Israel in the "Ugly Truth Podcast" and asked us to believe that Israel did 9/11 without new evidence or without making a case? That is questionable in my view, while supporting the symbiosis idea that many befitted so many must be involved at different levels seems quite logical and reasonable in my view? What you said makes little sense to me, maybe I misunderstood you?

Dr Sabrosky has said in the Barrett interview he would produce a paper based on his analysis of the matter in time, I believe in months....lets see it before we take him at his word, that's reasonable and I would say fair. Normally when some one goes out so hard on a tangent most would expect at least some HARD EVIDENCE?

I find anyone that says 9/11 was committed by this person, that religion or that country "questionable", while I find any who support the idea that we don't know but we suspect many and want to bring them to court "reasonable".

I find little value in your musings here, but thanks for giving your view as they are all helpful to gain a broader perspective of the issues....:)

Regards John

This thread....... a perfect example of the points Ken was making in your interview. It shows that some people are perfectly fine with accepting speculation (ie. Sabrosky) as being fact, while others require real evidence, and while still others can't distinguish between the two. I count myself in the ranks with those, who like yourself, attempt to hold ourselves to the same scrutiny in producing evidence as we do with those who created and perpetuate this bogus 9/11 story in the first place. Some of us think it's the most honest path to take. I'm glad you think so, too.

Nice interview. Ken is one of the most sober voices in the movement.

Helpful Distinction

John -

I agree that credibility is a very important factor when (1) engaged in a debate with an Apologist of the Official Story and (2) engaging in an act of persuasion with an individual or group.

It's less important among those who already believe the Official Story is a Sham. I'm not sure whether you appreciate the distinction or simply are not communicating the distinction well.

In my profession as a trial attorney, it's the same as when we go to a trial before a jury - we investigate evidence and explore theories, but we reserve our best, most convincing evidence/theories for the jury. That's not to say that we don't work on the other stuff, discuss it and perhaps believe it, but we put our most convincing case forward to those whom we are trying to persuade.

Among people who are already part of the Team, there is no real point in attempting to restrict among them the development of evidence, theories and the discussion of such evidence and theories, except perhaps where they are demonstrably put forth in bad faith. It's not unusual for people to overstate their case in a good faith attempt at emphasis. I have not looked into the issue of the speed of the aircraft, but it seems that pilots nearly universally agree that the planes could not have been flown in the manner they were according to the Official Story. That being the case, what's the significance of this single claim regarding speed? Who is aware of the distinction between the speed of the aircraft and the other impossible features of the flying of those aircraft - outside of this Group? (The most obvious explanation is guidance system - no?)

I had not even heard of Dr. Sabrosky, and if I have not heard of him and his views, then I bet the same is true for 99.99% of the general public. This movement is always subject to attack by negative association, as recently demonstrated by the NYT link to the Iranian President. You cannot stop that. It will always be there. People within the Movement should not be censured for pursuing evidence and theories in good faith.

Advocate for your beliefs as to evidence and theories within the Movement and use what you find to be most credible when trying to convince others to join the Movement. And you can give others advice on this issue and put it in those terms: "In my experience, when addressing newbies ... here is what I find works best." It's okay to have opinions as to optimal credibility with the public, but there should be a clear distinction between that and the pursuit of evidence and theories among the already converted.

Yes I agree and I do see the distinction between us and them!


Thanks for that thoughtful response, and I fully agree that the planes were most likely guided and flown with us of the auto-pilot systems on board the aircraft. Control Wheel Steering is a possibility but it may of been de-activated on those aircraft, it's technical...anyway...

I agree with nearly everything you said actually I could wrote it:) Your not my sock puppet are you...inside joke:)

Maybe as a lawyer you might understand why some have trouble with being reasonable with claims here from time to time...are they genuine concerns, those questioning "being reasonable"? It sort of makes me laugh...

Kind regards John

Yes, questionable


I've already said I don't agree with Dr Sabrosky's call for war with Israel. But I really think to suggest he is not making a case is stretching the truth of it. He has a case and rationale, and what's more, we haven't heard all of it yet, either. This guy is not some back street disinfo agent - he is a high level insider with very intimate knowledge of the US military apparatus, who has high level contacts as well. He knows more about inside machinations of the US Military than you ever will John. All I am saying is that he should be able to say what he thinks. You say, let's see the rest of what he says before we take him at his word...but John unfortunately you have already fingered him as someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.

It was you who framed the question to Ken Jenkins which basically asked him if we could identify particular individuals on circumstantial evidence alone, ie. by simply asking "Qui bono?". Go back and read my transcript of your words if you do not understand.

John, it may well be that I find little value in your contributions to this thread either. However I find your remark quite ungracious, unnecessary and gratuitous. I have given the matter careful thought, and you write off what I have to say as 'of little value?'.

I must say I am with Adam, influence device, LillyAnn and others here who have identified certain questionable attitudes on your part with regard to controlling what others should be able to discuss openly without being subject to criticisms. Hosting a podcast doesn't make you the decider on what is or is not credible and worth hearing. I think you should carefully look at Top Gun's advice as well.

mmmm...yes I know Alison he is a well respected and educated....

...insider! Does that not make you think we should even be more careful? I definitely DO NOT KNOW more about these inside matters than he does. I do probably as many here would also, know more about the events on 9/11 as he is reasonably new to the alternative information as he freely admits.

I ain't taking his word for it....I'm listening though!

Anyway lets consider his case?

Basically Sabrosky has said their the only ones that could and would do 9/11, they are the only possibility. Sure we have some connections and some news reports that tie Mossad to the crime and we have many Zionists making money from it and it aids Israel's security. But Sabrosky brings nothing new, does he?

As I said above, he has said he will make his case and analysis known in time? If you were a serious researcher wouldn't you do that first?

Regards John

I think

John's doing a great job. I don't think infighting is the problem here. In fact, I believe fighting (including infighting) is what may win this for us all. It must be done ethically, honorably, and effectively though. People have the right for equal time on the same url address if talked about or attacked. People have the right to face their accusers. People have the right to defend themselves. Accusations such as calling someone a disinfo agent should not be made (or even subtly implied) without hard evidence to back it up. John appears to me to be making a good effort on all this under difficult and complex circumstances. Also, he appears to me to be acting consistently both privately and publicly on all this. I can't tell you how many times because of a disagreement someone has just stopped cold in the middle of an email exchange with me, threatened to use their influence to damage my efforts privately, withdrawn any support, refused phone conversation, and on and on. John has never acted this way towards me. To me, both John and Mr. Jenkins look like real champions here.


I agree that some of the most constructive debates can get a bit heated (though see no reason why they couldn't be even more constructive if they weren't - witness the gibbering chaos of jref). I just don't like the attacks/insults on individuals because of their views and thoughts. As a previous poster said, it makes me extremely suspicious of the person making the insults. To be fair, most of the 'cred police' (who think they get 'cred' by insulting people) seem to lurk in the shadows these days, and I don't think John is 'one of them' - he's far too polite and jovial, for a start.

Thanks for the show!

Thanks Influence...

We have been at logger heads many times so I appreciate a positive from you! Thank you!

I put the "cred police" you talk off mostly in this explanation...they are people that have been around a long time and have seen a lot of bad shit go down, they are tired and pissed off seeing their hard work being destroyed by big noting, big claiming fools who don't know the history of dissinfo in this movement.

Many of the people I think you are talking about have saved my ass from embarrassment and from being marginalised by people who are not doing the right thing. Their role is an important one and I am very interested in this movements critics arguments, though I have often argued with them toe to toe when I have thought they are being paranoid or unfair.

You will know them by their fruits, so please look at that aspect of this equation:)

Regards John

Show "Disinfo..." by Adam Ruff

Original research

Steven Jones has done "original research". DRG and Richard Gage have not done any "original research". The term "original research" is used by some as if it is the only research worth considering. This is clearly false. The many members of the TM find and share research done by others. That's what this forum is for. We analyze and criticize that research in public debate to weed out the theories that are weak or not valid. In that regard, we are all "cred cops".

I beg to differ

DRG and Richard Gage both have done original research. DRG has conducted numerous original interviews and gathered vast amounts of data and documents seen in many cases for the first time in his books. That is original research Chris, I have his books and can point to MANY points of research he was first to present. Richard Gage's entire Blueprint for Truth presentation and architectural/structural analysis and slide show is his original research plus AE911TRUTH obtained the WTC blueprints in case you forgot. To be blunt Chris cred cops are not qualified to do the job they have appointed to themselves, they make too many errors, incorrect assumptions, and omissions. Errors like the one you just made above in saying DRG and Richard Gage have not done any original research.

Show "Excellent points Adam." by Adam Syed
Show "Thank you sir...let's get in contact." by Adam Ruff


Will do. :-)

Research need not be "original"

Much of the research DRG's books was done by others. All of the research in BFT was gathered from other researchers. Gathering the "original research" of others is just research of a different kind. Research does not lose its value when used by someone else. "Original research" is a meaningless term in the context of 9/11 research. It is used to minimize or hand wave "non-original-researched evidence" that goes against belief.

So who made you the cred-cop-cop??? ;-)

Your OPINION is noted and I disagree.


We just are not going to be able to have a constructive debate.

Cred Police

The "cred police" as you call them are citizen investigators like yourself who realize that there are disruptors/misinformation/disinformation agents among us. There are also people with bad judgment and unsupported theories that must be exposed as such. A few times I have gone over the line and called people names or described a theory as "fruit loops". I have been criticized for it by various people, including Ken Jenkins, and I don't do that anymore. I agree that name calling and personal attacks are counterproductive. However, I will continue to express my opinion and invite reasonable responses.

You will know them by their deeds.

Disruptors are here to disrupt by turning passionate honest debates into personal pissing matches and/or forwarding unsubstantiated theories. Some do this unintentionally due to their personality but the result is the same.

Some claim that any attack on their theory is a personal attack and use that as an excuse to make personal attacks in return. This behavior is suspect. The result is exactly what a disruptor wants to accomplish. A disruptor need not be a government agent. It could be someone who believes the OCT and wants to hurt the Truth Movement or just someone with a persecution complex and a confrontational personality. It does not matter, the result is the same.

The problem for the TM is that there is too much information and too many people have "I've got to get it all in" complex. We need to trim the tree and use only the strongest evidence in sound-bite form when approaching OCTers. Getting people to open up and look at the evidence is the purpose of the Truth Movement.

Show "Bottom line is" by Adam Ruff

The Meta-Hutchison Effect

By the 'cred police' I mean those who feel they have the right to stifle discussion on particular topics, using insults if 'necessary'. There's an exaggerated bitterness, as if they're tired of pushing the whole movement forward, when in reality hardly anyone was going to believe the straw man theories (eg Hutchison Effect) they were attacking anyway. These supposed battle trophies are used to place these martyrs for 911 truth on a pedestal, from where they can launch more attacks, often against more straw men but not always.

They tend to wonder 'why they're still here' and bemoan the 'decline of the movement' (not true). That's demoralizing. They act like it's other members of the movement that are the problem and not the MSM, public perception, existing power structures, national security etc. etc. I agree that 'too much information' can be a problem in terms of facing the public, but generally it isn't (much to the distress of cops wielding huge 'lists of facts' not as internal discussion points but as a cumulative argument for someone new to the case).

Personally I'm waiting for CIT and/or P4T to write papers. As it is, I'm thankful for and interested in their efforts but don't feel confident presenting something I don't really understand myself, or before I have a canonical, text version of the main points. For me, at least in their current undistilled form, these arguments are either too complex or open to debate (whether legitimate or not) for the 'sound-bite' style needed, at least for brief interactions. However a broad base of evidence helps guard against limited hangout and I don't suppose to know what other people should think on the matter.

I believe a free flow of information is conducive to progress. For example, your sometimes spirited discussions with Adam Syed on CIT are not the problem, but rather those attempting to shame such threads away.

Change of position

"They act like it's other members of the movement that are the problem and not the MSM,"

It's not clear who you think the cred police are. Perhaps that's just as well.
Some "members of the movement" are disruptors [intended or not] and you are right, they should be ignored rather than stifled or shamed away. But sometimes they have their own "adversaries" who help hijack threads and they need to be exposed. With others there does come a point when the double talk and sidestepping is obvious and further debate is pointless.

I started out staunchly defending CIT and NSA:
But changed my position when I learned that CIT misrepresented the facts and had an "Enemies List" on their website where they ridicule those who disagree with them. I spent a great deal of time debating and researching all the relevant information. The complete video interviews of the Citgo gas station witnesses were quite an eye opener. Two said they SAW the plane HIT the Pentagon and the third said it did NOT fly over. If CIT had included these statements it would be very difficult to convince people that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Here is my Summary and Analysis of NSA.
I have edited it quite a bit since posting it here at Blogger.

If you are not sure about the case for flyover, please read it and let me know if you find any fault with CIT or the analysis. If you want to respond, please do so here:

I know

I'm just reading through your essay now, and I've read some of it before. Following the CIT threads on Blogger is what has me thinking this witness and flight path talk is too complex/uncertain for me, but I will post on the other thread if I have any questions.

I've changed positions twice actually

In the beginning of my truth days, I was "absolutely convinced" that a missile hit the pentagon. Then, for awhile, I was in the Hoffman/Victronix camp, not necessarily believing that AA77 did hit for sure, but that we shouldn't "go there" in case they eventually release a high quality video of a plane hitting the building in order to neutralize the movement. For awhile actually I was quite a staunch promoter of Hoffman/Ashley's sites. But I couldn't disagree with them more profoundly on the Pentagon issue now. Now that I've studied CIT's interviews extensively, I've come to the conclusion that barring any further new evidence to the contrary, which hasn't seemed to be forthcoming, CIT's conclusions about (1) a flyover and (2) explosives in the building and staged light poles to be correct.

"Personally I'm waiting for CIT and/or P4T to write papers."

No need to wait! CIT and P4T have written numerous articles.

While P4T does sometimes present complex technical information based on their expertise, CIT presents a very simple concise and logical argument complete with a valid "sound bite": A north of the gas station approach of the plane proves it did not hit the light poles or the building.

Or, to put it even more succinctly: "NoC = flyover".

The logic, evidence, and technical supplements to back up this simple scientific fact are available in this article:

NoC therefore proves 9/11 was an inside job (even Chris Sarns agrees to that), and obviously they present plenty of evidence to back up a north side approach. NOBODY contests the fact that NoC proves inside job, due to the location of the light poles, cab, generator trailer, and C-ring hole (not to mention that this also proves the NTSB data fraudulent) even if they aren't willing to admit it proves a flyover.

CIT has several more written articles published here:

And here:

And many dozens if not hundreds more on their forum here:

I also recommend this one:

No matter how much Chris Sarns argues otherwise, virtually all other CIT critics (including Hoffman, Larson, Arabesque, Bursill, & Legge) openly admit the fact that the plane MUST be on the south side of the Citgo in order to be reconcilable with ALL the physical damage which in turn proves the north side plane can not have hit.

It really couldn't be any more simple than this right or left question. Furthermore it does not require the person to be a scientist, physicist, engineer, architect, pilot or expert of any kind to make a determination on the validity of the eyewitness evidence they present that is independently corroborated on such an astronomically high level. So please read all of the written articles they have already published and of course make sure to watch the firsthand interviews in National Security Alert since firsthand eyewitness evidence must be viewed directly on video in order to make a fair determination on it. Have you seen National Security Alert in full?

You did not address this point.

The CIT flyover theory assumes/requires the directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the plane, probably explosives. It had nothing to do with the plane. It would have been the same if the plane hit the building or flew over. Other "evidence" does not change this fact so don't try to say that it does.

The light poles have nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the building.
The video is not evidence of anything.

Thanks Paul...

I'm here to win brother and fair is the only way you can truly win! 9/11 24/7 Until Justice!

Kind regards John