Support 911Blogger

911Blogger Rules, Moderation Policy and Practice

This thread has been created so users can discuss 911blogger's rules for users, and moderation policy and practice. All feedback 911blogger receives is considered. is not a message board. This site is not structured for long marathon debates about the veracity of specific claims or hypotheses. If the pace of the comments area does not suit you, consider setting up an account at


Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)

Do not post material that promotes hatred, racism, violence, terrorism or criminal actions.

Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread.

Do not post sexual or pornographic material.

Do not embed pornographic, gore, or otherwise non-work safe images or video.

Do not create multiple user accounts.

When re-posting an article, ALWAYS provide a link to the source. DO NOT ALTER THE COPY FROM THE SOURCE. THIS WILL RESULT IN THE END OF YOUR ACCOUNT.

Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults.

Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry.

The moderation team reserves the right to revoke a user's posting privileges at any time if they determine these rules have been broken, and accounts may be closed for continued infractions. Although warnings and explanations are often provided, this is not guaranteed. Our moderators work extremely hard at providing a fair and decent place for all users to interact, but are not always able to address every individual situation due to time constraints and or the previous site history of a user. We appreciate you respecting the moderation team's time and devotion to this cause.

See this thread for topics to avoid:


Thanks for allowing this conversation to continue. I think it's important.

First, I do not believe all users should be moderated. The rules are simple and we're all adults. I participate on many sites and there isn't this need to confirm every contribution from every user on any of them. Sure, some information and users should obviously be moderated. But is there really that many users posting about the No Planes Theory? Is there really a river of Jew Haters just waiting to flood the site with their marginalized bullshit? I think not and I've been around for more then many years. The threat doesn't justify the response and probably is more of a burden to the truth and the moderators then it's worth.

Second, there should be some sort of public record of moderation activities. When I see a moderator in heated debate with a users who just happens to be banned at a pivotal point in the comes off as creepy and secretive on the part of the moderators and the website.

Are moderators using their powers to win debates and restrict the truth? Are they banning users they disagree with? Are they restricting 'certain' important information from getting to users.

I don't know for sure but I have my suspicions as do many others. If we all had a repository of all the banned users and content I could tell sure and I wouldn't have to wonder. If I had a reference point that shows why, when and how regarding banned users and censored content then I could confirm or disprove my suspicions.

My view

jpass: "there isn't this need to confirm every contribution from every user on any of them."

Are you referring to the fact that blog posts don't appear until a moderator approves them? This policy was started due to the significant percentage of submissions received which included the topics you mentioned and other ridiculous and offensive stuff, and it continues on a regular basis. If there's an important story that 911blogger doesn't cover, people are going to find out about it elsewhere, and will question why it's not being covered at 911blogger. However, what most people in the 9/11 truth movement consider important is covered here, hence the popularity of the site.

jpass: "When I see a moderator in heated debate with a users who just happens to be banned at a pivotal point in the debate"

If people are behaving civilly, there will be no problems. However, some threads frequently degenerate into heated debate and there may be violations or infractions by many users on all sides. Not all threads may be reviewed, not all threads are monitored in real time, not all comments may be read. Sometimes, threads become hijacked, derailed, polluted and hopelessly off-topic, with uncivil behavior and bad feelings all around, before any moderator steps in.

In some cases, moderation of a comment or user may be immediate, but moderation is often discussed beforehand, may take place over days and involve review of a user's history, and every decision is subject to review. I know of no example of what you described above, but the perception of it would obviously be subjective. Some people post infrequently, some people post all over 911blogger all the time. If a prolific poster was put on moderation, it might seem like they were "banned at a pivotal point in the debate," but it would most likely be clear from the pattern of their comments why they were placed on moderation- to an objective observer.

Generally, people are going to get at least one warning before they're put on moderation, unless a violation or infraction is judged to be egregious. Generally, people are going to be given a period in moderation before being banned entirely, unless the behavior is judged to be sufficiently egregious. This judgment is also subjective, of course; users and moderators and so is moderation, and people often find it difficult to see or admit fault on their own part or on the part of their friends. As I noted in another comment you personally replied to:

"911blogger is doing it's best to publicize credible information re: 9/11 and things related, as well as providing a forum for people to engage in civil, responsible discussion. No one is getting paid or making a profit from 911blogger. 911blogger does consider the feedback users provide on how things are being run, but, ultimately, it's a private website, the people running it are taking responsibility for how it's being run, and those who don't like it are free to go elsewhere- it's a big internet."

jpass: "Are moderators using their powers to win debates and restrict the truth?"

No; not only would this be wrong, it wouldn't work. The general public isn't fooled into thinking a debate is 'won' based on the last person/people to comment. People are going to find the truth on their own- as well as make their own judgments about what 'the truth' is. Anyone who thinks 911blogger is censoring truth is going to go elsewhere.

jpass: "Are they banning users they disagree with?"

No; people are moderated as their behavior is judged to violate or infract on the rules.

jpass: "Are they restricting 'certain' important information from getting to users."

What anyone considers 'important information' is obviously subjective; my answer is "No." As I noted above, if 911blogger isn't covering important info, it will be obvious to anyone that uses other sites to get news, which should be everyone; I don't rely solely on 911blogger to get news and info, and never have. As I stated above, no one is getting paid or making a profit from 911blogger; we're doing this cuz we care about truth and justice, but if people aren't getting what they want here, they're going to go elsewhere.

Obviously, we're not making everyone happy, and the team doesn't always agree with each other, and we consider the feedback from users, but we're not going to compromise our standards, and we will continue to seek ways to improve 911blogger and make valuable contributions to the 9/11 Truth Movement and to society. The front page of 911blogger doesn't reflect the views of everyone on the team, but it represents 911blogger under the current management, as do the decisions on moderating or not moderating. People can and will make of that what they will.

jpass: "I don't know for sure but I have my suspicions as do many others."

OK. You're welcome to civilly express your concerns.

Show "how about" by jpass

my view, cont.

jpass: "Doesn't it make more sense to just ban people if they are constantly posting non-sense that breaks the rules as apposed to placing every user in a approval que which would seem to create more work then it's worth for the hard working mods."

911Blogger allows users to create blogs, but it is not a service like wordpress, blogspot or livejournal which are commercial services that allow anyone to create a blog and post almost anything they want. 911blogger is a news, information and activism site focused on news and information related to 9/11, related events and the post-9/11 world. 911blogger is perhaps more similar to than a site that lets anyone post anything, though opednews editorial policy is more liberal than 911blogger.

Some individuals may submit a great deal of material judged to be inappropriate for 911blogger; others may only do it once or occasionally. Users submitting material judged to violate or infract on the rules are dealt with on a case by case basis, in ways judged to be appropriate. Checking material in the submission queue creates some extra work for moderators, but is needed to maintain the integrity of the site, as posts in the blog section affect 911blogger.

jpass: "My understanding is that 911Blogger has purged many if not all of the most vocal and intelligent supporters of CIT research from the discussion. Have any of the critics of CIT been banned from 911Blogger as well?"

As I said above, the only reason people are put on moderation or banned is their behavior, and/or promotion of certain claims (see link at the bottom): As I said above, while some of the worst comments posted by users are removed from public view and inappropriate submissions never get posted, the pattern of a user's behavior can usually be discerned from a user's commenting history; see the 'tracker' on a user's home page (note: this is not available in the case of people who have been blocked completely).

jpass: "Are you against a public moderation record that would provide a historical view of all moderation activity and allow users to check up on the moderators? Beyond the need to quell suspicions about infiltrators...mods are people and people are not perfect. They make mistakes and bad judgments. Giving users access to this information would be good for everyone involved. Unless, of course, if there was some shady shit going on."

As I noted above, moderation in practice is subjective and imperfect- as are user opinions about it. In practice, what you're suggesting is that moderators take time to explain and defend whatever decision has been made regarding users, submissions and comments. Moderation as it is practiced is already fairly tolerant, imho, and it's mostly self-evident in what does and doesn't happen on the public part of the site. And the wording of the rules may be improved, but they're already pretty clear in letter and spirit. User feedback is appreciated, but not all suggestions may be incorporated. People that find the site useful will use it, those that don't, won't.

The reality of the situation

Disinformation/disruptors are always with us, [intent is irrelevant] They argue the same rejected points on mini nukes, particle beam weapons, no planes and other ridiculous or baseless theories over and over again. They clutter up this forum with endless long posts and acrimonious arguments. At some point the moderators have to make the call and purge the offenders. This is subjective and not everyone will agree.

The flyover theory is baseless. This has been shown to be the case but a few people kept repeating the same stuff and whined incessantly about getting voted down. They got voted down because most people have had a belly full of it.

I have been voted down and put on moderation but I don't whine about it. I take the down vote to mean I did not make my point and the moderation was well deserved when it occurred.

The comment that started this round of whining about purging was about strategy more than Jew bashing. There is plenty of evidence of Mossad involvement but there is also plenty of evidence of CIA and MI5 involvement. To obsess with one to the exclusion of the others is biased and bad strategy. If you want to grind your anit-Zionist ax go right ahead but don't mix it with 9/11Truth because it hurts the movement. We are trying to get people to open up and bringing in the Israeli connection turns most people off.

The attack on the USS Liberty, the recent murder on the high seas, the cluster bombs in Lebanon cities, the collective punishment of the Palestinians, comprise a subject unto itself and needs to be aired, but not in association with 9/11.

We disagree

I respect your right to your opinion but repeating it over and over in long posts becomes spam at some point. Bruno's thread got hijacked and ceased to be about him.

You are free to repeat yourself all you like on this thread but I will not help you by responding again.

Show "Ok Thanks." by jpass

"you and other paranoids"


WARNING to commenters re insults and accusations

And specifically to jpass and influence device; do not label other users with insulting terms.

Labeling a behavior or a theory with an insulting term is probably unhelpful in general, and in certain contexts may be ad hominem, but not always.

Jpass and influence device have both engaged in direct ad hominem by labeling people as "paranoids" and "paranoid lunatics."

These comments have been removed from public view.

Those who have valid arguments to make can do it without resorting to insults.

Show "can I please edit the comment?" by jpass

Last word: keep discussion on topic

OK, jpass, looks like you made your points.

If anyone wants to discuss the Jews/Israel/Zionists/Mossad as it relates to 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement, post it here and bump this article up in the tracker:

Show "Thanks but no thanks" by jpass
Show "Jpass!" by Lillyann

"The mystic Osho" = Rajneesh

Just what we need - more "wisdom" from cult leaders.

Show "Osho, a beloved mystic!" by Lillyann


I thought it might be helpful to point out that you're browbeating Loose Nuke using quotes from a cult leader involved in one of the first bioterror attacks in America.

Show "Not Brow Beating YT" by jpass

"the topic is moderation not cult leaders"

Sure, and when someone suggests that the moderators of a 9/11 truth site should take advice from a cult leader involved in bioterrorism then I think it's only fair to point that out.

jpass makes false accusations

and w/o any evidence:

"LooseNuke used his moderation powers to ban those who he was vigorously involved in important debate with. He lost that debate and instead of allowing the conversation to continue he decided to ban or moderate all the users that just happened to be arguing against him. So you tell it just a confidence that LooseNuke decided to ban / moderate 3 people who just happened to be in the middle of a contentious debate about important topics? ... But I guess LooseNuke is right. If he wants to run a site using dishonest and un-trustworthy tactics, he's free to do that because it's his private website or whatever."

I'm one of the moderators; see the 'About' page. I do not 'run' 911blogger. I've recommended that this comment stay up as an example, despite the accusations. As I said in this thread, decisions on moderating/banned are frequently discussed by team members, and may take place over a period of time, and may include consideration of a user's history. I have offered my opinion/recommendations re bad behavior by CIT advocates, but have always recused myself from moderation decisions, as I'm a critic of CIT. Jpass' accusation that I banned Syed, Ruff and Stefan is false.

Jpass is alleging that Syed, Ruff and Stefan were banned in order to obstruct a debate which I "lost". There were two debates around that time: As anyone can see, I made one comment early in this thread, and didn't bother participating again.

The thread above happened shortly after a debate on a thread started by Dr. Jones I posted once in that 9 page thread to correct a misrepresentation by Adam Syed about the outcome of a previous lengthy debate here: and once to warn commenters against posting people's personal info.

I've responded to comments by Syed, Ruff, Stefan in the past, but have not participated in all Pentagon debate threads, as I've repeatedly made the same points about the Pentagon 'what hit' speculation in many threads, and don't always have the time or desire to get into it every time one of these threads gets started.

Again, as I said in this thread, people are moderated for violations of the rules, in most cases uncivil behavior- not for claims about CIT. These users' commenting history is available for review- not all comments that are violations/infractions of the rules are removed from public view, but many are. People who behave civilly and don't post comments re: the small number of banned topics (see the rules ) won't get into trouble around here.

PS jpass and lilyann have linked to a site which jpass is a regular at- a site that regularly smears 911blogger, victims family members, witnesses, and credible activists like Jon Gold- this can be seen by even a cursory review of the site. And see this from 2008:

Responding to Libel

Show "As you continue off-topic" by Lillyann

Off topic

You brought up "The mystic Osho", not me.

Show "YT " by Lillyann


Apologies to Chris Sarns, it wasn't meant as an ad hominem, though I understand it could have come across that way. I thought the links I posted addressed the issue of how 'paranoia' over a particular definition of 'credibility' raises barriers between otherwise like minded activists in a humorous way. In turn my reply to YT was supposed to be amusingly flippant, given the subject of the thread.
Building What?

911Blogger rules

I understand and respect the rules as stipulated above, however I have, on two occassions now, had blog entries blocked by moderators for unspecified reasons. Each of the two blog entries related directly to the debate within the 9/11 truth movement on issues that are considered controversial by some within the movement... namely, the CIT investigation and censorship at 911blogger.

I received no explanation from 911blogger mods for rejecting my blog entry, even though my entries were clearly in accord with the rules stipulated by 911Blogger.

When contributors like myself feel unfairly or arbitrarily censored by moderators at 911blogger, it effectively deters us from continuing to contribute to 911blogger. Ultimately, 911blogger and its audience are the losers if arbitrary moderation results in the alienation of conscientious contributors.

Show "I think it's telling" by jpass
Show "Loose Nuke," by Lillyann
Show "Moderation message" by influence device

"no planers" as applied to AA 77 Pentagon crash skeptics

In the Joint Statement on the Pentagon: David Chandler and Jon Cole thread, SnowCrash said:
[QUOTE]: This new policy is wrong. "No planer" isn't profane and it isn't merely an ad hominem. It reflects on the position of people who believe no plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Nobody, certainly not me, is arguing for incivility, but every once in a while, people will feel insulted, will feel offended, and sharp language will be used. Moderation should be done in moderation, lest the supervision becomes so suffocating that it has a chilling effect on the debate as a whole. When somebody consistently and harshly disrupts and insults, maybe with profanity, in debate, then a moderator should intervene in that thread. When this behavior persists across threads, and the majority agree the person is becoming a nuisance, then one can put him/her in the moderation queue. Finally, somebody can be banned.

But to declare the two words 'no planer' illegal is beyond the pale. There are many similarities between the two phenomena of NPT and Pentagon no plane crash theories. Discussion about this should be allowed. This new policy is overreaching. If some sort of symbolic gesture is sought to underscore 911blogger's objectivity, I suggest it be achieved by other means. Moderating disruptive behavior, fine, but this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

I would like this new policy rediscussed among the moderator team. If commenting and blogging on 911blogger involves this level of policing, then I'd rather invest my research and commitment somewhere else. I love this site, I'd be very disappointed. This new policy truly infringes upon my core values and principles, and I simply have to speak up. Come to think of it, speaking up because my principles were offended is why I am here in the first place.

I find the removal of Jeff's comment offensive and wrong. [END QUOTE]

There are those who claim that no planes crashed into WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11, that what people saw was either 'TV fakery' or holograms. Most 9/11 researchers and truth activists have rejected 'no plane theory' (NPT) as nonsense, based on the absence of credible evidence for it, as well as the large amount of evidence that planes did crash into the WTC. In the 9/11 truth movement, the 'no planes' claims are also widely regarded as disinfo - and some of the major NPT proponents have also been some of the worst disruptors on forums, in addition to encouraging harassment of witnesses and victims family members.

When referencing proponents of NPT/hologram/TV fakery proponents, they are often referred to as 'no planers', and it's clear from the context of many of these statements that this is meant derisively, as an insult. Some NPT/TV Fakery/hologram proponents proudly use 'no planer' to refer to themselves, and refer derisively and insultingly to those who say planes crashed into the WTC as 'plane huggers.' NPT was promoted and discussed at 911blogger for a significant period of time, and moderation was applied as needed to limit abusive behavior. Eventually, given the lack of evidence, the consistent bad behavior of those promoting NPT and the disruption being caused, the decision was made to ban posting/discussion of NPT, and NPT proponents are not welcome at 911Blogger.

Recently, some at 911blogger have taken to referring to people who are skeptical of claims that AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon as 'no planers'. However, these skeptics don't have a name or label for themselves, and a number have expressed offense that, due to their skepticism, they are being compared with people who are widely regarded as either fools or disinfo agents. CIT fans say that bombs caused the damage at the Pentagon but that a plane was involved in the event, while others claim to know it was a missile, fighter jet or Global Hawk that hit the Pentagon. Many others are simply skeptical, and don't endorse any of these claims, or the claim that it was AA 77 that hit. So, literally, 'no planer' is not an accurate term.

However, the accuracy of the label is not the issue, as far as moderation goes. The problem is that 'no planer' has been used as an ad hom and an insult in discussions of what happened at the Pentagon (i.e. 'you no planers think ...'), and this violates the rules (see OP). The rules require that users remain civil when commenting. This rule is in place to promote an atmosphere conducive to productive discussion, and to limit the ability of disruptors to operate here. Requiring users to refrain from ad hom, insults and accusations does not limit anyone's ability to make a reasonable argument and present credible evidence.

SnowCrash: "There are many similarities between the two phenomena of NPT and Pentagon no plane crash theories. Discussion about this should be allowed."

I agree. It is. Since 9/11, the lack of hard evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, selective use and interpretation of photographs, distrust in govt, and the 'what hit' controversy have been effectively exploited to disinform, distract, divide, disrupt and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. I've made many comments about this and written articles on it - imho, it's even worse than NPT; NPT is obviously absurd, while skepticism about the crash the Pentagon seems reasonable, and is justified, given the govt's failure to release hard evidence that AA 77 crashed there.

SnowCrash, if you want to write an article examining this or explore it in comments, that's fine- assuming compliance w/ the rules. I'm sure you can do an excellent job without referring to those who are skeptical as 'no planers.' Plus, people who are skeptical that AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon will be more likely to consider your views and reconsider theirs if you treat them with respect as human beings. This will also create a sharp contrast between you and those working to create conflict, division and distrust.

I agree

with your statement, and I would like to add: pseudo-phyiscs. That is: NPT advocates used to say: "aluminum cannot penetrate steel".

Recently, a thread was posted, with a picture attached showing a damaged nose cone on a commercial aircraft. This too, smacks of NPT: it used to be argued constantly that because an aircraft could be damaged by bird strikes it could not possibly have damaged or penetrated the WTC. The fact that (A) a plane consists of much more than just a nose cone and (A) the fact that what does the damage at high speed impacts isn't so much the material but its kinetic energy is ignored and obscured.

Point (B) is strongly underscored by the phenomenon of water jet steel cutters (water cutting steel), shaped charges (air cutting steel) and hypervelocity: how tiny specks of space dust can severely damage satellites because of their extremely large kinetic energy, due to their extremely large velocity.

In my recent exchanges with latent and overt CIT supporters, I have tried to remain as civil as possible, nevertheless I haven't tried to be overly conciliatory either. I will further try to remain civil in my exchanges, but incisive and piercing, I understand the psychological side-effects of siege mentality and belief perseverance.

I recommend we all stay civil, and I also recommend we do not evade questions about the Pentagon by answering that such questions are a diversion and 'not good for the movement'. This will be perceived as 'dodging the questions' and the track record of this strategy isn't stellar either.

My initial fear was that the ban on the phrase 'no planer' would stifle discussion, since technically any passing reference to this term might trigger a moderator intervention. I do not support the use of this term to bully opponents in debate. I've probably used the term more than once, but the last instance I can recall was on the Jesse Ventura thread, where I expressed my frustration with the seeming inability of the large 'no plane crash at the Pentagon' contingent to learn, move forward and not rehash old, refuted and discredited arguments again and again.

So many people worldwide have so many misconceptions about the Pentagon, that still date back to the earliest 9/11 documentaries and books, some of which even advocate the 'missile' theory, which is absurd for a plethora of reasons, most of all because of the complete lack of interest in the witness statements, and if interest does arise, selection bias, special pleading and quoting out of context are endemic.

All I ask is the encouragement of a climate where one must not fear moderator intervention merely for using the two words 'no planer'. I could introduce a new shorthand: NPCTers, meaning: no plane crash theorists. However, I still feel a bit boxed in by this new rule. Obviously, the moderator team has the last word.

I have noticed though, that jimd3100 has gone rather silent since, and this is unfortunate because I very much appreciate his contributions. Moreover, shure's rremoved comment wasn't directed at any specific 911blogger user, although he unfortunately did later emphasize that his intention was to insult. I further submit that there are many ways to be insulting... and there will always be some party insulted.

I have a long history as a moderator/operator in various places... I have always cultivated extreme reluctance to intervene except for the worst of transgressions. It has everything to do with the way a referee handles a football match: to referee in the spirit of the specific game being played. If much is at stake, the referee tends to be a little more tolerant. However, I understand that leniency doesn't work always and for every situation. Moderation is a thankless and complex task.

I appreciate you providing the opportunity to discuss this, Erik. Thank you for your gracious elucidation of the policy.

outside the box

helpful info, thx. I think we have a mutual understanding. A couple more things in response:

"All I ask is the encouragement of a climate where one must not fear moderator intervention merely for using the two words 'no planer'. I could introduce a new shorthand: NPCTers, meaning: no plane crash theorists. However, I still feel a bit boxed in by this new rule. Obviously, the moderator team has the last word."

It's not the term so much as the intent. I hope you won't invent a new way to label people; there are many ways to communicate information, and labeling people with a term they disagree with isn't necessary or helpful. There's a significant difference between attacking/criticizing ideas/arguments/evidence/behavior and attacking a person, group, class, race, etc. Sometimes it's difficult for people to tell the difference cuz people associate themselves and others with certain words, names, ideas and beliefs.

"I have noticed though, that jimd3100 has gone rather silent since, and this is unfortunate because I v"ery much appreciate his contributions. Moreover, shure's rremoved comment wasn't directed at any specific 911blogger user, although he unfortunately did later emphasize that his intention was to insult. I further submit that there are many ways to be insulting... and there will always be some party insulted."

shure's follow up comment proves my point about how the term 'no planer' has been used here recently. Some people take offense at the slightest perceived slight, even if unintended or based on a misinterpretation of someone's intent. That's their problem. However, people intending to be insulting, divisive, etc.; that's the problem we're seeking to minimize. We are not trying to stifle discussion, we are trying to create an environment conducive to productive discussion. People seeking answers and justice should feel welcome here. People seeking to insult and disrupt are not.

"It's not the term so much as the intent. "

See I agree. That's why I think banning the term is wrong and won't really fix yall's concern. Should we band the phrases 'LIHOPer' or 'MIHOPer.' These have been used in many insulting ways. It's easier to type 'no planer' than it is to type "those that feel that no plane hit the pentagon" over and over and over. I want to strive to not use labels in an insulting way. In the same regard, if the intent of a term is clearly displayed merely as for a representation of a sub-group of people who subscribe to a particular theory or belief, and the terms meaning clearly defined by the blogger, then the term most certainly should not be banned completely. How about the childish swearing and insults that spew unnecessarily from many angry posters, often when describing the uninformed public?

how about we non-insultingly and politely name the topic



people that think regarding the pentagon, that there was no crash there can be referred to as NoCrashers
not slanderous, just compacting a sentence down
no planer rhymes with no brainer so that's clearly a bit rude though i'd use it myself. however if there was a rule to not use it then i would behave
i react well to being told off as the mods here know =)

terms v. intent and persons v. subjects

is there an example of the term 'no planer' being applied to AA 77 crash skeptics in way that was not intended as an insult? Shure admitted that his was, and in many other cases it was clear from the context that the person using it was heaping scorn and derision on both the claim and the people embracing it. If people come up with a new way of insulting people, that violates the rules. But the main purpose of this term in this context seems to be insult, so it's become a violation of the rules in itself.

Now, look at what i just did in the first sentence above; i just used a new label for a group of people; "AA 77 crash skeptics." However, from the context it's clear that it was not intended to be insulting, and it's unlikely that people skeptical about the OCT regarding the Pentagon crash would feel insulted. Do those doubting the AA 77 crash story have a label for themselves? If so, that should be used. I'm not aware they do- there's many conflicting claims about what happened, and many more people are simply skeptical. As I noted, a number of people have objected to being called 'no planers.'

It's unfortunate there even needs to be a conversation about groups of people when the far more important issue is the evidence and what it shows, and even more important than that, it's about truth and justice. But people on all sides and outside of the 9/11 truth and justice issue continually make issues be about people. Admittedly, in some sense, it really is about people- ideas and knowledge exist in people's heads, and while they may be recorded in other media, people are the main force making ideas and knowledge significant in the world, making them mean things that they are or not in reality.

If people stick to criticizing a belief/idea/claim/evidence - in a civil manner - there won't be a problem. There's a difference between calling a person stupid and an idea stupid. But if the intent is to persuade opponents and observers about the superiority of one's own view- and not to sow discord- it's more productive to simply point out errors/problems/drawbacks in claims, and make the case for one's own view, in a way that is polite and respectful. If anyone sees me not following my own advice, please point it out.

"How about the childish swearing and insults that spew unnecessarily from many angry posters, often when describing the uninformed public?"

This hasn't been banned, though it's probably given a negative impression of 'truthers' to the lurking members of the general public. Those who are seeking truth and justice really ought to consider the impact of their words. I don't endorse this practice, and neither does 911blogger. There's many gray areas and fine lines, and moderation is subjective and imperfect. If anyone has a better solution, we're listening.

You could ask the same question

about the word 'debunker' and the word 'JREFer'.

There are so many words that are almost exclusively used with a negative connotation on this site.

Why are our governments filtering the internet? Because of child porn. Who could disagree with that? Therefore any moral person must agree that the internet must be filtered. Think about it.

Is requiring civility a 'slippery slope' to 9/11 truth death?

I doubt there's a context in which 'JREFer' would be used here where it wasn't intended as an insult- in the cases where I've seen it used, it was. However, I don't recall that anything was specifically done about it.

Why are you guys arguing that you should be able to label people 'no planers' who don't want to be referred to as 'no planers'? I don't see from what anyone here has said so far that not being able to use an inaccurate label, which is perceived as an insult by both the people using it and the people it's being applied to, is a 'slippery slope' that will hamper your ability to express yourself civilly and make effective arguments. Are you suggesting everyone should be able to call anyone else here whatever 4 letter words they want, in addition to lobbing accusations and making ad hom attacks? If not, then where do you draw the line?

In any case, 911Blogger is not a free speech zone, and this has been pointed out many times. The internet and some parts of the carbon-world are free speech zones. 911Blogger is a place where people interested in research and activism for 9/11 truth and justice can receive news and info and discuss it - civilly.

Again- this is about maintaining civility, not micromanaging people's behavior, preventing thought crime, etc. As reprehensor noted long ago, “ has been used as a tool to identify and amplify wedge issues that divide 9/11 skeptics and researchers, and this has occurred primarily in the comments area.”

I think everyone at 911Blogger would benefit from reading this:


911blogger is not a free speech zone, it is primarily a vehicle to inform to public about 9/11 and to promote this good cause. As such, credibility is paramount.

Had 911blogger not had this primary role, lots more would be acceptable. I misunderstood kdub earlier: I thought he actually proposed banning the words 'LIHOP' and 'MIHOP' also.

I certainly do not suggest everybody should be able to call each other names here. Like I said earlier, moderation is a complex and thankless job, and I'm sure you've had your share of attacks over the years. I know the CITers (is that allowed?) hate you with a passion.

If I speak out about these things, the very act of speaking up itself may be perceived as disruption. That would make me very sad. I support the 911blogger team. Do as you wish. I'm here to do and publish research, to help and debate others. That's it.

I do submit to you that 9/11 Truth's biggest problem isn't infiltration but paranoia. Inductive reasoning can be dangerous.


imho, LIHOP and MIHOP are mostly useless distinctions; what matters is what the evidence shows. In addition, these terms have been used to foment division and disruption (that's LIHOP! so-an-so's a Lie-HOPPER!!!), and may have been invented for that purpose. Someone using them that way would be infracting on, if not violating the rules. However, the terms aren't banned.

See this:

"... the CITers (is that allowed?) ... " Did you intend it as an insult? I don't see it that way, so I don't see that it's a problem. I have often referred to CIT fans; I think that's accurate, though I admit the intent has also been to frame CIT as entertainment, which I think they are, though CIT and their supporters represent CIT as being serious researchers with credible claims, which I think is inaccurate. Anyway, I guess I could be called a hypocrite if I keep saying 'CIT fans', though I also see it as being having less venom and insult power than the term 'no planer' has, and the way it's been used recently.

"If I speak out about these things, the very act of speaking up itself may be perceived as disruption."

Depends on how it's done; certainly, the issue could be made into its own divisive distraction. At this point, I don't see that. I think this dialogue has been helpful.

Again, my intent was to keep this new insult ('no planer' as applied to people who are merely or more than skeptical of the official story about the Pentagon crash) from becoming a new way to foment discord here. If tolerated, people could show up who appear reasonable in every other respect, but lob 'no planer' around in snide comments. If tolerated, it seems that pretty soon people who simply have questions would feel unwelcome.

Anyone who still has concerns about this should consider sending an email to the whole team, and include a link to this thread- other members may or may not be paying attention to it. In addition, I'm the person who pushed for this policy on 'no planer.' I am open to being wrong. I don't think it's a perfect solution, but I think it's better than tolerating insults and hostility.

I have also been disturbed by the use of "no planers"

as a reference to those who believe no plane impacted the Pentagon, for all the reasons Erik has cited.

I think "CIT supporters" or "fly-over proponents" is much more accurate and will not be seen as a gratuitous insult by those who fall into those categories.

I have played sports my whole life and have usually found that poor winners are worse than poor losers. As one of my first coaches taught me, the answer to cheats and poor losers is to win with grace and dignity.

Let others throw the mud, brothers and sisters, let us always take the high road.

One can disagree without being disagreeable, yes?

The means create the end.

Thanks for choosing to be civil.

I'm ok about just using the term

AA77 crash skeptic as that covers flyover, global hawk, and others

This is what I was afraid of

The slippery slope.

To moderate disruptive behavior on a specific, thread-by-thread, individual basis, good.

To ban words: bad.

Banning words is Orwellian. How can we possibly be arguing that we should be ban 'LIHOP' and 'MIHOP'?

'no planer' is now ungood in the realm of 911blogger newspeak, and anybody who utters it is an unperson.

Now I'm scared at the direction this discussion is going. It's good that we discuss this here, I hope others will join in and understand that what happens to one side of the discussion may happen to another side of the discussion, and so we are all in the same boat.

It always starts with 'good intentions'. Let's please, please be extremely reluctant to make nannies out of moderators.

Exactly, Slippery Slope time.

Even if terms are primarily used in a negative or insulting context, banning them is not the solution. BTW Snow Crash I was using those terms as other examples as to why it doesn't make sense to ban words here. Because they are just words. We need to be able to use them, and if they are insults, then we should be able to point out such. Sure "no planer" isn't always specific enough to not generally come off as insulting, however, if people happen to use it, I don't think its a big deal. When discussing the general trends of materials presented by 'no planers' I can see the term being used. Like in the context of 'I have seen these particular (whoever is being discussed, CIT, NICO?) 'no planers' do some greatly offensive things to the victims family members of 9/11 blogger.' Whether it's the perfect choice of words doesn't matter if the meaning is clear. If my sentence or point is weaker because I used the term than SO BE IT. If peoples argument is weakened because they hurl a term like 'plane hugger' at me, please allow me to breakdown their point and their insult, rather than just banning their ability to say it.


I partially misunderstood. Dammit.

Yes, we agree, then.

You plane hugger.

Aw SnowCrash

It is PROVEN that your nose cone can always puncture the holes to my heart.:) Let's go a plane huggin'!

This seemed the most inapropriate place to post this