Video Advisory: Three New Organizations Join the 9/11 Truth Movement

This short video announces three new organizations joining the 9/11 Truth Movement: Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

The new groups launched on September 9, 2010, at simultaneous press conferences in Los Angeles and New York, where they collectively called for a new investigation into 9/11 in the context of growing public opposition to the war in Afghanistan.

This video advisory was released nationally via PR Newswire, and the news was picked up by major wire services and several mainstream publications.

Written and directed by Italian film-maker Massimo Mazzucco (“The New American Century”), and narrated by actor Daniel Sunjata, the video briefly explores the nine professional organizations already calling for a new investigation into 9/11, to which the new groups now add their weight.

"Where's the Plane?"

I personally think it's unfortunate that in 2010 we are still promoting no plane ideas as though they are in league with the rest of the evidence. It detracts from everything that we do already know and can prove. That's a big problem with the promotion of these groups. It's 2010.

I recommend Frank Legge's paper, What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, which deflates the emotional claims which underlie these ideas.

Legge writes:

The best way to avoid the development of contradictory views is to scrupulously adhere to the scientific method and to promote to the public only those concepts which are shown to be soundly based. Multiple views will cause confusion which will be apparent to the target audience, the public. Many will conclude that the case for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 is weak if proponents cannot agree on significant issues.


The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. . . . I have looked for evidence that a Boeing 757 could not have hit the Pentagon and have not been able to find any that stood up to scrutiny. I further contend that this hypothesis still stands.

Interesting that it uses the Scholars logo from the Journal of 9/11 Studies yet does not show the Journal. This is also the logo used by Jim Fetzer.

Show "@ Victronix..." by milongal

Actually . . .

>>well-established, and peer-reviewed and approved FACT, which it is not.

The Journal is peer-reviewed and many people posting on blogger agreed with Frank's points, that too little is known -- even 9 years on now -- about the attack at the Pentagon to claim we know a commercial jet couldn't have hit there.

From Kevin Ryan's original post:

The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge, entitled "What Hit the Pentagon?"

Here are some excerpts:

"The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11 knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another."

"There are two essential points to note:

1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not."

Great idea but seriously flawed

Putting Pilots for 911 Truth first is inappropriate. They support the bogus theory about "flyover".

This is the last thing the TM needs. It is baseless and will be used to discredit anyone who endorses it.

Daniel, please read this Analysis of CIT/NSA

Professionally done.

I know that there might be aspects which evoke criticism, but the intent of this short clip is to position 9/11 Truth as something "well thought of" by many professionals.
This clip succeeds in that marketing positioning.

Yes, well done

This is classy, professional overview of the scope of the organizations forming around the single idea of ascertaining the truth about 9/11. I agree with "milongal." Those who are hyper-critical of this video need to "put it away."

This video promotes no theories. Victoria and Chris S. are being a little paranoid and IMO 'their" comments are inappropriate. I had to watch this twice to see what they are so worried about and I still don't really see it.

It's about time we started promoting ourselves and the broad reach of our movement and this video is an excellent start.

As far as providing ammo for our detractors, get real. There is more than enough floating around out there to discredit our work. Our detractors are more than willing to lie and ignore even our strongest evidence or simply make shit up. Even at an institutional level.

This video will only help us. Thank you Massimo for taking the time to write and produce it.

Condemnation without investigation

is the height of ignorance -- Albert Einstein.

Please read my Summary and Analysis.

Prove me wrong point by point or accept that NSA is fraud.

For the last year I have done very thorough research on CIT/NSA and I am now trying to get the TM to relegate the baseless "flyover theory" to the trash can with mini-nukes and particle beam weapons where it belongs.

what is the current theory

as to what happened to the engines.... let me know..


See Frank Legge's paper:

There are also photos which show debris identifiable as the engine rotor, combustion chamber, suspension and wheel of a 757.17 Some critics express doubt that these pieces came from the Pentagon crash site. Doubts are, however, not proofs.

And see the many images here:

ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'

For the love of God

This statement by the person in the best position to see whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon is enough to prove NSA is a total farce. The omission of this part of his statement in NSA is deliberate misinformation.

Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon.
Official interview 11-14-01

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

You cannot say he was correct about where the plane came from but wrong about where it went. That is beyond idiotic and anyone making that assertion will be justifiably characterized as a "conspiracy nut job" who will believe anything.

WARNING to commenters: keep it civil

Just putting this in here before this thread turns into another heated and out of control debate about what happened at the Pentagon.

"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. ... Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."

Anyone who wants to persuade someone with a different opinion- as well as members of the general public reading this thread- will do well to be civil, polite, respectful, etc.

Engine parts

were found both inside and outside the Pentagon. Were you unaware of this fact or were you merely asking a rhetorical question?

Show "part rhetorical and part genuine curiosity..." by Mr D

I don't think I understand

What do you mean? If you have a particular claim in mind with respect to the engines found at the Pentagon, it would be helpful to substantiate it.

Show "no... dont have any claim..." by Mr D

This is a game

The tactic is: Create an argument about a minor point and keep it going so people will turn off and turn away. The purpose it to divert attention from the fact that there is NO PROOF of flyover. Quite the contrary. All the CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon, said the plane hit the Pentagon.

What happened? This was an announcement of a great moment:

New organizations, with people of accomplishment, all making statements that something is wrong with the official story, and we need a new investigation................
and instead of celebrating these new breakthroughs, we are bickering on and on.

Let's forget that, and push all of that off onto the the specific websites that specialize in these differing points of view. A lot of good and important research goes on in these sites, and I applaud the people who look deeply into some of these issues, but I don't think this is the place to hammer it out constantly.
I'd like to see 911blogger remain mostly a place where new events and new research and new articles from all over the world are presented..............and then, if you want, you can go and study and research and argue elsewhere.

You do not understand psy-ops

This is not a simple difference of opinion. The flyover theory is baseless. It is no different than "no planes at WTC". Promoting it makes the TM look stupid and gullible.

Please read my S&A before criticizing again. Address the facts.

Leading with P4T [flyover] and putting AE911T [WTC CD] last, is bloody obvious.

Do you need a signed confession?

I don't fault Daniel but there is something rotten at A&A4T.

This is the TRUTH Movement and we are speaking truth to power.

We must also speak truth to the "power" of the TM.

Did you hear any criticism of the "building what" links?

No you did not because none were controversial!

People that put these sites up representing these important people would do well do be aware of what is controversial in "our" movement; because I GUARANTEE it WILL be CONTROVERSIAL with the sort of people that can actually elevate our cause from the fringe:)

Pilots for Truth are in error on many topics and their leader is doing a great job at discrediting us all. That being said many aviation "experts" support those errors so I understand the confusion. CIT is also very controversial due to the contradictory nature of their evidence and their strong belief that it is as important as WTC 7.

The best approach is to stick to what is not controversial as this moves us all forward. If people and groups can not find consensus after nearly ten years on certain issues, those issues should be on the back burner. It is not rocket science is it??

Regards John

>>those issues should be on

>>those issues should be on the back burner.

The problem is, groups like the Artists and Actors are featuring a direct link to CIT on their links page and include people like Ace Baker, TV Fakery advocate. I asked them to consider removing him and the response was jovial, that what he does are "antics", as though it's just a joke. The site directly links to his 9/11 site suggesting the WTC planes never existed and it was all faked video.

When the people who are RUNNING the groups are unaware or don't care about the actual evidence, or the relevance of the MISREPRESENTATION of the evidence to the public, you will have ongoing divisive groups that will -- even at a low level -- serve to disrupt strong grassroots organizing like public outreach.


They list P4T twice

A&A4T has officially linked itself to the baseless "flyover theory".

Our detractors can justifiably, and will successfully, paint all who signed on as "Conspiracy nuts".

ETA: Thank you Vic for doing the vetting A&A failed to do.

Yeah but

we can't keep doing it for them, moreover, they don't care...


I recommend letting the webmaster know if these kinds of things in a brand new group bother you, otherwise, they don't know that you feel that way. There is often so much cheer leading for anything that supports inside job . . . it becomes hard for those who get so much praise to then step back and change anything, particularly if they are new to it all. The webmaster I talked to was very nice and was busy, but I don't think he realizes about mis- and dis-information in the movement.

Dark subject - humorous moment

Ranke: "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Robert Turcios: "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) Collided."

Ranke: "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"

Ranke: "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse: "Yes"

Ranke left these statements out of his video "National Security Alert" and claimed instead:
"But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone."

That is, by far and away, the dumbest f'ing thing I have ever heard. ;-)

misleading claims in vid, questionable orgs/people

This video gives the impression that there's a large number of organizations representing various types of professionals who are all working hard to get at the truth of 9/11. Some of these orgs are, but others are simply websites listing people who've made at least one statement at one time which expresses skepticism (or something stronger) about the OCT.

As far as evidence the OCT is false, this video focuses on the WTC destructions and the claim that a 757 couldn't have caused the damage at the Pentagon. WTC CD is widely accepted in the truth movement, and many others simply don't accept the official reports and want to see a full investigation that addresses unanswered questions. The claims that AA 77 didn't hit, however, are very controversial in the movement, let alone among the general public. Many active members of the orgs featured in the video do not endorse the '757 didn't hit the Pentagon' claims- so what's the point of focusing on it? The fact that it was included is why yet another Pentagon debate has started on this thread.

It's true that Pilots for 9/11 Truth (which is largely Rob Balsamo and a few others), since its launch, has devoted most of its time and energy to allegedly proving that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, though they recently put out a film questioning the story about the planes at the WTC. I find it strange that there's little to no info at PFT about the military exercises on and prior to 9/11, standard air defense procedures, the failures of FAA/NMCC/NORAD on 9/11, and the failure of the 9/11 Commission to adequately account for any of these things, among other things. The PFT website's been up for years, and these things remain essentially unaddressed by PFT, though they list a large number of military and commercial airline professionals as members.

Also, the lists of people on some of these websites contain some really questionable figures, and some are highlighted in the video- for instance, Capt. Eric May:


Oh your sooo negative, stop telling us the facts! (sarc) :)

advertising for 9-11 truth movement

this is a well done, highly accessible, easy to understand method of making clear that the term
"9-11 TRUTH" is something many professionals,
and military, political, scientific, and artistic professionals can not only identify with, but put their
reputations on the line in defending the need for a truly independent investigation of the events of that day.

signs of progress in a movement: the broadening and deepening of the social base of its advocates, sponsors, and sympathizers.

what we are witnessing is a new social movement in acceleration, grounded in the politics of truth, moved by empirical evidence, motivated by the principles of freedom, democracy, and human rights.

what is at stake? nothing less than the preservation of the american constiution as a living and breathing document which gives hope to people inside and outside of the united states.

we are witnessing the globalization from below of the 9-11 truth movement as well. this should give american citizens additional sources of inspiration to keep on keeping on: we are not alone in this struggle for justice.

we must never forget there are social movements across the planet that in no small measure, depend upon our work here in the usa to help protect them from the crimes of the "war on terror" being committed in our name, each and every day, with the bipartisan embrace of both political parties.