WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if?

Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.,0,5616717.story

By Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic
October 15, 2010

If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.

The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.

One of us, Coleen Rowley, was a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation less than a month before the World Trade Center was destroyed.

Following up on a tip from flight school instructors who had become suspicious of the French Moroccan who claimed to want to fly a jet as an "ego boost," Special Agent Harry Samit and an INS colleague had detained Moussaoui. A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group, but FBI officials in Washington inexplicably turned down Samit's request for authority to search Moussaoui's laptop computer and personal effects.

Those same officials stonewalled Samit's supervisor, who pleaded with them in late August 2001 that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center." (Yes, he was that explicit.) Later, testifying at Moussaoui's trial, Samit testified that he believed the behavior of his FBI superiors in Washington constituted "criminal negligence."

The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that Moussaoui was most likely being primed as a Sept. 11 replacement pilot and that the hijackers probably would have postponed their strike if information about his arrest had been announced.

WikiLeaks might have provided a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors' seeming indifference. They were indeed stuck in a perplexing, no-win ethical dilemma as time ticked away. Their bosses issued continual warnings against "talking to the media" and frowned on whistle-blowing, yet the agents felt a strong need to protect the public.

The other one of us writing this piece, Federal Air Marshal Bogdan Dzakovic, once co-led the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team to probe for vulnerabilities in airport security. He also has a story of how warnings were ignored in the run-up to Sept. 11. In repeated tests of security, his team found weaknesses nine out of 10 times that would make it possible for hijackers to smuggle weapons aboard and seize control of airplanes. But the team's reports were ignored and suppressed, and the team was shut down entirely after 9/11.

In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Dzakovic summed up his experience this way: "The Red Team was extraordinarily successful in killing large numbers of innocent people in the simulated attacks …[and yet] we were ordered not to write up our reports and not to retest airports where we found particularly egregious vulnerabilities.... Finally, the FAA started providing advance notification of when we would be conducting our 'undercover' tests and what we would be checking."

The commission included none of Dzakovic's testimony in its report.

Looking back, Dzakovic believes that if WikiLeaks had existed at the time, he would have gone to it as a last resort to highlight what he knew were serious vulnerabilities that were being ignored.

The 9/11 Commission concluded, correctly in our opinion, that the failure to share information within and between government agencies — and with the media and the public — led to an overall failure to "connect the dots."

Many government careerists are risk-averse. They avoid making waves and, when calamity strikes, are more concerned with protecting themselves than with figuring out what went wrong and correcting it.

Decisions to speak out inside or outside one's chain of command — let alone to be seen as a whistle-blower or leaker of information — is fraught with ethical and legal questions and can never be undertaken lightly. But there are times when it must be considered. Official channels for whistle-blower protections have long proved illusory. In the past, some government employees have gone to the media, but that can't be done fully anonymously, and it also puts reporters at risk of being sent to jail for refusing to reveal their sources. For all of these reasons, WikiLeaks provides a crucial safety valve.

Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for more than 20 years, was legal counsel to the FBI field office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. Bogdan Dzakovic was a special agent for the FAA's security division. He filed a formal whistle-blower disclosure against the FAA for ignoring the vulnerabilities documented by the Red Team. For the past nine years he has been relegated to entry-level staff work for the Transportation Security Administration.

Author is Naive

The author assumes Wiki is a "legitimate" whistleblower site. Assange, however failed the litmus test when he discounted the 9/11 issue as a "waste of time". Wikileaks is more likely a contrivance of disinformation sponsored by Mossad/CIA.

Agreed, the Author is Naive!!

It does appear as if there is more to Wikileaks than meets the eye.

Firstly, the Afghanistan documents that were released through selected mainstream corporate media outlets strengthened the position that Pakistan is the “evil doer” and so legitimized the ongoing US drone attacks that are killing hundreds of civilians in Pakistan.

Second, Julian Assange in an attempt to “escape” American “upset” at the release of the Afghanistan documents fled to Britain.

Third, Julian Assange’s remarks about 9/11 are in complete accord with the official narrative and establishment reaction to alternative hypothesis.

Fourth, it has been officially recognized that much of the released information in the Afghanistan documents was already in the public domain.

Fifth, the Afghanistan documents were essentially censored before release by the military establishment and subsequently the mainstream media.

Sixth, the national newspapers selected to review and publish the material contained in the Afghanistan documents did so, while other stories such as “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” or “US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq” are consciously not reported.

Seventh, the rape warrant against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, which was later canceled, seems to be an attempt to lend credibility to the image that Julian Assange is a persecuted truth teller.


It should be regarded as suspect the idea that Wikileaks is a beacon of truth. While much of the information released by Wikileaks is indeed true, this adds to the credibility of suspect information of a dubious nature that may have a specific geopolitical agenda.

With the release of David Ray Griffin’s latest book Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, it could be argued that Wikileaks is such an exercise in shaping the public mindset.

Sowing paranoia

Is a CIA tactic too. Ask yourself why Sunstein would publish a publicly available paper advocating covert infiltration. The short term effect of the publication of this paper was newfound sympathy among the neutral audience for the 9/11 truth movement. The initial reaction of your average American is that conspiracy theorizing shouldn't be illegal and that the prospect of a thought police is absolutely horrifying, indeed this rejection of Sunstein's fascist proposals probably resonated across the entire width of the political spectrum.

But what are the long term effects? I have seen growing paranoia...and the ever retarded notion that somebody who disagrees with you must automatically be an 'agent'. Proudly and gleefully, Cass Sunstein is cited, DRG's book is cited as the basis for wanton allegations of being an 'infiltrator', a 'mole', or an 'agent'. We are degenerating back into the period of prominence of charlatans such as Webster Tarpley. Oh how I regret ever believing a word of what that man said.

You CANNOT base your snitchjacketing upon your 'gut feeling'. 'Gut feeling' is worth nothing. That is Alex Jones/Fox News type "newsgathering". Absurd speculation and conjecture. It's irresponsible, it's naive, it's dangerous, it's divisive, it's destructive. It's unscientific, it's unscholarly, and, last but not least, it's cowardly.

PROVE Assange is a CIA asset. ASK HIM. CALL HIM. CONFRONT HIM. For heaven's sake! Because currently the 9/11 truth movement is doing its part in destroying Wikileaks with unabashed rumor mongering and paranoia, and we are playing into the hands of the Pentagon. I share responsibility for this fiasco with my publication of Assange's opinion about the 9/11 truth movement, and I while I never regret telling the truth in any situation, I regret the effects of my publication. I know (not personally, but from my early hacker hobby and privacy activism) some of the people involved with Wikileaks who have had a LIFELONG career exposing government secrets and fighting for freedom and civil liberties. LONG BEFORE 9/11. They are heroes. They have come to join Wikileaks from all corners of the internet, many of them are well known for other priceless contributions to digital freedom.

Yet these people are now cast aside based on what? I can do nothing but watch as this Greek tragedy unfolds. Everybody is looking at Wikileaks, but nobody is looking at traitors and snitches like Adrian Lamo and his handlers. Surprise surprise: Lamo, who has proven ties to intelligence and who is clearly a total patsy, leveled the same accusations at Wikileaks, but not before donating so he could appear a genuinely concerned 'supporter'.

Please wake up. Wikileaks is a conduit, not a primary source.

Adrian Lamo

See 3:17.

There's much more, but I don't have time right now. I'll follow up at some point.

Wikileaks tweets Coleen Rowley and 9/11

And they did so three times:

I disagree with the Wikileaks = CIA theory. It is based on rumors, which are probably being instigated by the CIA itself, if not for simple paranoia on the part of some researchers. Moreover, one of the actors involved in the "Collateral Damage" video, notorious techno-anarchist Rop Gonggrijp, I know from way before 9/11, and I have full confidence and trust in him.

Show "Oh please..." by bofors

Veterans Today

Analysis by Non-Commissioned Investigator Shows Plane Footage Doctored Up to Hide Clandestine Remote Controlled Anti-Gravity Ball Hitting World Trade Center Building 2

I rest my case. And screw their 'disclaimer'.

P.S. in this comment, you cite my article about Julian Assange. Are you aware of this? Did you not 'connect that dot' before posting your comment above?

"At this point, the idea that

bofors wrote:

"At this point, the idea that WikiLeaks is anything but a front operation is ridiculous and absurd."

I don't think so. You have to prove that it is a front operation. Snow Crash makes a fantastic point there. You can't just be dismissive by arguing that "we all know it already so you must be wrong." Fallacy.

bofors wrote:

"Perhaps you have some problems doing the math and connecting the dots, but this fact is perfectly clear to most of the informed people here."

If you are so informed you could back up your statements instead of trying to insult with metaphors about math and connect the dots or calling someone ridiculous and absurd for asking you to back up your blanket assertion.

wow just wow

"PROVE Assange is a CIA asset." - SnowCrash

Oh please... you have to be kidding us.

At this point, the idea that WikiLeaks is anything but a front operation is ridiculous and absurd.

Perhaps you have some problems doing the math and connecting the dots, but this fact is perfectly clear to most of the informed people here."

Wow you have encapsulated in one small diatribe why i never come on 9/11blogger anymore and try to have rational discussions with people. Paranoid first, do research later type of attitude is pretty destructive.
It's amazing to me how people like you can operate without supplying one shred of proof or even a convincing case of your theory.
nice attempts too at several ad hominem logical fallacies in your post.

"Ask yourself"

"Ask yourself why Sunstein would publish a publicly available paper advocating covert infiltration. The short term effect of the publication of this paper was newfound sympathy among the neutral audience for the 9/11 truth movement"

Was this a "gut feeling"

Their claims are absurd and potentially dangerous as they are aiding the enemy. They must be stopped.

What neutral audience?

The Sunstein story hardly entered mainstream and then it was via our efforts.

CIA tactics

I will provide an example of the CIA tactic of feeding paranoia, but that doesn't mean I have proof that was Sunstein's intention. You are correct.

What follows is a quote from a book by Duane R. Clarridge, "A Spy for All Seasons: My Life in the CIA", page 336.

Seeing his financial empire under attack and listening to reports of
CIA efforts to recruit his cadres, Abu Nidal was aware for the first time of
a concerted offensive against him - we were coming after him and his
people. He, like many in his line of work, was paranoid. The CTC fueled
his hysteria over plots against him - feeding fear to a paranoid is some-
thing we know how to do. Not surprisingly, Abu Nidal panicked. Those
who reported having been approached by us were not rewarded for their
loyalty, because Abu Nidal never quite believed that anyone in his group
had turned us down. Their loyalty was suspect thereafter, and the pun-
ishment for disloyalty was torture and death.

By 1987, a fearful Abu Nidal had turned his terror campaign inward.
The ANO was starting to drown in the blood of its disciples. A simple
allegation was sufficient; usually there was no investigation. Accused fol-
lowers were tortured to confess, then executed on the basis of that con-
fession. After the effective ANO apparatus in southern Lebanon fell
under suspicion, over three hundred hard-core operatives were mur-
dered on Abu Nidal's order. On a single night in November of 1987,
approximately 170 were tied up and blindfolded, machine-gunned, and
pushed into a trench prepared for the occasion. Another 160 or so were
killed in Libya shortly thereafter. Distrust reached high into the polit-
buro ruling the ANO. Even his closest surviving lieutenants began to
believe that Abu Nidal was insane. Abu Nidal's paranoia, fed by our cru-
sade against him, caused him to destroy his organization.

Years later in London, I was reminiscing over pink gins in our club, the
Oriental, with a foreign-intelligence colleague, a great bear of a man and
dear friend. We agreed that we had succeeded in beating Abu Nidal in a
way we had never anticipated, that the techniques of publicity and other
actions to stimulate paranoia had succeeded beyond our wildest hopes.

The CIA will also use such tactics against non-violent activist groups such as the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement.

And.... Wikileaks.

Fear works

but your example shows more. How easy hierarchy systems can be killed by the TOP.
And then look at the interiror infos we get about Assange strange behavior.

Just add 2+2.


Would Snowcrash care to explain why Tarpley is a "charlatan". Name-calling is not helpfull in regards to the growing paranoia and misstrust that he mentions.

About Tarpley

That's a good question, one which you are entitled to ask. There are several issues with Tarpley, some are broad, involving many prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement and the anti-war movement, others are my own individual objections.

In the first category, there is the issue of the Kennebunk Port warning and the surrounding controversy, including Tarpley labeling Wolsey, Gold, Arabesque and others disinformation agents, while smearing Cindy Sheehan and others. There is also his general tendency to promote speculation as fact.

In the second category, there are my personal objections with Tarpley being a birther and a global warming denier. I have closely followed Tarpley in the past, most specifically his unauthorized biography of George Bush Sr. and his various presentations and interviews on 9/11. I my opinion, Webster Tarpley is a formidable intellect. His command of American and international history and geopolitics is something to be reckoned with. It is for exactly that reason that his promotion of flawed claims and his baseless, paranoid invective towards some 9/11 activists and researchers are so objectionable.

In the process of my own development as a researcher and the growth of my understanding of geopolitical issues, I realized the deficiencies and the defectiveness of Tarpley's geopolitical analysis. I realized that Tarpley had and still has a large following that takes him at his word when he provides his often intellectually overwhelming, sometimes bromidic and pretentious lectures on geopolitics, history and false flag operations.

There is a common thread in the approach of Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley: they will blow certain factoids way out of proportion, heavily crippled by confirmation bias, they will cherry pick and sensationalize, quote out of context and they will avoid nuance and rationalization. The latter is especially noticeable with Alex Jones, however it is clear the approach of Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones is very similar and this has caused them to grow infatuated with each other.

The more sophisticated and intellectually overwhelming a certain research personality promotes their argument, the more complex their analysis, the more susceptible and defenseless their target audience and even their debating opponents become.

So, besides the obvious problems with Tarpley listed at the beginning of this comment, for me to provide you with a tangible, comprehensive character study on Webster Tarpley, including a clear formulation of the various objections I have with Tarpley's talking points, would require a very long and tedious commentary. I have some examples in mind, and you've given me an idea to do a blog post to elaborate on the issue. Compare it to the mini-nuke claims: fortunately we had prof. Jones around to debunk those claims with great academic persuasion, but nevertheless, the claims were elaborate and complex and required significant time investment to debunk. It's difficult to avoid these discussions from becoming a huge time sink.

In short: I respected Webster Tarpley, I followed his work and I did learn various things from him, but as time passed I realized the baseless and speculative nature of some of his research and the devastating effects they had on the 9/11 truth community at large. To deal with this kind of complex misinformation is like cleaning the Augean stables, and I don't merely want to dismiss Webster Tarpley on the basis of the Kennebunkport controversy; a critical analysis of the collective body of his research is a more pressing issue, because the core inadequacies are where the real long term damage is done.

For starters, but this is, in my opinion, only scratching the surface, I invite you to study these commentaries:
Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”
The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?
Jon Gold - I corresponded with Cindy...
Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery
9-11 Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley

Note that I, myself, have attacked Arabesque in the past, well not really attacked, but I was under the impression that I knew his identity and got into a rather unmemorable argument about it here on 911blogger. I regret doing that. I'm still a bit fascinated by the identity of Arabesque, I can't help it (compare it to Shakespeare), but the point is, by and large, I agree with Arabesque's work and find his/her contributions to be very valuable to the 9/11 Truth Movement. They stand the test of time, unlike some of the contributions of Mr. Tarpley, who has been very accusatory, suspicious, speculative and pugnacious.

Oh yes let's please talk about Tarpley

First read Snow Crash's links above then....

The only thing there is to gain from learning about W. Tarpley is studying how his incredible intellect is used as an outlet for some of the most destructive people to ever be involved with the 9/11 Truth movement. I purchased not only two of Tarpley's books for myself, but also for my parents and two of my friends. I regret this now, VERY much. I listened to his radio show four plus years ago on RBN (Republic Broadcasting Network) for days and days of my life. This radio show was guest after guest espousing the most speculative, ridiculous and bizarre theories about 9/11. The brilliant part however was Tarpley's strong sense of history and political theory over-shadowing the bunk information he was a continual conduit for. He seemed like a great intellectual compared to the audacious and goofy sounding Alex Jones. It was utterly seductive to finally have found a 9/11 truther who didn't initially come off as a right wing extremist. Later I would learn to see how Tarpley was equally as problematic to the movement. Tarpley even went as far as to attack a great friend of mine, encourage violence towards him publically. This man who I supported to an unrealistic level is one I am happy to spread my knowledge of.

I can't write to much tonight, but I was such a huge fan of this guy that I am happy to share my knowledge of what I learned and experienced from him. For a quick start here is list of some of the guests I recall from the hours and hours I spent sucking up Tarp's ridiculous radio show from RBN. Looking at it now, its just amazing to see how many have been discredited among the 9/11 truth movement :

Jim Fetzer
Kevin Barrett
Nico Haupt
David Shayler
Morgan Reynolds
Ralph Schoenman (authored "The Hidden History of Zionism." His interview with Tarpley was all about disputing the numbers of the holocaust. I wanted to be sick.)
Jimmy Walters (just watch the Penn and Teller BULL*!#$ episode about 9/11 truth to see what kinda damage this character has done to the movement)
Phil Berg
Maria Heller (who has completely ridiculous theories as to what happened with JFK)
Alex Jones

More to come......

Intellect overshadowing bunk

Yes, that's what I meant. Well said: "The brilliant part however was Tarpley's strong sense of history and political theory over-shadowing the bunk information he was a continual conduit for." .... It took me a whole comment, it took you a sentence to sum it up.


It's news to me that Ralph Schoenman has ever been 'discredited' with the 9/11 truth movement. I've seen him speak many times at 9/11 truth events, and be well received, and have always found him knowledgable on the topic of false-flag terror. Never once did I hear him dispute anything--numbers or otherwise--relating to the Holocaust. Do you know of any links or sources that document his discussing this?


The Hidden HIstory of Zionism here's him going off on it

That isn't the interview I spoke of with Tarpley but sounds like a lot of his points he was making and shows just what is wrong with Ralph Schoenman. Good luck stomaching this disgusting video. The interview I heard of him with Tarpley on RBN may be still up in the archives. It was years ago, but I remember Schoenman getting into how Jew's have exaggerated numbers to help set up Israel and push Zionism among other very inflammatory statements about Zionists. Claiming many Jews wanted the holocaust. No matter what you feel about the Israeli Palestine conflict, this exaggerated material is awful and radically offensive.

A separate blog about Webster G. Tarpley

would be good, as it is somewhat off topic here.

I read 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA - Myth of the 21st Century, have seen him speak a few times and have spent time with him in a very small group setting in Vancouver.

9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA is an impressive book, if for nothing more than its sheer volume and historical perspective, but his over emphasis on the "Angel is next" rumored incident always struck me as odd. Maybe it was just his ego demanding an exclusive angle on 9/11 to differentiate his book from the many other good ones, or a marketing hook, but it is problematic for a number of reasons.

His conference speeches can be like performance art, with misspellings on slides and his penchant for finding really bad pictures of people he chooses to excoriate (imagine an incredibly brilliant mind combined with the emotional maturity of a junior high bully and you begin to get the picture). For awhile he pushed the practice of "truth squads" confronting certain individuals and asking them hard questions on camera, then putting the videos on You Tube, which many of the WAC chapters did and some still do. This would be fine if done respectfully and with well researched questions (something we should all do, but not in a confrontational way, except in a very few cases, imo), but he seemed to delight in the more juvenile confrontations of people he already publicly disrespects and this was clearly counterproductive for the 9/11 truth movement.

Webster G. Tarpley clearly loves being the center of attention, as do a few others in the movement, and he won't hesitate to try and overwhelm/intimidate you by showing off his language skills and knowledge of history, but he strikes me as someone who is all intellect and no heart.

My bottom line on Mr. Tarpley came with the Kennebunkport mess, which is an old LaRouche trick he orchestrated with a few others at a critical time for the 9/11 truth movement's rapprochement with the peace movement, and his treatment of some people in the movement I know and trust implicitly (and, by association, myself).

Whether simply due to personality type or for other reasons, Mr. Tarpley can be extremely divisive, which is not something growing political/social movements need if they are to continue growing stronger and find their ultimate success.

While I would cross the street to save his life, I would not cross that same street to say hello to him.

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

Angel is next

Oh, that's one thing that seems to be true

Well, there is something to the "Angel is next" story,

but what, exactly, remains to be seen.

My point here is that Mr. Tarpley does a lot of speculating on very little hard evidence.

Just one of the 1000's of reasons why we need a full, complete and transparent investigation into the events of 9/11/01, yes?

I hope that you and yours are well.


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

I agree

Yes, I agree that there could well be something to the 'angel is next' story; but unless and until we can actually question people under oath, it's not really much to go on.


If I recall correctly, from watching the 2004 SF conference, when he presented his slide on patsies, there were several intersecting categories, including 'dupes', 'moles' and 'asteriods', which should have been spelled 'asteroids'.

I remember it now because it was such an obvious error, and while infinitesimally small, it annoyed me. How could such an intellect make such an error and then let it stand on his presentation? Yet, I remember this exact slide because of the spelling error, so one could argue it's a mnemonic device. ;-)

Similar example

As bothersome as those misspellings are, what stands out in my mind as even worse was seeing footage of Fetzer from the conference in LA in 2006 where he alluded to Atta's having boarded a plane in 'Portland, Oregon.' Wrong coast, buddy!


OK, so I understand that a real critique " would require a very long and tedious commentary", so with due respect you have written a long and tedious commentary without much content at all. Regarding Kennebunkport controversy - im not sure who was defaming who the more - but I tend to take the side of 9-11 TRUTH activists rather than an "anti-war" activist who, at the time, was in denial about 9-11.
I fail to find much else to comment in your post - I certainly dont want to open up the global warming controversy here.
For the record. I respect Tarpley"s work - his very substantial contribution to exposing the fake terror provocation and paradym. I suppose i will never quite trust his jufgement completely because of his prior (?) assossiation with Larouch org.


I took your question seriously, I would have been constructive if you had done the same with my reply. For the record: I haven't voted you down. There were plenty of points raised, you've addressed only two of them, and only tersely. Let's save this conversation for a later time, perhaps on my blog, so as not to disturb this thread, as pointed out by LeftWright.

BTW: I supported the leak on Wikileaks of 'Climategate': although I disagree with the interpretation made by some, I believe it was a genuine case and a justified leak, because in my opinion, it exposed wrongdoing. However, that too, is a different discussion.

Show "Profound Naïveté " by bofors

Apart from John O'Neill

From what I have read about him, he was most certainly thinking outside the box and he was forced out of the FBI because of it...

(just thought I would mention it!)

I am unaware...

I am unaware that John O'Neil ever thought that "al-Qaeda" was actually run by the CIA and clearly, most of the evidence needed to prove that the CIA in fact does was not even available until after his death. I believe that he was merely aggressive in pursing "al-Qaeda" and hence threatened exposing what it really was. That certainly is not "thinking outside the box".

In short, the counter-terrorism FBI agents I have met in person are little more than cops with college degrees. In intellectual terms, they were unable to even seriously consider that 9/11 was what is was. Nonetheless, they were decent and honest people acting in good faith. From what I have seen, Rowley and O'Neil were in cast from the same FBI mold.

The mainstream (CIA

The mainstream (CIA controlled) media has paid a lot of attention to wiki-leaks drawing attention to it. Therefore we can know with certainty two things:
1.NOTHING Wikileaks has or will 'leak' is or will be a threat to them (That means they,CIA,control it).

2.Some how they will benefit from it.

The guy in the first comment above is right. Sorry,Colleen,you need to re-think Wiki-leaks.

Then how do you explain

"Climategate"? Did the mainstream media agree with that leak?


waitew wrote:

"The mainstream (CIA controlled)"
"1.NOTHING Wikileaks has or will 'leak' is or will be a threat to them (That means they,CIA,control it)."

I would like to see some tangible proof as to how the CIA controls this group please.

Well,I should think the

Well,I should think the complete lack of 911 truth in the mainstream media except 'hit pieces' is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can also add to that former CIA director W Colby's well know admission that that is indeed the case.

Climategate is a small potato scandal compared to 911 & it was easily fixed/buried. It also allows you to point to it as an example of how the media isn't controlled. A controlled press is only effective if it is believed to be a free press and a free press is expected to report on scandals. So,they are forced to report on some 'small potato' scandals because if they never did it would be obvious that the press is controlled.

You seem to have difficulty

with the concept of 'evidence'.

Evidence is not your subjective conjecture, it is what you can support with credible sources. You cite the 'complete lack of 911 truth in the mainstream media'. This is incorrect: take for example: Jesse Ventura and his show and his numerous mainstream media appearances. Then you have Richard Gage's appearance on KMPH Fox 26. I'm sure there are many other examples, but these two suffice to disprove your blanket assertion.

Climategate isn't 'small potatoes': it's a canard latched onto by anybody who fancies him or herself a Libertarian or Republican. It hasn't been easily fixed and buried, in fact, it has caused permanent damage because the majority of the American and European public is scientifically illiterate. Therefore, myths about climate change continue to be perpetuated across all segments of Western society, including and especially here on 911blogger. Recall the recent reproach from Bin Laden against Western neglect of the environment. Given that the American public is conditioned to disagree with anything Bin Laden says and instead believe the exact opposite, how do you rhyme this comment with the agenda of Bin Laden's alleged 'NWO puppeteers' who are 'foisting' anthropogenic climate change upon us as part of their 'socialist plot'? Following climate denier + Bin Laden puppet logic, Bin Laden should have been a climate denier. The reasonable explanation for all this illogical fluff: those who espouse such theories are crackpots. Islam mandates an environment-friendly attitude. Hence Bin Laden's comments. But hey, he's dead and fake, so..what does it all matter, right?

As to your point about the free press allowing some scandals to be reported because that helps them to be perceived as a 'free press': Since you assume any and every mainstream press outlet is completely CIA controlled, you thereby assume that any counterargument supports your argument. Logically, the premise is embedded in the conclusion, and this is otherwise known as the fallacy of 'circular argument'. Or... to quote Charles Babbage:

"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

I find it difficult not to become despondent sometimes.

The real problem is with the

The real problem is with the standard of evidence. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is subjective. Reasonable varies from person to person. What I find reasonable you may not. The trouble is that people who demand we (truthers) "prove it" generally have an unreasonable standard of evidence demanding such things as 'official documentation' or 'credible sources'...(read Government & or the official media they control ONLY) other words the documents/story must originate with preps themselves (Government) basically you're asking for a signed confession.

To underscore

my points about climate change:

Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry

Of course, no surprise to see Rand Paul in there. Climate denial is part and parcel of libertarianism, and, admittedly, this is also caused by 'Cap & Trade'. Nevertheless, we are constantly being shanghaied by the energy lobby. More than ever. Note that I do not support "Cap & Trade". Cap & trade is an opportunistic scam and a non-starter. What I support is complete and total move to alternative, decentralized energy and the development of clean cars. We are facing resource depletion, a major motive for exploiting 9/11 and starting the subsequent wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Bush administration, while obviously being a War Cabinet, was also dripping with oil industry ties. They knew and know exactly what was and is happening, but it's an issue still handled behind the scenes, out of the public's view, by geostrategists.

Rowley and Shafer are "incompetency theorists"...and...

Coleen Rowley and Anthony Shafer are "incompetency theorists" and I flatly DO NOT BELIVE IT!

I saw both in NYC this last 9/11 weekend and came away with this opinion first hand. I even talked with Rowley at length and assured her that the FAA and NORAD were NEVER that incompetent. I also challenged that her position was rather "convenient' well after the fact. And as is oft the case with how my brain works...I predicted this EXACT flow of information would somehow hit the mainstream.

One point that I tried to make with Coleeen is that if there were "walls' in between the various Intelligence agencies, then those walls had been constructed and placed there DELIBERATELY.

Walls designed specifically to create "plausible deniability" of inter-agency clumsiness. I also argued that these walls are actually part of an OPERATIONAL TACTIC for nefarious elements to be able to pull off some of their nefarious events.

Most of this "defensive tactic" was learned from being caught in the Watergate affair...the ensuing Church Commission reactions...AND...the Iran-Contra and "drugs/weapons for hostages" deals [that were created and executed by FAUXNEWS' own Col. Oliver North].

The other point that I would like to make now is this.

Its clear that the walls between the intelligence agencies has been hand hewn...and what I'd like to that the THICKNESSES of these walls are in fact CONTROLLABLE...

Meaning...that if even MORE information needed to be blocked away from becoming "actionable", then the nefarious ones in charge could simply "ADD THICKNESSS"...OR...CREATE MORE IMPENATRABILITY to these walls leading up to and including the nefarious events that they wished to pull off.

Nefarious events that needed "plausible deniability" stated differently...needed an "incompetency defense" to explain to the public why their civil servants failed at their tasks.

BTW...I sorta see Richard Clark as being the ultimate in all the "gatekeepers" surrounding all the events that happened on 9/11/2001.

Another brilliant "gatekeeper" that challenges even Chomsky's lofty position of gatekeeping FOR Israel.

Anyway, sorry Coleen and sorry Anthony, but the agencies that you claim are "incompetent' are quite the opposite.

They are undoubtedly competent enough to get you to say PUBLICALLY...that they actually ARE "incompetent"...when they are not.

Actually, they are VERY, VERY GOOD at what they do!

And of course, establishing the "incompetency theory" is the easiest of all theories to SELL to the US citizenry.

And to see right through...for those who ask even simple questions.

BTW...if you all have not read John Farmer's "Ground Truth", I suggest that you take some time out to do so...[have some BARF BAGS on hand]. Farmer tries to establish that 9/11 incompetencies and failures are proven by the Katrina response incompetencies...YIKES!

And of course...the Katrina story is FAR, FAR from, stay tuned to THAT story too!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

In short, both Rowley and

In short, both Rowley and Shaffer add a tremendous amount of credibility to 9/11 Truth at the moment. I have seen absolutely no suggestion that they are acting in bad faith or intend to sabotage it. Frankly, many people lack the spatial reasoning needed to immediately interpret the video of WTC 7's collapse and such. Personally, because I had accepted the official lie for years and have seen counter-inuitive things happen in a materials engineering laboratory, it took me more than a few months to have absolutely no doubt that the Twin Towers were in fact blown out with explosives.

So although Rowley and Shaffer are not perfect, I think we should be more respectful of what they have done and their perspectives on what happened, even to the extent they are obviously wrong as Rowley is here. Alienating either of them would be a huge mistake but is typical of what can be expected to happen in 9/11 Truth. Furthermore, Shaffer is not Rowley and quite obviously he needs to be considered separately. As such, I believe that Shaffer is properly focused on publicizing Able Danger (or least the patsy-minding aspect of it that he was part of).

On the other hand, I think Richard Clark has all the makings of an evil sub-genius.

"spatial reasoning"

bofors said: "Frankly, many people lack the spatial reasoning needed to immediately interpret the video of WTC 7's collapse...."

I agree. This is something that I have noticed with people, even professors.
I even have had people say that NIST was wrong (saying that damage to WTC 7 contributed to the collapse) and that the building weakened and failed... falling at free fall acceleration...and their line of thought stops there. They can not explain the "sudden weakening of 8 floors of steel to wet noodles all at the same moment".

Some people can not grasp certain concepts.
Some people can not think things through.
I am amazed at how shallow their thought process goes. They can not evaluate things with a higher thought.
Some people are glib.
Even the educational system attempts to remedy this (for example "Bloom's Taxonomy" )

Some people can not think with the statement below...

A falling object CAN NOT increase speed (accelerate) when it strikes objects.
NIST finally (quietly) admits the 100 feet of free fall of Building 7 in their Final Report after a High School physics teacher points out the obvious observation. A straight down symmetrical and LEVEL collapse through the area of most obstacles (most resistance)(joisted-mesh-steel, 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns) at free fall acceleration (just like a ball falling)...(not tilting, toppling or falling to the side)...a huge 'dismantled' consolidated rubble pile at the straight down footprint of the building....

No, they do NOT add any credibility to the 9/11 TM

If pedigree were the only criteria for being an asset to the 9/11TM, then Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Dr. James Fetzer and Webster Tarpley would be assets to the 9/11TM.

They are not...nor are Crowley or Shafer because of their pedigree.

At BEST, Crowley and Shafer expose to us the complexities of the task ahead of us, and as I point out above, they expose the AGREED UPON DESIGN of the "walls" in between the Intelligence agencies which we have to get beyond.

At WORST, they are complete assets against us...which I do not believe at all.

These two are no more than "middle level players" in the grander scheme of things who know just enough to see and say that something is wrong with some stories.

But NEITHER appear capable or willing enough to stand back from their own myopia, middle level positions, or personal limitations to enable them to see the unbelievably CREDIBLE information that we have compiled OBJECTIVELY.

Neither of these people talk much about the work of Griffin, Gage, Jones, Harritt, Ryan, Chandler and so many others who have done such amazing and powerful research and created such fantastic educational-factual presentations.

This research and analysis is so very, very STRONG...and so IMPOSSIBLE to deny.

Yet neither buy into any of it...and still take the position of "incompetence".

If the CD of the three towers is INCOMPETENCE, then what the F___ would COMPETENCE look like?

I'm sorry, but both of these human beings need to deal with what I just stated above.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence surrounding so many of the events of 9/11 [which establishes that it was indeed, an inside {and outside} job], how can they each sustain, and now predictably EXPAND their "incompetency" positions unless there is a need...unless there is some pressure...unless there is a role to be played?

Both are nice people who are now KNOWINGLY "looking the other way"...and trying to pull us and others along with them.

Just look at Farmer's work comparing Katrina to 9/11. If you do so, and you step back and consider THEIR AUDIENCE...a populace that is doubtful of the US Government's competency in general, then you will see they are whistling the EASY TUNE to the country's underinformed ears.

And NOTHING is EASY about the 9/11 attacks.

So, is this "incompetence" on their it a "willingness"?

These two have fallen upon their own petards...just like so many others before them.

Just keep types like this talking...stand back and listen to what they are actually saying...and soon some things become pretty clear over time.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA


UR right, Shafer and Rowely are advancing incompetence, It's too bad because I like Coleen as a person and think she is sincere. I've never met Tony Shaffer, but I would probably feel the same way after meeting him too.

It's getting clear to me that as I suggested on another thread a few days ago, "incompetence theory" looks like it's deliberately being pushed to deflect any complicity in the lead-up to the 10th anniversary and to counter the gains we've made. I think as long as we are aware of it, as this and other threads suggest, we will be OK. IMO Those of us who see thru this smoke screen need to come up with a way to support all of these new "revelations" in the media and push it to the next level in an extremely intelligent fashion, which means we are gonna need to be well-read and well documented.


Excuse me. I hope no one minds my interruption, but I would like to tell you something, a barrier to break through in communicating, getting people to watch video, that constantly proclaim "too busy", when you know that the confrontation with reality might be part of the hesitancy. It just makes them uncomfortable, you think? Well, what ever the reason, I'd like to tell you how to get through to many that are unwilling to look. TRADE FAVORS. Wash their car, do their laundry for them, iron, whatever! I'm talking about the frustrating situation of friends that you so desperately want to please, please please see the documentary. Or ask them for that favor instead of a ritual birthday gift, that particular present. I told my friend that, that was all I wanted her to do for my birthday, watch the documentary, please. That's it. And it made me happy. Haven't gotten a report back yet though from her. I suggested 911 Revisited 2nd Edition, from World for 911 Truth. Hope you all can take advantage of that.

Not sure

Would bribery work?

We are dealing with the human mind here, after all! Your friend might think you are wierd!

The problem...

I've been inactive in this movement for two plus years now.... I was in a position where - at one point - was speaking at the WAC 9/11 events on ways to help increase activism and awareness in this movement, I was "confronting" politicians and higher-ups on their inability to look at facts, and there are videos online of me doing it.
We in Philly were doing alot and I know the crew down here are continuing to do alot...

What frustrates me so much with the people involved in this movement is that so many of you are so quick to 'write-off" any possible way 9/11 Truth can be marketed to a larger audience. I argued with Luke and the WAC guys for weeks leading up to the '08 anniversary that the "Inside Job" motto should be taken out - (and we did a good job that year avoiding it) because quite frankly it leaves little wiggle room to allow those who believe the official story in.

If you look at this as if it were a business, this movement has been going at it all wrong. Yes, there are 'elements' to our movement that are going to disagree on simple truths and that is fine, that is how it is in every movement, but there has to be a common understanding for the common good.

When those of you do not agree with your point of 'marketing' to the world, why sit there and call them disinfo agents and everything else? If someone doesn't agree with making Controlled Demolition their #1 priority in their arguments, that doesn't mean they are controlled opposition or working for the Mossad.

What breaks my heart is the fact that I can agree on one thing in all of this - we are being lied to about 9/11. The problem remains with this movement is that we cannot unite under one banner of truth because everyone is more concerned about themselves (yes, I said it) and their own point of view then that of the greater good.

I've met some very good people in the time I was more active with 9/11, and I cannot thank them enough. (Betsy Metz in Philly, Jon Gold, Nick from Philly... just to say a few) for the work they do and continue to do. But for the love of christ, why can't everyone just unite under the general assumption that we were lied to and everyone is going to go at it differently?

If the controlled demolition theory was such damning evidence, why hasn't everyone been "woken up" to the truth? The fact of the matter is, is that its not that damning... FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. (Sorry to burst everyone's bubble) The focus has to be on things that people can question without making themselves become "conspiracy theorists"....

Things that show incompetency on behalf of the government ("LIHOP") is what brings many of the general public to this issue already. We need to act as gatekeepers of information and show them the door of lies and then allow for them (the general public) to walk through and become the "conspiracy theorists".

Now, I also know this website and I'm assuming this comment will be "voted down" and I'll be called a disinfo agent and mossad and whatever it may be...

But seriously? How about instead of commenting so much on articles on 911blogger, you go out into the world with confidence and pick up a camera and confront a politician? Or how about become as successful as possible and then use your success to come back to this and make a true difference with a huge financial commitment like some activists already have?

If more lounge-chair activists on this website and on others spent the time they did on these websites and really planning and strategizing, where do you think the 9/11 truth movement would be today?

*comment edited to remove personal information

The big unanswered question

The big unanswered question is how will the truth change the zeitgeist of America? All those in the truth, peace and civil rights movement have seen the lies and deceptions and have spoken out against it with little impact or it took a quarter century to make even a dent.

I don't think the people understand how to use their collective power. I don't think they know how to get the issues which matter to them dealt with. We expect leaders, and representatives, and judges and so forth to do the right thing. That is not happening. The system has managed to corrupt almost anyone who manages to get to a position of authority who could make a difference.

How can we change this?

Strategy, more.

I think, and I don't know the first thing, as to how, but I think we need a source/site in which the whole subject matter, is sharing strategies. Encouraging one another, offering ways of understanding the psychology of those we encounter, (psychologists or psychiatrists among us?) and ways to raise money, and offer ideas, like the one I suggested, that was called a bribing by someone here, and also mentioned the assumption of my friends thinking I'm wierd. Well, the ones that won't look at 9-11, although we still are friends think I'm weird already, and all of us, me included made the decision to put what people thought of us out of our mind, accepted that we are to get called names, crazy, being one of them. Well, knowing that I have held fast to this subject since I first learned about it, tells them something too. It says, my seriousness about all this is disturbing. Yes, I've been "disturbed" upset about it. and it makes them raise an eyebrow, after all.

And trading making your friend happy, by doing a task for them, and them making you happy, by watching the video, is nothing to feel bad about. and I don't.

What if all of us, decided to spend an hour or two, to bring a friend around to the facts? All of us, I bet know some that can't/won't see any documentaries. It breaks our hearts, doesn't it? At least it does mine. So, if all of us that read this, and I know 911Blogger gets LOTS of traffic, if all of us decided to do that this week, for one person, imagine the breakthrough it would make! Many of us, don't have much money, and not being able to buy bunches of videos to hand out, feel bad about that. Some of us are not physically strong, but if we decided to do a favor like typing up something for someone, without physical strength or without much money, we could be doing our part. All of us have a couple of hours a week to give to people, in our efforts (that have to be successful) to break through to those that keep walls up around themselves, when 911 Truth comes up. We can move that wall by doing something for them, and watching a video in exchange will seem very easy, in contrast to that task they dreaded. Scrub their bathroom. Help them organize a messy room. You'll think of something. Think of that someone.

I suggest all of us do that this week.

Also, what do you all think about the idea of a Truth web site that is all about meeting there, at site and strategizing? We already have wonderful sources from wonderful investigators that work for us all, and of course this country, and mankind when you consider what they did, the war mongers with this "trifecta" Bush called it...9-11-01, that is.

One more thing I would like to say, all of us have to destroy the name THEORIST if attatched to us. No theorizing going on, and there absolutely should not be. It will diminish our credibility. Facts only allowed.

AND Truth Movement should always be capitalized!

It is my very strong hope that the new website

will have an extensive section on activism for activists and another on the psychology of 9/11 truth, both for public outreach purposes and for people within the movement to better understand each other, why many of us take different approaches and how we can overcome some of these personality roadblocks and work together more co-cooperatively.

Now I just have to convince our local group to finally overhaul the clunker of a website (I've been trying for two years, it's like pulling teeth, I tell ya!)

Maybe I will try trading some labor for a film viewing with my ex-wife. Even though our daughters understand 9/11 truth, she refuses to have a look herself (although her boyfriend is a truther).

I think your idea about how to deal with the "I don't have the time" excuse is quite worthy, and you should write a separate blog about it, btw.

I hope that you and yours are well.


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

right on

This comment speaks volumes. I wanna give you props "SeekTheTruth911." The old philly We Are Change (WAC) vids always stood out to me, for they seemed way more on point than most of the WAC vids I have seen from other places. You all (old philly WAC) seemed way less inclined to start yelling random buzz words and name calling (ie Luke and crew jumping right into "we'll get you NWO scum, you're part of the Bilderberg group, we KNOW the truth" The Alex Jones attack and turn off method if you will--guaranteed to have you removed from a meeting and look CRAZY in the process). Amazing how ineffective most of the "truth squads" and "confrontations" (doesn't that sound like a fight that will always go nowhere) have been. The fact that I saw you voted down just shows how little activism experience a lot of people have. When you go out on the street and speak with hundreds of people, you will over time see the amazing difference in receptivity when trying to argue about the specifics of certain types of explosives, versus a basic discussion of some simple facts (like put options, military stand down, victims families asking questions). It is OBVIOUS which is easier to communicate to the average person in the world. Many people on the blog keep insisting that "controlled demolition" is SO OBVIOUS. Controlled demolition is unfortunately not obvious! It took many of us years to come to that conclusion. I hear some people claim that they suspected or knew that right away, but I didn't see many of them speaking out till years after. Even if its obvious to YOU, if accepting it as a reality is hard for most average people, and if there are far easier facts to conclude with little research, then the easier facts should simply be the points to start out with. For instance trying to walk up to the average person and convince people that the entire war on terror is a fraud. This would be a long hard subject to take on and completely reverse someones thinking on in one conversation. We are far more likely to open up a fresh mind with simply provable info which will then inspire to dig deeper. If we bog them down with hyper details about which type of explosives where used, we are more inclined to turn off people from the utter exhaustion of sifting through a lot of heavily detailed information, which is often filled with disinformation.

And speaking of ineffective truth squad tactics, how about some of the folks I have seen (one especially in LA) who is fond of yelling out "what about the dancing Israeli's!?" To someone who knows little to nothing about 9/11, or who is a famous public figure (in the WAC vids cases). This statement is vague and the reference sounds totally crazy, goofy, racist, and even if they actually looked into this tiny aspect of 9/11 truth would not be led to anything conclusive.

It is EASIER for us to get cynical, call names, and shout truth movement buzz quotes and catch phrases that most people don't get or understand. We however as effective truth activists in the subject of 9/11 need to avoid the temptation of pumping up our heads with cynicism. Unfortunately I fell victim to this angry audacious cynicism in the past, what I jokingly refer to as AJD (Alex Jones Disorder). It is easy and inviting to fill our heads with a false sense of intellectual superiority because of what we have learned about 9/11. There are many within 9/11 truth who encourage us feel this way. Let us not fall for this trap of angry social isolation. It leads to an impotent truth movement who constantly shoot ourselves in the foot. I would just get steaming mad when my friends and family wouldn't listen. Now I look back thinking 'wow I could have opened them up a long time ago had I not been such an angry cynic, so quick to write them off as gatekeepers missing the "obvious." i felt so inclined to assume stupidity rather than innocent ignorance. Remember who you were before you learned about 9/11. Remember the in some cases LONG process it took you to develop to the conclusions you have come to now. Try and remember the skepticism you had when folks suggested there were questions about the official 9/11 narrative. If we can avoid the seduction of cynicism, we will never appear as extremists, we will become the mainstream.


"It is easy and inviting to fill our heads with a false sense of intellectual superiority because of what we have learned about 9/11. There are many within 9/11 truth who encourage us feel this way. Let us not fall for this trap of angry social isolation. It leads to an impotent truth movement who constantly shoot ourselves in the foot."

Thank you.


I think it is important for us to show no signs of breaking into the perspective of the head bobbing masses though. Confidence displayed is honest. We are confident the lines from the government are malarkey. Confidence displayed is important too. Respect for their hesitancy to see it should always be recognized. But we HAVE to get beyond that. All need to get this. That is why we all work so hard in whatever ways we can.

Quiet confidence combined with humility, compassion and empathy

will win the day.

( and perhaps teaching many Americans the basic science they should have learned in junior high and the basic logic they should have learned in high school)

Everyone has a right to their own psychic space, agreed?

Americans are generally social people driven by their "gut instincts". As the 9/11 truth movement continues to grow and become more publicly visible (put bumper stickers on your cars and wear your tee shirts and buttons folks!) more people will feel comfortable investigating it for themselves, they won't want to be "left out" and appear out of the mainstream they experience in their daily lives (not the manufactured mainstream on tv, radio and in print).

Just as we have to make 9/11 truth safe for journalists and politicians, we have to make many everyday folks feel safe when dealing with this issue.

Truth should be a ubiquitous cultural value, brothers and sisters, let's make it so!

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

I must confess that a part of me has felt

somewhat reluctant to waking someone up to the 911 matrix. Knowing from personal experience that this knowledge will truly shatter the innocent illusion of life for relatively happy people. My situation actually involved a luncheon meeting with a couple of new friends around a general discussion of various conspiracies. We spoke for a long time about classic conspiracies when near the end of the lunch one of the fellows said something about how crazy it was for our government to be involved in 911. I said hold it right there I don't want to go there! These guys backed right off and said OK etc. However, the seed was planted and as I came across stray news stories over time I eventually decided to do the research myself. Needless to say then my world changed overnight. As aware of government secrecy, corruption and cover-up that I was prior, a new reality with very uncomfortable overtones surrounded me. I never have forgotten the sequence or the eventual new nightmare of awareness. Now I am the seed planter and sometimes even the " catcher in the rye" after exposing the hard facts to someone truly ready for the truth. As I watch them fall out of the matrix for the first time and seeing the horror take over as they struggle to accept what they now know may very well be the ugly truth. As time passes and more main stream personalities have planted the seeds it has become much easier to be the grim reaper of truth. However, I try not to forget the impact of the message I carry to hopefully someday change the world and help free us all.

I make it a point to never just hit someone with the truth

and run, unless I can tell they can handle it.

Thus, when I meet someone who is cautiously interested, I always try to make sure I have enough time to give them a thorough briefing and talk them through the shock, anger and depression that frequently follows.

As I have said on other threads, everyone has a right to their own psychic space, and disrupting it with the truth about 9/11 and leaving them emotionally prostrate does no one any good.

Unfortunately, some people in the movement have not worked their way through the anger phase yet and inflict their unresolved anger on everyone they come across when dealing with this issue. This is neither compassionate nor productive, imo. We need to work with each other to become better integrated as humans and more effective as activists.

Thinking about this causes me to question my practice of leaving 9/11 truth literature in public places and putting it in books and magazines, but I guess I justify this by telling myself that no one has to read it, they can just move on or throw it away.

I still find that the Deception Dollars are great ice breakers with just about everyone, and have great fun giving those to people and seeing if that sparks further inquiry or even a full blown conversation (my family thinks I am incorrigible, but that is nothing new).

We actually had someone quit our local group because he had an epiphany and no longer felt comfortable "forcing" (his word) the truth on others. We tried to convince him that there are gentle ways to go about this, but ultimately I think his wife's displeasure with his 9/11 activism won the day ( how many relationships have been ended by 9/11 truth?).

(hmm, is this comment random enough yet?)

I hope that you and yours are well.

Spread the truth gently and always respect another's right to their own psychic space.

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


If one replaces 9/11 Truth with the words Peace Movement, and relocates the discussion to the 1970s, and HAD the Peace ACTIVISTS taken these words to heart...and PRACTICED not being "intellectually superior", then the Peace Movements would never have dissolved as they have.

Regarding the net result of "angry isolation" [part of which is fueled by the intellectual elitism noted], here is my conclusion about who and how the best and most vigorous "movements" get assisted in their self-imposed demises.

I argue that BOTH of these elements were and ARE STILL brought into the major "movements" by COINTELPRO. Again, not IDing anyone...only ID-ing a PROCESS and DESIRED RESULT...IE: the reduction of efficacy of the protest-activist group.

A terrific example of this process is exposed on this thread regarding Webster Tarpley and his "intellectual snobbery" ending up being divisive to the body of a group. This, in my view, is because many "followers" who are less bright than the "Tarpleys" [like me] , are actually impressed more by "the Trapley's" intellect [not me] than they are by the FACTS presented [IF indeed there are any facts presented].

In the end, the leadership of such protest-activist groups HAVE EXTERNAL-TURNED-INTERNAL HELP in "snobbily RAISING" the [their] criteria for the average person to become a "special guest in their special clubhouse that only the elite can enter".

And if a regular person [not impressed or knowledgeable by/of "the Tarpleys"], and has views supportive of the groups' overall objectives, NOW has to deal with all this ADDITIONAL BAGGAGE of INTELLECTUAL QUALIFICATIONS now required to be a member of the special group in the special treehouse, they will not join in and will turn away.

It's THIS "snobbery" or "intellectual qualifications required" that are cleverly maneuvered into the leadership of the protest-activist groups.

And don't even get me going on how brilliant Chomsky is at doing this EXACT THING all the while being raised into a cult-like leader-god-father-priest of a very, very naive clan of GROUPIES who live by every word Chomsky writes or speaks.

Chomsky and Tarpley...

At least this an interesting post...but moreso, what SnowCrash has given us may be one of the most important "messages" that we need to carry with us as we reach out to the average citizen who is "capable" of understanding what we are presenting, but still is in denial or suffering cognitive dissonance.

If we are smug with the populace, then the conversation is over.

Thanks SnowCrash!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin hordon
Kingston, WA

I wrote that

And am VERY HONORED to see it re-quoted by both SnowCrash and Robin Hordon. I personally would have NEVER been able to write that quote with out reading stuff that SnowCrash has been writing lately and hearing some of the amazing points you Robin have told me in the past. That quote is 100 PERCENT from my own personal experience. Only now after going through my own personal angry social isolation have I been able to take on a healthy reasonable approach to my now far more efficient spreading of truth. Going into the unapproachable place of false superiority seems at first to be a NORMAL and AVERAGE place for one to be invited once learning heavily about the truth. Most people I met on the street at peace rally's had fallen deep into their own hole's of cynicism.

Only after stepping away for a long time and embracing those I love around me have I been able to "hold my high horses" in feeling anger towards the ignorant for not accepting a very radical new idea I assert. MOST OF THE PEOPLE questioning some of the radical ideas we push in 9/11 truth are actually doing so because at the heart wanna protect us. The people who question our position feel in many cases we (9/11 Truthers) have fallen prey and been manipulated into standing up for something that is not in our self interest. BUT WAIT A SECOND.....That sounds just like 9/11 Truth doesn't it!!! This is profound enough to make me VERY MUCH require a constant reiteration of how similar all of our goals are. When I can stay in a peaceful, respectful, reserved mindset with mutual goals at the forefront, I not just always convey whatever point I want to make, (this is not actually the most important part) but I also win over someone to the truth! apologies for misidentifying originality...

...especially after being in the comedy business for 15 years or so...

Anyway, BEEN THERE-DONE THAT in the snobby intellectualization of, and the dismemberment of, progressive movements.

I DO hope that you understand that its THIS very aspect...and THESE very people...who are normally seen as "wonderful and brilliant additions to our movement"....who are actually the cointelpros...

...who BTW...NEED to be just that brilliant to keep their cleverness hidden...

...just part of the qualifications for the job...

...and of ALL IRONIES...

...most of them come from the IVY LEAGUES...


Anyway, I spent over a decade in Cambridge, MA and hanging around Harvard-MIT-Mass Ave. and Harvard Square and I want to share something:

Its IMPOSSIBLE for me to count the number of times I wanted to rip some intellectual's head off by saying:


But that is EXACTLY what they are...

...and Chomsky is the leader of those F___ED UP CULTISTS who "think"...[and I say ONLY THINK]...that they are peace activists...

...because they are anything but!

And the backyard video "Manufacturing Dissent"???

... should more accurately be called...

"Manufacturing Chomsky"...

...what a scam...

Except of course in the HEADS of these genius idiots!

So, now you know why I like to drink union beer...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA


People in the 9/11 Truth Movement think that badmouthing 9/11 whistleblowers because they don't present information that coincides with their theories is helpful? People do it an awful lot, so I just assumed they think it is helpful. 9/11 Whistleblowers maintain their credibility by talking about what they know, and you shouldn't badmouth our allies. It has a tendency to make them not want to work with us.


What Jon just said.

There is a difference between..

Badmouthing and critical analysis based upon observation and discussion that exposes lines of thought or consistent positions that fly in the face of what is now commonly understood and accepted.

Such is the case for the "incompetency theory"...which is a total bunch of CRAP and, from my view, the LAST bastion of any semblance of a defense.

At least this is the good part of the incompetency theory.

I suggest that we apply the old addage:

If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

NOW DON'T...think that I am calling these solid public servants dogs...absolutely NOT!

What I am saying is:

If we buy into the "incompetency theory" without due questioning, we will wake up tommorrow with the "fleas" of accepting an undefendable theory of what the US Governement [or a small cabal inside of it]...DID...or at a minimum was responsible for NOT allowing to happen.

There are very bright and well informed minds, lets just let them have their say and allow us all to grow in considering all of us...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

No one is...

Above criticism, however, accusations are not critical analysis.

Definitely people...

We should be making enemies of...

That is sarcasm.

Real investigation

"Can we have a real criminal investigation into 9/11? "

No, but apparently we have had a real criminal investigate 9/11. ;-)

thank you, Jon...

some of us miss you around here.


I 2nd that.. welcome back..


Say what?

"The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that Moussaoui was most likely being primed as a Sept. 11 replacement pilot and that the hijackers probably would have postponed their strike if information about his arrest had been announced."

Come come now, this stuff is beyond absurd. If you're gonna promote a limited hangout at least make it semi-plausible.

Yeah a Limited Hangout "maybe"

I think the jury is still out on this one. The slaughter of newsmen and bystanders and children in Iraq was strong medicine for the US and the world. The afgani documents were met with strong lang by the Pentagon and now the funding moneybroker is cancelling working with wiki.
I was disappointed with the founders comments about 911 but it wasn't the first public figure or reporter to disappoint me. While some very strong arguments have been made I haven't cast my vote yet for the record.


In the case of Wikileaks I'm inclined to agree. However even if Julian and co. are on the up and up that doesn't prevent their being fed disinformation.

My specific criticism had to do with this article.

As I recall, Moussaoui was the mentally unstable, borderline retarded fellow who was outfitted with a stun belt during his *trial* and confessed to hatching a plot with 'shoe bomber' Richard Reid to fly a plane into the White House.

Forgive me, but painting Moussaoui as some sort of lynch pin figure in the events of 911 strikes me as, well, borderline retarded in itself, hence the reference to 'limited hangout'.


Moussaoui is eccentric to say the least, and you are correct about the stun belt. etc.

Yet it wasn't just Moussaoui, it was what he had in his possession.

Samit's supervisor, special agent Greg Jones, was as close to preventing 9/11 as somebody could possibly have come. He specifically mentioned stopping Moussaoui from "crashing a plane into the World Trade Center". Yet he was stonewalled. Why? And he's far from the only one. These obstructions were happening all over, cut across most agencies.

Value of Wikileaks

Wasn't Cryptome available before 9/11?

I think the value of the recent popularizing of Wikileaks is just that - making this kind of method for the anonymous distribution of information more widely known.

In that sense, it isn't Wikileaks, but the method that Wikileaks espouses that, if more widely known, may have made a difference (which is arguable in the details presented of just how or who could have used this method).

So, while I agree with the distrust of Wikileaks, I think some of the comments here, focusing on that distrust, are missing the point of the article and what benefit may have come with the recent popularization of Wikileaks.

Yes, the point of the article

is being missed in all this somewhat paranoid speculation. What the article says is that lots of people in the government had good reason to know something was coming down but lacked a way to get that information to the public or one another, absent, for example, a Wikileaks-type of operation. That disclosure is damning to the official conspiracy theory. We all have reason to suspend full trust in Wikileaks until we get a fuller idea of what they are dealing with. That goes for every source of information we are presented with. Wikileaks has disclosed a lot so far. Any premature and arbitrary conclusion that the CIA is behind it all using the logic of Spy-vs.-Spy is counterproductive.

While we're on the subject...

(CBS) The Pentagon is bracing for the possible release of as many as 400,000 potentially explosive secret military documents on the U.S.-Iraq war by WikiLeaks.

The self-described whistleblower website could release the files as early as Sunday.

CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate says part of the fear about the potential release is the unknown: Defense officials are not sure exactly what documents WikiLeaks has.

In the context of Iraq, they may be concerned that information will include military operations, prior and current sources, people who may have cooperated in the past, and information that may be revelatory about what we know about the Iraqi government as well as other actors within Iraq, such as the Iranians.


WikiLeaks' Biggest Document Dump Yet Coming Monday: What to Expe

WikiLeaks' Biggest Document Dump Yet Coming Monday:
What to Expect

By David Knowles

October 16, 2010 "AOL" -- On Monday, the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks will release nearly 400,000 pages worth of classified U.S. Army documents on the war in Iraq, making it the single largest military leak in U.S. history. The number of documents will dwarf the 77,000 pages of sensitive material on the war in Afghanistan that WikiLeaks released in July.

In preparation for the arrival of the as-yet-unspecified material, the US military has set up a 120-person task force to begin reviewing a cache of classified documents it believes might be found in what WikiLeaks' embattled founder, Julian Assange, will make public, the AFP reported.

What will the documents say?
While it is unclear which documents WikiLeaks plans to release, officials in the Department of Defense believe they will likely be compiled from the "Significant Activities" files from the Iraq war, Wired reported.

According to, SigActs, as they are known, refer to "all incidents reported to Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) through daily Significant Activity Reports." In other words, the documents might contain information on potentially damning incidents in Iraq that were reported to the military, but not made public.

Wired also speculates that the documents might shed light on a range of issues, from possible instances of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad to lost U.S. guns to more secret U.S. prisons. A source also told Newsweek that some of the documents detail the involvement of U.S. forces in what was described as a "bloodbath."

Who leaked the documents to WikiLeaks for leaking?
Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning allegedly confessed in May to supplying WikiLeaks with classified videos and documents that the website subsequently made public. Currently being held in solitary confinement at a military prison in Virginia, Manning is suspected in the Afghan war leak, as well as in the forthcoming Iraq war document dump, Wired reported. An investigation remains ongoing, however.

Where can one read the documents?
In addition to being made available on WikiLeaks' website, the classified material will also be released by The New York Times, The Guardian (U.K.), Der Spiegel (Germany) and Newsweek.

9/11 was a big event but it

9/11 was a big event but it wasn't the first false flag that has been used to manipulate public opinion and enable imperial wars of aggression. It's just the opening one for the never ending GWOT.

Cracking 9/11 may expose the criminals who are leading this latest hyper militarism and their motives, but it is not the only way to expose the corruption of this system. People who blow the whistle on any aspect of the MIC's nasty behavior will help in eventually dismantling it - so exposing the corruption in Iraq, Afghanistan etc should be welcome.

History is like a river flowing. 9/11 may have happened upstream and we are seeing it effects now downstream today. So we need to both deal with the river as it flows past us now and of course try to figure out what all the crap which is floating in the river is from (9/11) and certainly that ALSO can be dealt with today and tomorrow.

This is a very big systemic problem in America. It may be driven by a few in a top down manner who have managed to corrupt some and fool most. We could get the guys at the top and presumably change everything, but that sounds like a dream. The entire system now has is set up as a national security state and the reality is that we don't have enemies except those which we create by our policies and practices.

The only way to have democracy where the people's will is expressed is for MORE people to become engaged in these matters on whatever level and however they can. People need to be informed and disabused of many of their beliefs about this nation. That is a very difficult task.

Read the Emperor's New Clothes.

A plea for strategic considerations

We must keep our eye on the ultimate goal--a real investigation.

The general public will be reached from different paths and angles. Some may be more amenable to certain arguments, while others will respond to different arguments. The point is to get the crack in the door in all cases--whatever it takes to get people to start looking and asking questions.

Get the public to start pondering the inadequacy of the current version of the official story. Then push the envelope further. Then a little further.

I have great respect for Robin Hordon and others here, who I know to be very credible and honest people. I don't disagree with their views; I only suggest that we have to keep in mind where the average guy on the street is at, and work accordingly.

Off Topic

Alex Jones still is going with his Money Bomb marathon. He has almost reached his goal but is still a few dollars short. Come on truthers, lets dig deep. I can't think of a better cause.

How about or ?

There's also and, too.

Are AJ's quarterly profits down?



guy looks like merovingian, he's "annoyed by 9/11 truth" and still people should not be skeptical?
this reminds me of the situation around anti-war camp people who still buy in on the official CT.
someone should press wikileaks to state clearly what they think about 9/11 and 9/11 truth
movement. until then, they could be spooks. why not? enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend.
after all, remember what's at stake here (considering 9/11 as an event and consequences
that would follow if the truth got out).

then again, wikileaks could be "annoyed" by 9/11 truth just because they think 9/11 truthers
are "nutters", so they do not want to be connected to 9/11 truth movement. still, that is no
excuse. if wikileaks is for the "truth" then there is no place for annoyance with 9/11 truth.
assange may very well just be a gatekeeper in the making for the 21 century.