Up a crooked creek: Censorship and civility in the truth movement

By Kevin Ryan


I’ve been censored many times.  When I am completely honest with myself, however, I realize that some of those instances were not actually censorship but were forms of editorial discretion.   Other instances were simply attempts by propagandists to downplay the truth. 


Editorial Discretion:  When CommonDreams.org failed to respond to my article from 2003, it was making a decision that what I had to say was, for them, more of a nightmare than a shared dream.  CommonDreams.org had published other articles that could be seen as related to 9/11 truth, but my approach was not to the editor’s liking.  In response, I did not begin a public campaign against them but instead found many other sites to publish my articles.

Censorship:  A leading alternative news site that regularly publishes 9/11 truth stories rejected one of my articles in late 2008, despite the fact that I had published there before.  The editor responded very emotionally to the article, and suggested that it “attacked solid progressives.”  The editor’s response was itself a great demonstration of what the article conveyed — that people have built-in mechanisms which keep them from seeing truth.  In any case, I did not start a public campaign against the site and would never have thought of wasting my time and energies doing so.  That’s because my goal is to reveal and communicate the truth.

Propaganda:  When, in 2007, Wikipedia promoted highly dubious sources like “Mark Roberts” in an attempt to smear me, yet on the exact same subjects openly ignored sources like The New York Times and Underwriters Laboratories, that was not censorship, it was propaganda.  But again, I did not start a campaign against Wikipedia nor did I try to strike back at the site despite the fact that it was intentionally working to defeat the truth.

I’ve found that, in nearly all cases, when faced with editorial discretion, censorship or propaganda, people will find other venues to share their information when they are not successful at one site.  Again, that is because they seek to reveal the truth, not simply to commandeer one particular venue.  Others, however, are curiously vindictive.

A vindictive campaign against 911blogger.com has been in play for a few years now.  For those of us who have worked for the truth for many years it is not difficult to see why, because this is the leading 911 truth news site.  And those who work to defeat the truth benefit from the destruction of the leading 9/11 truth sites.  Unfortunately, a number of well meaning people have also been drawn into this charade and have spent time and energy, that would otherwise have been devoted to revealing the truth, arguing about non-issues.

Some have claimed that 911blogger practices censorship.  The truth is that the moderators at the site decided long ago that certain users were overwhelming the site with divisive arguments not supported by evidence.  These users focused on certain issues that the moderators and other users did not find useful or convincing.  After tolerating and then warning the abusive users about such behavior, the moderators decided that the viability of the site required ongoing policy decisions to be made.  Although the moderators made those policy decisions known to all, certain users continued to be abusive and found themselves banned.  Now a new set of moderators runs the site, and have become the target of regular public attacks by people making claims of “censorship.”

Ridiculous, you say?  Of course it is. 

The only thing that would be worse would be for those vindictive troublemakers to begin making absurd accusations about why their abuse is not welcome at this one particular site.  Better yet, they could co-opt supposed “journalistic” sources to make totally unsupported claims like the following.

  • “[It] is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good truthers.”
  • “Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side”

Amazingly enough, The Rock Creek Free Press (RCFP) published these absurd and unsubstantiated allegations in its most recent issue.  Yes, this is the same RCFP that was built on articles freely donated by people like myself, including this one, and this one, and this one.  It is also the same paper whose very existence owes a great deal to publicity freely given to them by 911blogger.  Maybe that’s what the editor of RCFP thinks “Free” means.  RCFP feels free to benefit, financially and otherwise, from the work of honest 9/11 truth investigators, and feels free to use the standing it achieved through that work as a vehicle to attack the very people who have kept them in business. 

That’s not just ridiculous, it’s despicable.

Most people can readily see that the success of the truth movement has nothing to do with a single website.  There are those, however, who would have us believe such nonsense as they attempt to shut down the pursuit of truth entirely.

For the well meaning but unsuspecting folks who have been caught up in this garbage, I hope that we can return to a place of civility on the non-issue of “what hit the Pentagon.”  To do so we must realize that freedom is really about making our own choices without being attacked, maliciously framed, and taken advantage of by ungrateful users.  This includes the obvious right of website administrators and moderators to choose what information and users are harmful to their site.


SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Up a crooked creek: Censorship and civility in the truth movement", url: "http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2010/10/up-a-crooked-creek-censorship-and-civility-in-the-truth-movement/" });



This article is a "keeper".

Thanks for posting this!
911Blogger is where many folks (new and old) get their "9/11 News".

- Edit 10/30/10 -
~~~ No lip service - just action.
For those folks who are really interested in the Pentagon, here is where you can put some coin...
Help is needed.
"...Litigation seeking the release of never before seen 9/11 FBI evidence records is currently underway in the federal courts... ...Release of these requested records may help settle questions surrounding the Pentagon and Shanksville controversies, as well as others...

Show "Im frankly confused Mr Ryan" by dave mann


Adam Syed? Or somebody else...? Last Thursday? I don't recall..? If you mean Adam Syed, he's been banned long ago.

Show "The same Syed." by dave mann

I don't think he was

Unless he was channeled by somebody. (Adam has been caught sock puppeting in the past...) He is cited by Rock Creek Free Press in their article, which was posted on 911blogger by John Bursill. The article claims he was banned on May 24 2010.

Will the real Slim Syed please stand up

Sock puppeting sounds sick and wrong but what people get up to in their own bedrooms is up to themselves !

Show "For a "non-issue"" by peacefulwarrior

fab 5

I question and doubt now the US govt.s motive in releasing the fab 5 frames.
would they seek to mislead the public about 9/11?- duh of course
its starting to look to me like they released the fab 5 because the image of the plane is so far off, small and blurry
and also for the same reason they restricted pics of plane wreckage
ie that many questioning the official story
would buy the strawman on the trojan horse, go down a wrong path, find themselves trying to prove a negative- ie that there was no plane
THEY like to put people in the weak position of being obliged to prove a negative (eg prove there were no WMD)
as THEY like to get their opponents into a weak position

I hope the site will welcome back from the wilderness the well-meaning people who fell for the 5 card trick when they realise they got 9/11'ed again- DOH!

You got it

There is something strangely coincidental about some of the dis/misinformation surrounding the Pentagon. Yes, it does look like some deliberately ambiguous information was released, while other information intentionally withheld. I've noticed that if there is one thing the United States Government likes to do, it's screwing around with people's heads. They loooove propaganda and spin. Just look at the state America's mainstream media is in, especially Fox and ABC, Wall Street Journal, etc.

Ahh Psywar

seen that already- amazing documentary, very enlightening

I guess not eh?

That's right folks keep throwing people out of the tent over a "non-issue". You think a great many people don't care what happened 10 years ago, try waiting another 10 and see where we're at then.

My guess is that many of the "experts on this site regarding the pentagon" will be relegated to conspiracy authors of what is left of the movement. Yes they will publish well researched books to be sold to the fringe of society who still have an interest in the facts of history. The failure of the truth movement will have been the result of a lack of understanding and cooperation. The most important and essential ingredient in any movement is people. Without people there is no movement. And that's precisely what is being promoted by the self appointed experts on this site. Yeah in the end they may have been right about what happened at the pentagon but when they look around after all the shouting most of their playmates will not only have left the sandbox but the entire playground.

Well said

Thank you Kevin.

Setting standards

I agree Chris. Thanks Kevin.

The issue of editorial policy and moderation is complex. It's a judgment call, every time. Something thought provoking: what is the difference between us disallowing certain contributions that we consider harmful and the alternative left-wing media and their exclusionary policies towards the 9/11 Truth Movement?

This is an issue I wrestle with, same way I wrestle with how Byron WiIliams' misdeeds were blamed on Glenn Beck by Media Matters. I despise Glenn Beck, and I know he is deliberately fomenting hatred, paranoia and violence with paid propaganda scripts. On the other hand, if I can blame or connect Byron WiIliams' misdeeds to Glenn Beck directly, and accuse Beck of inciting violence, then what's to stop the other side from doing the same to Mike Malloy?

I'm guessing this is why Alex Jones, amazing as it sounds, chose to defend Glenn Beck:

"That is Glenn Beck's free speech," Jones told me. "We don't want to shutdown everyone's speech because of one lone nut."

The core of the issue draws back to "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", which I would, by poetic liberty, rephrase as: "One man's censor is an other man's sanitizer"

Is 911blogger correct and justified in censoring No Plane Theory (WTC)? Yes. But you never censor anything you agree with, and the object of your censorship is never going to like it. Unlike the WTC, the Pentagon has no clear footage of a plane crash, and had less witnesses (although still more than enough). This is the only, only reason this issue has dragged on for so long. By now, we have extensive studies of witnesses testimony and physical evidence, all suggesting a plane crash, none suggesting a flyover, or worse, in terms of intellectual embarrassment, a missile attack.

Like anyone else, I feel the ideal situation would be where you have an entirely consistent, unequivocal policy where this problem doesn't even occur. Would RCFP publish a long, extensive interview with Ace Baker about NPT? No? How would RCFP then respond to accusations of censorship and "working for the other side" by an unhinged mob of no planers like Nico Haupt and his ilk?

I support the moderators' decision, but if I truly believed 'flyover', I would be upset. Of course I would. Isn't all this dead simple, in terms of sociology and psychology? Would you, if you ran a site like 911blogger, take a 'big tent' approach to management? I know some people would. (And frankly, that amazes me..)

We all have our own standards of what is acceptable scientifically, journalistically, epistemologically, historiographically and logically, and so it seems that complaining about censorship (alternative media and 9/11 truth) while simultaneously practicing censorship (eliminating substandard, poorly supported, harmful theories) is practically inescapable.

Coming back to Byron Williams, I recently did have a modest epiphany after thinking about this for weeks. Currently Geert Wilders (Google if you don't know him) is on trial in the Netherlands for anti-Muslim hate speech. Yes, our discrimination laws supersede free speech. In the United States, in exceptional circumstances, causing direct and great harm with free speech can also be a punishable offense. I would favor the more radical American model, but that's besides the point. Geert Wilders' trial, ironically, hinges upon whether or not his comments are true. Whether or not one can say, for example, that the Qur'an promotes violence. Wilders, in colloquy with his well known and renowned trial lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, called upon several expert witnesses to try to prove his case. The trial is ongoing.

This is the crux, and it works the same way with slander and defamation: can you actually prove what you are claiming?

I'm thinking out loud here. Don't take offense, let me know your thoughts, because I do think this is a topic worth philosophizing about. Is there a double standard when it comes to censorship? Could we survive without one? Who decides what research meets quality criteria and on what basis? Has 911blogger been fair in this regard, and if not, why not? Can you say you have a sufficient awareness of the gigantic body of evidence and a sufficiently mature, scholarly, thorough disposition towards research that you feel you should question the wisdom of the moderators who have each contributed immeasurably to 9/11 research and activism?

If you think you do, then why are there no flyover witnesses? If you bring up Roosevelt Roberts, I will bring up his U-turn whereby he cannot possibly be a flyover witness, but suppose you had him, would this be satisfactory to claim all physical evidence is fake? All witness accounts of the scenes of death (and plane passengers) inside the Pentagon .... fake? All witnesses who saw the plane hit... "fooled"? All the witnesses who saw the 'flyover' ... "afraid"? What reasonable, sane, scientific standard would allow this sort of material to be promoted as fact? A 'fact' directly contradicted by extremely strong, cross-corroborated evidence? Do you believe all CIT's "detractors" are "disinfo agents"? Lots of questions... but I find the question about the double standard the most intriguing, because nobody who wishes to maintain any sort of credibility can escape it. This is paradoxical.

Interesting questions

I think the case at hand has more to do with the discord and division than the fact that CIT is pushing a baseless theory.

Kevin has found an acceptable description of the problem that ignores possible motives.

Like "no planes at the WTC", "flyover" has been thoroughly debated and found to be without merit. After a [very long] while, all the arguments had been covered and the repetition became spam IMO.

Should we question the mods? You betcha. Just be civil about it. They are human and fallible but they have a fairly diverse group of people and opinions. They are trying to do their best for this site and the TM. The attacks on them are counterproductive [to put it mildly]. It has become clear that the proponents of the flyover theory are intentionally disrupting and dividing the TM. Adam and Adam on the Kevin Barrett radio show, Barry Zwicker's video and the RCFP article show a pattern of deliberate disruption and division.

There was a sign at the Stewart/Cobert rally that said "Our differences make us interesting, not enemies"

I don't feel it is censorship for the people who manage.........

............a site that is all about a particular issue..........to decide what kind of comments and information are welcome on the site.
911blogger does not have a responsibility to present EVERYBODY's ideas about 9/11.
Basically, if you want to push an agenda not welcomed by 911blogger, then get your own site.

We basically hand over to the media the responsibility to present us with the news and an honest analysis of issues. We DEPEND on that information. In fact, our democracy depends on it, as our founding fathers understood. We cannot guide our government without knowing the reality of our times. For the media to decide that we are not to know all the truth is really treason. If the media is doing this censorship, it is actually making real democracy impossible.

Our mainstream media has let us down. They have censored the truth. Piles of information have been presented to them, by people like Kevin Ryan, and they have decided NOT to present this information to the public, for reasons I cannot prove. This is despicable and criminal in my mind. WE RELY ON THE PRESS, and have given them a special place in our society, to do whatever is necessary to inform the American people of the truth of what our government does.
They have failed us.

Enter the alternative press, particularly on the internet.
Oh, we say, just forget the msm. We don't need them anymore. We have the alternative media now. Progressive and libertarian and tea party and liberal sites. What could be better? If the msm decides to censor the truth, we will find it in these venues.

Well, although there are plenty of small and very honest websites out there, unfortunately the most popular alternative sites have joined the msm and decided that the truth of 9/11 is not to be presented.
I don't want to hear how maybe they don't understand the truth, or haven't heard the truth of 9/11. To me, that is ridiculous. They DO know the truth. They have purposely censored the truth. They need to be criticized as publicly as possible for doing this. Their whole reason for existence, the reasons they have a job, is because we felt we could rely on them for the truth. If they fail us in this, they need to be exposed. Hopefully the reasons they censor 9/11 truth will become obvious, but for now we must at least understand and realize, all of us, that these sites have purposely decided to mislead the American people. They should not isolated from criticism.

Here are a few of the sites that I feel have purposely mislead the American people, censoring the truth of 9/11. If you differ with this list, have more to add, I'd be grateful:


Dear M. Kevin Ryan,

Your support for 911Blogger is most welcome, as we continue to agree that 911Blogger remains one of the best and most highly trafficked sites on 911 Truth. We are extremely grateful to you and your long proven deep commitment to finding out what actually happened on September 11 2001.

Although it is with sadness that I read that “personality conflicts have” seemingly “gotten out of hand” on my preferred 911 Truth site, I also welcome an effort to reflect on why so many well willing and motivated 911 Truth seekers manage to get themselves banned from the site. I do not believe that is in the interest of the debate, and lets face it, it was when a critical mass of these "banned on 911Blogger" highly motivated truth researchers started showing up that the painful discussion about 911Blogger came up in the Rock Free Press, which you have to admit is a really inspiring newspaper, with a formidable collection of excellent back issues.

The contentious November issue with the article you cite is this one: http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf Barry Zwicker is an amazing 9/11 Truther of the first hour who has the added credentials that he has been an astute media-critic decades before 911 happened. We should not just brush him aside, just as we choose not to brush aside Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage.

It is my hope that 911Blogger grows from this head-on confrontation, and addresses a way to be more embracing of the different view-points sometimes too dearly held by certain activists and researchers. The debate will sort this out by winning arguments and more facts proven with science and logic. It has already done so concerning how the three skyscrapers in New-York were brought down by Nano-Thermate. For what the Pentagon is concerned, there still is a discussion about the nature of the low flying object that hit it, but what we all can agree upon is that what is written in the official 9/11 report, on one page that the 90 tons of aluminum evaporated through the heat of the impact and of the ensuing kerosene fire, and then the following page says that each passenger of the aircraft, including the crew and the four alleged highjackers were identified through DNA samplings of tissue found in the Pentagon crash: that we all know is a scientifically proven lie.

It seems pointless to me to discuss the Pentagon, as we already know it is a lie and a cover-up. The FBI & the Pentagon has had 9 years to show us the wreckage, to let us analyze the engine pieces and what was left of the 200 or 300 seats of the plane. It seems a smaller jet carrying a missile hit the Pentagon, I don’t know for sure. All I do know for sure is that the current administration is still pushing the obvious bogus lie about what really happened on 9/11, while they have been totally incapable to substantiate it, except with fiction books like “The Official 9/11 Report” compiled by Philip Zelikow and his well behaved and not curious for 5 cents panel.

Let us make sure not to spill any good energy on in-fighting, and not censure or delete serious and engaged truth seekers.

OUR collective effort for a big open debate is the biggest citizen criminal investigation project of a proven State Crime Against Democracy. We must succeed, and it will not be through “thought control”!

Eric http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth

Questions are one thing

and behavior is another. While differences of opinion will likely continue concerning interpretation of the evidence we have from the Pentagon (as far as I can tell), the real emphasis of Ryan's piece is CIT's behavior in these matters. He contrasts this behavior with how researchers and journalists typically respond when their work is not well received by a particular journal or website.

Show "Dear M. Kevin Ryan," by Scott McKinsey
Show "That was a very good post" by zmzmzm

except for one thing:

Asserting that the few witnesses to a north path is convincing evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon is unfounded. Every witness to the impact, and there are scores recorded, many interviewed, are in effect witnesses to a south path. When you have two sets of witnesses in disagreement there is no strong case.

I think the video interviews of the north path, as presented, are quite misleading. 5 of these witnesses, all those in a position to see the Pentagon, reported that the plane hit the Pentagon. They are actually south side witnesses. Which would be the more deeply etched in memory, the sight of a plane hitting a building or the route the plane took prior to impact? Which would be the more accurate memory?

Can't we stop giving this flyover theory praise and get on with studying the hard evidence?

Thanks Kevin,

It was great to see someone else happy to get there hands a little dirty....

RCFP have done more than cross the line by publishing this attack on 911blogger, they have disconnected themselves from the movement. If they have realized this or if they care is hard to know, but lets hope the ship of fools changes course and make an apology quickly. As we know Rob "tends towards planes at the WTC" Balsamo is not part of the 9/11 Truth Movement and maybe we will see Craig and Aldo make such statements soon and they will take there "flyover ball" and go home...lol...and give up on finding blind exceptence here and at many other reputable sites?

Unfortunately it seems to me that this was orchestrated to do what it has done, so be it:(

Regards John

I believe this happened for three reasons

  • Maintaining a position of agnosticism on the Pentagon ("We don't know what hit it")
  • Avoiding to address questions about the Pentagon by "appeal to consequences" ("Arguments about the Pentagon are bad for the movement")
  • Defending a Pentagon plane crash scenario with faulty arguments ("I know I'm right, the end justifies the means")

Therefore, I think it is time to start forcefully speaking our minds, and address the misconceptions and sometimes embarrassing ignorance on the subject of the Pentagon attack. This movement is not benefited by people who we don't educate about the Pentagon, and as a result start talking about "missiles", "A3 Skywarriors", "commuter planes with missiles", "truck bombs", "wall breaching kits" and "flyover".

We screwed this up because we constantly asked why the Pentagon was hit, and we didn't properly address the question of what hit the Pentagon. You can wish for all these people to start caring about these issues instead, but it's a fool's errand, I'm afraid. Nobody I know cares about 9/11. It's ten years ago. Nobody cares, yet, nobody realizes our collective NATO and national "security" policies are completely framed around and modeled after 9/11. It's hard enough to gain any traction as it is, and moreover, it's hard enough to get to the bottom of 9/11 with research as it is.

I have not 'figured out' 9/11 yet. I do know a plane hit the Pentagon. 9/11 as a whole is a galaxy and the Pentagon plane crash is a mere floating speck of space dust. 9/11 is an event, involving people, places and objects scattered throughout space and time (Over many continents and spanning a time of more than 30 years, or much longer, depending on where you draw 'start' and 'finish' on the timeline)

Yes, what RCFP did was ignominious. But the way this movement has handled the Pentagon has been half-heartedly and ineffectively. Jim Hoffman was one of the first to tackle this problem head on and he deserves credit for it. Had we all adopted his approach we wouldn't be here now. We do know what happened at the Pentagon: a commercial plane hit it, very, very, very likely with people inside. Time to start speaking the truth, and loudly, because we are the Truth Movement, not the "Super Secret Exciting Conspiracy Sideshow Anything Goes"-movement. No more half measures. If we don't speak the truth, we lose, because it is our core value. This is essential.

Thanks for your work and sacrifices John, much appreciated.

This crap

is getting old.

Although I agree that the pentacon theory is not an overwhelmingly strong one and if submitted for public approval, should certainly be presented as such, I see no undeniable proof that it is wrong. If someone knows of arguments on either side that proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be glad to examine it. At this point I have reasonable doubts on both sides of the issue.

I do not understand why 911blogger mods ... or truthers of any stripe ... would want to stifle logical discussion and consideration of it. Where else am I going to find the best material - pro or con - on this issue other than from the movement? Where other than the so-called #1 truth site on the web should I find it?

In addition to maintaining credibility to the PTB and the ruled, ignorant masses, we ought to continue to examine legitimate issues as well as consider the morale of our own. There are many honest truthers on both sides of this issue who should be able to simply agree to disagree AND continue to discuss this dispassionately.

In the meantime, many truthers got their minds freed by pentacon theory. Regardless if it correct or not, it is certainly revealing that the govt chooses to allow such questions to exist in the public's mind. It may continue to yield fruit.They're obviously lying about a number of things about what happened at the pentagon ... it is not ridiculous to highly consider that they're lying about this too ... even if many arguments of logic suggest that it makes no sense.
It made no sense to blow up WTC7 - but they did. They should have simply paid CDI (e.g.or whoever) additional hazard pay to remove the bombs and then conventionally and unsuspiciously 'pull it' - but they didn't.

To Kevin's point, I am disappointed that RCFP gave their blessing and published that article. But lets not point fingers and holler or even insinuate "agent". This, even if true (on either side), is unnecessary if we but continue in broad daylight, seek the truth and pursue justice non-violently. Being human, none of us are above at least some suspicion but are to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And its usually a waste of effort, resources, peace-of-mind and credibility to even pursue such proof.

I, personally, am looking for the movement leadership, including 911blogger and RCFP to now begin efforts toward reconciling the movement's division even if it requires some compromise.

The reason you believe it

is most likely because you don't read contrary evidence that much. This has the same disastrous effects as watching Fox News... exclusively. You can start by perusing the many threads here on 911blogger dedicated to this theory in the past. It has been proven false. Without a doubt.

I think it is high time those of us less prone to buy into poorly supported nonsense got together, faced this problem head on and started aggressively debunking flyover. I already know it's bunk, because of the insane amount of work I put into studying the Pentagon attack. I don't even want to know how much time was spent by Adam Larson, let alone Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. The last two have so much to lose...What a waste.

Actually, I think this line of inquiry is a human tragedy in the making. Moreover, if this hopeless bollocks starts eating away at the foundations of the Truth Movement as it does now, forceful responses, debunkings and rebuttals are going to be forthcoming. If not, prepare for more "surprise endorsements" by gullible suckers and I, for one, have about had it with "flyover".

your comment

regarding your comment "The reason you believe it is most likely because you don't read contrary evidence that much."; it is difficult to believe you even read my post before you replied to it. I don't believe it is likely. I have read much contrary evidence, especially Hoffman.

Then you advised me to peruse the various past threads dedicated to debunking the argument.
But if pentacon theory is thoroughly debunked as you claim then there must be some singular gathered work that you can point me towards or email me with. You yourself claimed that you had to spend an "insane amount of time" debunking it. If you are truly interested in debunking it why wouldn't you want to make it easier for others to come to that conclusion for themselves? Or should we just take your word for it?

I have not posted many comments on this site but I have been visiting this site for 3-1/2yrs and have read thousands of comments ... including many about this various topic. I have seen numerous logic and behavior violations on both sides - including the one you just wrote.

Pentacon theory, until clearly proven wrong, should be thoroughly examined and discussed by the TM without childish name calling, insinuations by either side that the opposing theory is ridiculous, or calling each other agents.

Greg Kramer

"But if pentacon theory is

"But if pentacon theory is thoroughly debunked as you claim then there must be some singular gathered work that you can point me towards or email me with."

It's on the RCFP thread. Yet somehow, people find ways to pretend it doesn't exist.

Please provide a link



I believe SnowCrash refers to his own rebuttal of the Rock Creek Free Press lead article. He did a fairly exhaustive job on that critique. Presumably you saw it? I found it worth reading. There are other posts too, also including links, in that long thread.

I don't know how to link to a specific comment in a thread, or I would do that. But he titled his critique "RCFP's Waterloo."

To link to a specific comment, just click on the subject line

of said comment, in this case:


and you should get SnowCrash's "RCFP's Waterloo" comment.

Well, I thought that would do it, but I guess not (it has in the past, hmmm, not sure what is going on, dagnabbit).

Help!?!? LOL

I hope that you and yours are well.


help the readers review the arguments by providing links

to the main arguments, to the cache of photos of the wreckage, etc.

Since this thread has much to do about the various theories about the pentacon, and to help newbies and oldsters alike review what has been written, please include relevant links.

do we know why DRG has not written extensively about the pentacon? We have KR proposing questions, which are valid and can drive future research, but what other writings of published authors can we all agree on? What is it about the pentacon that remains untouchable?


See my reply to gallenk above.

Thanks for the link 'Student'

I have perused much of it but certainly not all the endless links provided. So far I agree with most of what Snowcrash says ... but I still haven't seen anything that definitively discounts the CIT NoC argument nor pentacon/flyover argument.

I have always thought the pentacon/flyover argument was weak (which has been enough for me to ignore it and not publicly present it) and have added some elements from his 'analysis' further supporting that opinion ... but once again see nothing clearly definitive.

Perhaps DRG feels the same way ... giving credit where it is due and none where it is not. Like it or not, innocent or not, the pentagon crash scene is pretty devoid of convincing physical evidence of a large aircraft crash ... and the NoC eyewitnesses quotes, even considering full contexts, do fairly convincingly present a NoC approach assumption by the eyewitnesses.

I will look further into Snowcrash's endless links but would really appreciate someone pointing me toward the best of the best of them. I do work a full time job and have a large family.

I wonder how any person not familiar with or addicted to TM lore could ever come to a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue during the few minutes of examination their attention span would allow. I'm so glad they did decide to blow up WTC7 !

theres something ironic

about a group of people coming together because of a commonly held opinion about psyops


that's why sometimes 2 perfectly decent people sometimes will both come to the conclusion that the other is an agent / infiltrator

when i started doing some activism i was asked if i was MI6 - shaken not stirred darling!

also i was very sure that a certain person was against me perhaps because they were planted to disrupt- probably at the same time that they were having the same thoughts about me!

but we need to mature and realize that as ideas get discounted in a well- documented fashion, we can change our opinions on things when others help us to understand stuff

i was a "no plane wreck at the pentagonner" before i saw following vid and lots of you guys' opinions on blogger- thanks to all!!!

and i hope some well meaning but misled people (incl BZ) would be welcome back if they repent and self flagulate- no of course not , but if their opinions change not necessarily to fully switch to the ideas of others but as i am, im opening my mind to the possibility that there could well have been a wreck at the pentagon but that the baddies covered it up for the sole purpose of making us build a noose to hang ourselves

i would like to know Barrie if you have seen the above vid, what did you think? - im finding it increasingly credible-
BZ u can email me dont3fanA t gmailDO t co M

Show "Douglas - With all due respect" by dave mann

I like this CIT tour video



I like Chris Sarns' "Summary and Analysis" of National Security Alert.

I could post a hundred and twenty other links to debunk NSA, which you felt compelled to link here, but I'm frankly tired of repeating myself. Chris Sarns alone will do.

Show "I watched about half of that video" by dave mann

Personal attacks: CIT and Steve Storti

Accusing an innocent black cabbie of mass murder, does that count as a 'personal attack'?

Would you agree that these attacks on 9/11 Pentagon witnesses, all traumatized in one way or other, are 'personal attacks'?

I just have to ask, since you posted a link to 'National Security Alert", which means you are participating in these attacks on Pentagon victims and witnesses. Baselessly!

Now, if you want we can get real technical on this issue, trust me. No problem. I'm trying to appeal to your common sense here. Is it working?

I have to agree

I have to agree with Dave Mann about the tour video. It looks like something made solely for people who are already critics of CIT, sharing inside jokes about how much scorn they have for CIT and their proponents, without doing anything to show those who are not so engaged in the debates what is wrong about their claims (whereas, by contrast, the video with the Sorti interview posted in the comment above does do this).

'Frizzy-haired chicks for 9/11 truth'? Having April Gallop thinking of Ranke as a 'cracker'? Just making stuff up for the subtitles that show what Ranke's French interpreter is purported to be saying? Are we supposed to find this funny? Or enlightening? Is this the kind of stuff we're supposed to consider as reflecting well on the 9/11 truth movement? To me, this video kind of makes the whole debate look more like a puerile food fight in a high school cafeteria. Is that what you want?

Point taken

Two wrongs does not make a right.

That said, do you consider posting "National Security Alert" on this thread funny and enlightening? Do you find these attacks on witnesses funny and enlightening? Why the double standard? Are we going to speak out against this too or not? Because I hardly see anybody doing it but jimd3100 and Victoria. Will you join us in condemning these relentless and vicious attacks on all witnesses who don't support CIT's flyover theory?

Thank you for your contributions to 911blogger, rm, I have always enjoyed them. I will consider opening a blog post specifically to allow some discussion about the Pentagon, in order to take the pressure off this thread.

Right rm

and to their opponents they recommend "civility" and complain about "double standards." LOL.

Who is "they"?

I am not "they". I am me. I don't suffer fools gladly, but too much rudeness would degrade the signal to noise ratio and that would be a shame.

Besides, I'm not falsely accusing cabbies of mass murder.

How can you seriously think you can hide

behind - my opponents are rude?!? Ruse.
The video you posted was rude, vicious, vacuous, etc. I invite anyone to say different.

Thanks for the Invitation

Dave Mann said...."The video you posted was rude, vicious, vacuous, etc. I invite anyone to say different."

I thought it was hilarious! That clip was not made to be serious..

I found accusing an INNOCENT cab driver of being a mass murderer with "direct links to the perps" to be "rude, vicious, vacuous, etc. I invite anyone to say different." Those clips were to be taken seriously.

Not funny

I found it just pathetic. Not even funny. An embarrassment.

And I don't even like Ranke and his supporters tactics. I don't defend CIT's claims and accusations about the cab driver, but they did not accuse him of being a mass murderer. You're just feeding the fire with more of the same.

Inflammatory exaggerations, like war. What's it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Very Funny...An example of NOT funny...

liberte said..."they did not accuse him of being a mass murderer. You're just feeding the fire with more of the same."

You're right, in addition to mass murder accomplice CIT also called him a devil and a demon, thanks for reminding me. This was someone willing to tell his story to so called "truthers". The only thing CIT proved was "stay away from "truthers" and don't co operate with them in any way, or you will be sorry"....Gee...isn't that helpful?

Direct Quote from CIT website:

"This means that Lloyde England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder."

"If "demon" isn't a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?" -- Craig Ranke

You were saying?

This caught my attention:

I wanted to find out in what way Craig Ranke had supposedly accused an innocent cab driver of being a mass murderer: so I watchted the 82 minutes of “National Security Alert” that Dave Mann suggested we watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o .

One can argue over the ethics and legality of recording on video conversations that are convened to be “off-camera”, but it seems to me that Craig Ranke’s team has been doing some important “citizen investigation” checking if the officially cited eye-witnesses account of the event concurs with the official story we have been told by the people who confiscated all the security cameras and refuse since 9 years to show us any conclusive evidence of their story that is laced with incoherencies. (It is to be noted that given that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New-York required government security clearance to expertly place the high-tech military-grade nano-thermate, then the Pentagon itself, working as a military black-ops team, is the main current suspect in the destruction inflicted upon it-self on Sept. 11th 2001.)

All of the witness accounts in the “National Security Alert” seemed to me to be quite interesting, although I noted that M. Terry Morin was a former fighter pilot, working as a program manager for a military contractor (Sparta inc) inside the Navy Annex. He would thus have full blown Pentagon security clearance and he is also shown in the film helping out on the Pentagon lawn (on 9/11) to carry away some apparent airplane debris concealed under a big blue plastic sheet. He could thus possibly be “working for the other side” (i.e. the accused government perpetrators side), but this did not seem to be the case with the seven other interviewed eye-witnesses to the approach of the plane.

As for M. Lloyde England, the taxi-driver who has been cited in the official account as having his car speared by a 247 lbs light pole: this information is quite interesting. It is incorrect to say that Craig Ranke is accusing this man of being a mass murderer. The recorded video conversations show a quite confused account, with towards the end M. Lloyde England more or less confessing that he knows powerful people are getting away with a planned crime, and some-how he, a simple man with no involvement in the money and power game, came close to being involved “half-way” with “the event” of those powerful people to whom he does not identify. Here are some quite interesting quotes from the audio-video of this innocent (?) man:

“You know what this story is? Just what I said, you gotta understand what you are saying. It’s not the truth, it’s HIS story! It has nothing to do with the truth, it’s HIS story! This is too big for me man, this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I’m a small man. You know. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. (Craig Ranke: “What are you saying? What do you mean?”) “Well I’m not supposed to be involved with this, I don’t have nothing. (Craig Ranke “So your point is that the people who have all the money…”) “It’s their thing. (Craig Ranke “This is their event.”) “This is for them”. (Craig Ranke: “You mean they’re doing it for their own reasons”?) “That right. I’m not supposed to be in it.” (Craig Ranke: “But they used you, right?) “I’m in it.” (Craig Ranke: “You are in it.”) “Yea, we came close to half-way together. (Craig Ranke: “You and their event.”) “That’s right. (Craig Ranke: “But they must have planned that.”) “It was planned.”

In another discussion, M. Lloyde England said: “One thing about it you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you, eventually it’s going to come to me, and when it comes to me it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothing about it, so it has to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small. You see, to keep it from spreading.”

Given the generally confused impression one has of M. Lloyde England, and his repetition of “it’s HIS story!”, one could advance the possibility that M. England was working under instructions, possibly even hypnotically induced instructions for such a critical role. All of us who study 9/11 must remember that it was a military operation, prepared in great detail: there was no margin for error. It was a work of professionals.

I have not studied all the details of the Pentagon, but I’ve met several people who have told me that friends working within the Pentagon were on gag order. We know for a fact that the three skyscrapers in New-York were not reduced to dust due to the impact of two airplanes piloted by Muslim zealots: it was high-tech military grade nano-thermate that achieved this, in a multi-billion dollar military operation. One could not hope and guess in such an operation that some crazed high-jackers/pilots would succeed in a kamikaze-suicide operation with a margin of error tolerance of zero. In the same way, we can be absolutely sure that minute detail military planning went into staging the so called “Pentagon Attack” and the ensuing cover-up.

Perhaps we should graduate from our respective pet-theories of exactly what happened, and work more seriously as a united movement to agree how we best can take back citizen control from the wolves who have been staging State Crimes Against Democracy in plain sight.

A recommended action item, facing those wolves with our own Wolf, is studying Naomi Wolf's book : "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries" http://www.amazon.com/Give-Me-Liberty-Handbook-Revolutionaries/dp/141659...

We are at a critical phase of the 9/11 Truth movement: more and more people are awakening to the reality of these SCADs, and it is a time to act decisively TOGETHER, irrespective if we think it was a 757, a fly-over, a remote controlled sky-hawk warrior with a missile or some other remote controlled plane at the Pentagon: we know for a fact it was staged with no room for error, that is the bottom line, and we know the perpetrators are still at large, within our own “security” apparatus, still capable of staging more false flag attacks, and manipulating us.

Our collective awakening will make this much harder for them!

Eric http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth

My 2010 Halloween costume--An Arlington Cabbie

drbeeth said...."Lloyde England said...."

Not only that...but I heard his wife is known as "The Cleaner"........scarry and spooky huh?

"If "demon" isn't a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?" -- Craig Ranke

WOW! This is Really scary stuff!! Or maybe he's just an old guy that drives a cab being slandered by Pentagon No planers with an Agenda? Tough call huh?

Point also taken

Yes, those are good examples in that recent comment from jimd3100 that you linked too. They do indeed have a double standard--deploring the attacks that they say have been made on witnesses who support the north of Citgo approach, but seemingly having no compunction when it comes to attacking witnesses whose testimony goes against their theory.

And of course, it is wrong that they do this. Critical or skeptical evaluation of a witness' statements is one thing; accusation of lying is another. Of course, in any controversy, there can be the possibility that some witnesses are lying or are somehow influenced in what they say at the expense of the truth. This consideration, though, can't make us lose sight of the need to be fair with people. And besides basic fairness, there's also the 'crying wolf' factor--the risk that false testimony might still be believed by people because skeptics have resorted to the charge of people being liars or plants too readily before.

I like this CIT tour video - Not!

I like this CIT tour video
Submitted by SnowCrash
I like Chris Sarns' "Summary and Analysis" of National Security Alert.

* * * * *

I would rather you did not mention my S&A in the same post with the CIT tour video. I think it is stooping to their level.

Also: The argument that has evolved from it has derailed the subject of this thread and wandered into points that have been made and argued many, many times.

Kevin Ryan has made a very important point. Please stay on point.
If you want to argue the Pentagon evidence, start another thread.


I'm working on it.

great animation, but still missing important details

I just saw this video for the first time and wonder why the creators didn't include pictures of the gapping hole in the side of the 'gon. they could marry/superimpose real photographic imagery with graphic animation. They could show the hole and the intact side of the building and then show how the plane disappeared into that hole. Why didn't they finish the job to help us see conclusively how this happened?

I also wonder if there are any additional images of the wreckage that weren't included in the vid. for example, I'd really like to see pictures of luggage, passenger seating, etc. do these photos exist? if so links, please.

Old threads

I would rather not see old threads revived needlessly, and I would rather not avoid discussion about the Pentagon here either.

"I would rather not avoid discussion here either"

Sorry, snowcrash, I guess I'm slow but I dont get your point. Dont get mad, be patient with me.
As to the old threads - those with TWO sides represented - I can understand you'd like to let those be forgotten about. All bow down to the new consensus I guess.

I'm already doing it

and I'm actually listing those old threads you think I want to abscond. This is not the case at all. Moreover, I'm going to refrain from commenting further on this thread.

NIST- Don't Let Them off the Hook

Thanks for placing your voice front and center on this one Kevin. The debate must refocus on evidence gathering and analysis and a strategic outreach to folks in the places whose data provides the backbone for the official story.

even with......

moderators, rules, restrictions and yes, banning certain bloggers, 911Blogger is light years ahead of RCFP in both accessibility and in publishing credible content. I have no doubts that 911Blogger will continue to grow in its service to the movement. RCFP? Doubts continue to accumulate.

Thank you, Kevin, for helping us sharpen our observation skills.

Can we all move on now?

Great article...


Show "My sources are usually the horse's mouth" by Kerberos

Wondering if I can post or if I am banned or "in moderation"

No point in making comments if they are not posted. I was "put into moderation" because of a song I posted. I thought the song was germane, but apparently one of the moderators did not and decided to "put me into moderation" despite the fact that I have posted here for years and always been civil.