Michael Shermer making documentary about "conspiracy theories" for CBC


Michael Shermer
Publisher of "Skeptic" magazine
Posted: December 14, 2010 06:20 PM

My Day in Dealey Plaza: Why JFK was Killed by a Lone Assassin

On Tuesday, December 7, I walked through and around Dealey Plaza in Dallas where JFK was assassinated by a lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). Or was he? A lone assassin, that is? Yes, he was, but that is not what anyone giving informal tours of the plaza will have you believe if you give them a few minutes (and a few bucks).

I was in town filming a documentary for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The subject was conspiracy theories, so it was with some irony that we happened to be filming on December 7 because there are many conspiracy theories surrounding that date as well, a date that will live in infamy, as Franklin Roosevelt so crowned that fateful day in 1941, because he supposedly either helped orchestrate the attack on Pearl Harbor or else he knew about the attack and allowed it to happen in order to galvanize the American public into supporting England against the Nazis and getting the United States into the war.

There is no more to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory than there is that President Bush helped orchestrate 9/11 or knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to unite the American public into supporting his wars of aggression in the Middle East. Nevertheless, there is something particularly appealing to conspiracy theorists when they describe "what really happened" in their alternative universe of events. You can see it in their eyes when they begin to talk about what "they" want or don't want you to know about said event.

This was certainly the case for me when I interviewed several conspiracy theorists hanging around Dealey Plaza that day. Their eye light up and they grow ever more animated (and even agitated) as their story grows in complexity about all the different people, elements, and events that almost miraculously (it would be a miracle in most re-tellings) came together to assassinate JFK. One fellow had so many people involved in the assassination that they would have needed a small sports arena to meet to plan out the day. This improbability seems to bother conspiracy theorists not one tiny bit, as they spin out their narratives, drawing you down their causal pathway that resulted in the end of Camelot.

The most striking thing about being in Dealey Plaza for me was how small it is. Perhaps because the assassination itself was bigger than life we expect the geography to match the eventuality, but that is certainly not the case here. Two X's on the street mark where JFK was hit: first in the throat causing his arms to move up and splay out, and second where the bullet found its cranial mark and literally blew his brains out (and, according to one conspiricist there, sent the skull cap flying across the street and onto the adjacent lawn). What is astounding is how close both X's are to the sniper's next in the Book Depository building. Both from the street level looking up and from the window looking down (there is a museum on the sixth floor from which you can gain the perspective of the assassin), it seems clear that Oswald could hardly have missed. Given the fact that he was designated a sharpshooter by the Marines during his time in the service, and the fact that Kennedy's car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour after making the sharp left turn onto Elm street, one is left whispering under one's breath, "Kennedy was a sitting duck."

Look at the two photographs at the top of this post, each taken from one of the X's on the street (I tried to snap a pic from the sniper's nest, but this must be a problem for the museum because in addition to "No Photography" signs there is a guard standing there the entire time). The window from which Oswald fired is the square window on the far right of the building, second from the top.

Is it really necessary to invent additional assassins when it is obvious that one could have done the job? No. LHO acted alone in killing JFK. QED.

Follow Michael Shermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelshermer


How clueless.

The Global War on Terror

Janet thinks Osama shops at Walmart but I think he's at Target.

With 85-90% of American adults Not Believing the Official JFK...

story, Shermer further erodes any shred of cred he may have had.

People are going to see him for what he truly is.

Smarmy Shermy

Shame on the CBC for giving this smarmy disingenouos POS a soapbox for his disinformation crap.


of yawns

There is one little tale

There is one little tale about Shermer that I'll tell. It's the weakest moral victory of all time, but, hey, he's got the HuffingtonPost and the CBC and all the "liberals" on his side, so you take what you can get, ya know?

So, Shermer was debating a guy named Stephen Myers regarding intelligent design.* My opinion was that Myers was intelligent, passionate, and lucid whereas Shermer was ignorant, routinely brought up non sequitur "arguments", and, to be blunt, kind of effeminate and unlikable. So anyway, Shermer seems to have the sense that he's been outclassed six ways to Sunday in the discussion, and so he's trying to compensate with these lame jokes. At the end of the discussion, this exchange occurred:

MICHAEL SHERMER: Why would an intelligent designer, in terms of the human body, put a waste disposal system right in the middle of a recreational area? That's what I wanna know.

[Giggling from the pro-Shermer crowd. Myers, though, gets a mischievous smirk on his face....]

STEPHEN MYERS: I've never really had any complaints about that system.

Game, set, match.


*Not to get off-topic - again, I believe that most everybody at this site and in 9/11 Truth (and Justice, as I call it) are seeking justice for murder, which definitively trumps any other political or sociological difference - but I believe that the overarching theory of intelligent design is very insightful and valid. I'm not saying this to start a debate on that subject here (although I'll be happy to talk about it at my blog!) but I've always found many parallels between the intelligent design advocates and 9/11 Truth (and Justice) in that both are repeatedly misrepresented by the media and the meat of their arguments is wantonly ignored by the mainstream media and supposed "liberals". Essentially, the core ideas and arguments of both groups are just totally ignored and/or covered up.

Good post

Thanks CFS. I see the same parallels you do (and I share your disinclination to argue about it in this forum). The same is true with a number of topics which have been suppressed in academia and in the public discourse.

You mentioned a word that I use advisedly, since it can rub some folks the wrong way. I'll repeat it here once, in that I give three reasons why the True Believers cannot / will not see what was really behind 9/11. Those reasons are (1) ignorance, (2) stupidity, and (3) effeminacy. And not necessarily in that order.

It's the third reason which is often responsible for the first two. The ignorance certain individuals maintain is a sort of enforced, self-imposed ignorance, lest they be forced to face a truth that is simply too painful. Stupidity is adequate to explain some cases, but I know too many people who are blessed with a high degree of intelligence yet refuse to see the forest for a few trees. Only the third reason can really account for this failure.

If I can ever find a word that conveys the same meaning, I'll replace it. Not as eloquent as Prof. Griffin's explanation of wishful, paradigmatic thinking et al., but it'll do in a pinch.

Intelligent design

If Shermer cannot successfully debate i.D and not destroy it it demonstrates what a stupid fool he is.


Yeh its the same with man-made global warming skepticism and vaccine criticism and many other anti-establishment views that Shermer and his ilk generally call 'Denialism'. I've listened to just about every ID debate on the internet, and Shermer is in a number of them. Every time he makes the same claims that get refuted, and sometimes he even concedes to the other side's counter arguments. Yet in the next debate he repeats those claims again. I just cannot understand the mentality. There is definately some deep world view conflict behind all these issues.


ID and 911 Truth have nothing in common

"but I've always found many parallels between the intelligent design advocates and 9/11 Truth"

Speaking for myself, as a scientist, I can assure you that I do not subscribe whatsoever to the ideas of ID. Associating ID with the science of 9/11 Truth is not only inconsistent, but it is, in my opinion, damaging to the goal of exposing the crimes of 9/11. I would add that that analogy also applies to deniers of AGW and 9/11 Truth.

Show "Hark! He declares!" by CameronFanSite

For the record

I think Shermer is completely disingenuous. I also disagree with him about vaccinations and their anecdotal links to autism. Shermer's opinions are clearly self-serving, and they change based on which way the wind blows, and how he can not only promote himself and his magazine, but get paid at the same time.

Shermer once denied AGW actually, until he, from what I gather, realized that the tide of speaking engagements was declining. Shermer clearly isn't interested in the scientific method, but uses it for rhetorical purposes only.

Show "That's good. But I don't" by CameronFanSite

I disagree with your claim

I disagree with your claim that Shermer is a conscious liar and therefore an accessory in murder. I just think he's deeply deluded. I mean if the Randi/Shermer followers over at JREF can be so deluded to believe the official story, then so can Shermer and Randi themselves. Ego is a funny thing. South Park really weren't exaggerating when they made that 'Fishsticks' episode lol.

And cburn if you don't think ID has anything in common with 9/11 truth, I encourage you to watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"... If you watch it with an open mind, you'll see their story isn't all that different.


Five weeks in

and you're already barking commands about what we should think and what direction the movement should go.

Your unabashed, swashbuckling arrogance, your use of gratuitous hyperboles, lack of composure, your sarcastic jabs and your biting invective is wearing very thin with me, and I suspect with others as well.

"In short, you agree with Michael Shermer on everything (..) with the lone exception of 9/11."


"But you still agree with everything else Shermer says outside of 9/11."

This, CameronFanSite, is known as the well poisoning fallacy.

I resent the comparison, which you introduced, between 9/11 Truth and intelligent design.

The former is a quest for truth and justice, founded by the family members of victims of a catastrophic terrorist attack, and the latter is a banal exercise in belief reinforcement, religious fundamentalist brainwashing, negationism and anti-science sophistry.

There is no comparison, and I'm repeatedly embarrassed and annoyed by the anti-scientific jibber-jabber stuffed into the Big Tent by some 9/11 Truthers. I fully intend to stuff it out again. And remember, it was you who brought it up.

As for humanity's effects on the climate, it would serve you well to read this August 2002 publication in Nature: Contrails reduce daily temperature range, which demonstrates how the grounding of all air traffic on 9/11 revealed the effects of Global Dimming, which is equally disastrous as anthropogenic global warming but acts as a mitigator.

Show "First off, you have zero clue" by CameronFanSite


i checked your blog
now i have revised my opinion about you
im in the uk and had thought you were a fan of our new pm
now i know you are a fan of the epic film maker james cameron
a better move
im a slow learner :
it took me the best part of a year to find out what the folks here are about and that theyre not infected with disinfo agents!!
and to find the precious tracker button...and to realise that the buttons to vote arent next to where it says votes!!
its got better over that time too i think- screwballs banned
ive been in trouble with the mods here for spamming but i had good intentions
anyway i've learned very important stuff here

welcome, a monthish in , and pls learn from the snowy one-
i dont agree with snowc's opinion on everything eg voltairenet but if we had 100% identical opinions that would be as scary as the real meaning of the unicorn model made from cigarette box silver paper in bladerunner...

youre creative so ill keep on watching out for your blog entries


"First off, you have zero clue what I've done for 9/11 Truth & Justice."

Go ahead and list your accomplishments. Do they include barking directions at members of a blog you've only recently been initiated to? So far, it doesn't look very good. I don't particularly care who you are. I care about what you're saying to others here, and the topics you inject into the conversation.

"Third off, when I mentioned intelligent design, it was in a polite, relevant, and delicate way. "

Let's have a look at your track record, shall we?

On: Raw Story: Geraldo ‘much more open minded’ about 9/11 thanks to NYC television ads

(I'm not saying you're moronic, but any argument put forth by, like, neo-debunkers.)Tue, 2010-11-16, reply to Douglas Hilton


This is an absolutely moronic diversion.Tue, 2010-11-16, reply to Vesa


So somebody sure does need to "wake up"....people in the 9/11 Truth community.Tue, 2010-11-16, reply to Lullaby Academy


Anyway, if you think that it's worth your while to keep on focusing on the people who love talking about Sarah Palin's clothes and Tiger Woods's groupies and all of this other absolutely trivial crap that the pop news networks cover, then that's your affair, not mine. I think it's wasteful and demonstratively useless, but, when push comes to shove, to each his own.Tue, 2010-11-16, reply to kdub


Dude, I don't know what to tell you.

I think that centralizing and fawning over all the MSNBC/Fox/CNN/ABC, etc., etc., etc. media lumps of vanity is a waste of time and, honestly, kind of servile and effeminate. You obviously disagree and you pine for the approval of all the media personalities who mean absolutely nothing to me.


But, ya know, different strokes for different folks.Wed, 2010-11-17, reply to kdub

On: Olbermann wonders if FOX should Fire Judge Napolitano For Being A 9/11 Truther - 11/24/10

Once again, we get the truth from a great libertarian, and then the mainstream media "liberals" - when they're shown courage and leadership - have the opportunity to follow, and instead theydivert and digress like the murder-loving cowards they all are.Fri, 2010-11-26, reply to blubonnet [Keith Olbermann lost multiple friends in the 9/11 attacks ]


Straws grasped for....but not swiped.Fri, 2010-11-26, reply to ConcernedCitizen

On: 9/11 Family Group: Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera Are Right to Question Building 7 Collapse

So....these monsters mock 9/11 Truth (and Justice, as I like to say) for years, they go out of their way to ignore the innumerate family members who've called for 9/11 Truth (and Justice), they cherry-pick quotes, they disparage a highly-regarded man who exudes sincerity like Andrew Napolitano....

....And you think writing letters to them is going to magically make them honest.

That's like saying that reading the Ten Commandments to Jeffrey Dahmer would've made him stop being a serial killer. It's like saying that talking to Butch Cassidy about property rights would've stopped him from stealing. That's like saying writing letters to Coca Cola is going to convince them to stop selling soda.

Dude, grow up. These mainstream media "liberals" and "progressives" are murder-loving phonies cloaked in warm-hearted compassion. Their "rebelliousness" is as much of an act as gay actor Neil Patrick Harris's womanizing on TV is. The writer of that article absolutely knew about 9/11 Truth, because he quoted it and cited it extensively in the article! What more could they POSSIBLY due to expose themselves as willful liars? It's like these dudes you see trying to talk to reporter Jonathan Kay, whose been attending 9/11 Truth rallies for years, only to mock and undermine them in his newspaper. They all know that he's been doing this for years, but like trailer trash battered wives, these media-worshiping doofuses continue to go up to him, "Mr. Kay! Mr. Kay! Will you please give us your approval! We need the approval of the mainstream media!"

THOMAS WOODS: Scratch a “progressive” and you find a neocon with sandals. The attacks on the Judge tell you all you need to know: they prefer the neocons to a consistent advocate of liberty. They attack the neocons now and again, to be sure, but not in the career-destroying mode they reserve for actual dissidents.

Write them letters. Hilarious.Thu, 2010-12-02, reply to blubonnet

On: 9/11 Families Demand Apology from Media Matters

[ About Amy Goodman ] (...) Don't indulge (supposed) phony excuses from narcissistic "liberals". We're talking about the murder of 3,000 Americans and the subsequent killing of countless millions of defenseless Arabs. There is ZERO excuse to lie about this. Ever.Thu, 2010-12-02, reply to jonathan mark


I tend to be conservative, too. (And, to be honest, it seems to be like the best and most pioneering work in 9/11 Truth was done by paleo conservatives and libertarians.)

In my opinion, the "liberal" and "progressives" - epitomized here by Media Matters - are way more destructive than any "conservative" organization just because they're so much more insidious and deceitful. When you're dealing with neocons or their stooges, you know what you're getting: a bunch of homicidal, Viagra-popping freaks with no morality. When you're dealing with "liberals", you're lulled into a sense of calm or outright trust. But in fact, it's a pure act. Like I wrote before, the "liberals" on MSNBC and Comedy Central and Media Matters and wherever else are about as subversive and rebellious as gay actor Neil Patrick Harris is a womanizer. They're all just acts.

Basically, I'd rather battle a wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing.Thu, 2010-12-02, reply to JTL

[ After trying to pretend he didn't just claim multiple times that not only is 9/11 Truth squarely advanced by conservatives and libertarians, but that liberals and progressives are murder-loving cowards and neocons with sandals... ]

(Honestly, I have no interest in the little reductionist chart or any other political debates about Obama or "socialism" or Sarah Palin and guns or anything else of the sort. ...)Thu, 2010-12-02, reply to Danse


Now let's move along. I really don't want any more of my statements clumsily misunderstood or any of my quotes taken out of context. Most of all, I don't want to waste time.Thu, 2010-12-02, reply to Danse

On: “BuildingWhat?” Appears on Geraldo At Large on FOX News

I can only speak for myself (in fact, you probably shouldn't ask posters here to speak on behalf of countless strangers) (...)Tue, 2010-11-16, reply to Robert Rice


(Once again, Alex Jones leads people down the logical and right direction ...)Tue, 2010-12-07, reply to Nor Cal Truth [ ... Only Alex Jones.. because he's not one of those awful murder-loving liberals of course ]

On this thread:

I'm not saying this to start a debate on that subject here (although I'll be happy to talk about it at my blog!) but I've always found many parallels between the intelligent design advocates and 9/11 Truth (and Justice) in that both are repeatedly misrepresented by the media and the meat of their arguments is wantonly ignored by the mainstream media and supposed "liberals". Tue, 2010-12-14


Hark! He declares!

Thanks for your declarative statements there, pal. Everybody's now so much more enlightened because you read from your Greek scrolls and dictated the divine truth to us all.

In short, you agree with Michael Shermer on everything (yeah, yeah, yeah: he's effeminate and kinda creepy, but that's okay) with the lone exception of 9/11. When I see people wantonly lying about a given subject, they lose all credibility with me unless and until they give an affirmative apology. But you still agree with everything else Shermer says outside of 9/11.

(It's also kinda funny that I was pretty delicate and qualified my remarks about intelligent design, and then you just stomp over and basically yell, "Lo! Intelligent design is bunk and global warming is real! So it has been said by I, and so it forever shall be!" Anyway, this obviously isn't the forum for either discussion about how intelligent design is evil or how anthropogenic global warming is real and going to kill us all - boy, you sure sound like Shermer! But if you want to talk about that stuff, I'll be more than happy to do so at my blog or, if you have one, at yours. I definitely like being provocative, but I refuse to do anything that will definitely divide people up when we are all, theoretically, seeking truth and justice about a mass murder.)Wed, 2010-12-15, reply to cburn


I think people like Shermer are accessories to murder and should be prosecuted.

Anyway, I only mentioned intelligent design - in a qualified and polite manner (...) I also politely and parenthetically (literally) said that I personally think that there are similarities between people who've researched intelligent design and 9/11 Truth and Justice.

But it was you who then suddenly started talking about your opinions about manmade global warming and intelligent design and all the rest of this stuff, really sticking your opinions down everybody's throats with your declarative statements. (Seriously, you should've just started your post with, "Hark!")

Your opinions on those subjects is complete and total immaterial to 9/11. To the extent that you wanna spout your opinions about irrelevant subjects, I think the least you can do is be polite about it.

Like I said, I'll be happy to talk about these things, but not at this site.Wed, 2010-12-15, reply to cburn


(And, no, I'm not going to waste my time reading a report claiming that mankind understands the global climate. Dudes can't even tell me whether a baseball game is going to be rained out or not this evening and then they want me to believe that they can predict everything twenty years out. Right.)

Fourth off, like I very politely said, I have no interest in arguing intelligent design. (Honestly, it sounds like you two don't know anything, anyway.) If you really, really want to, then give me your blog or you can go to my blog, which is in my profile. But I have zero interest in debating with you here.Thu, 2010-12-16, reply to me just now.

So what do we have? A constant stream of invective hurled against anything deemed 'leftist', 'liberal' and 'progressive'. Homophobic innuendo, (gay this, effeminate that) and insults that are often lead in with "Honestly, I...", as if your so-called honesty equals veracity and excuses your bull-in-a-china-shop rants.

Introduction of, intermixing and comparisons of unscientific, fringe nonsense with 9/11 truth; then admonishments about not wanting to debate the topics you yourself introduced. Inflammatory ad hominems, loud and obnoxious derision and provocations, foolhardy assertions and a complete lack of humility and respect, in the span of only five weeks, supposedly legitimized by efforts for 9/11 Truth you assert I have 'zero clue' about.

No, I guess I don't, maybe because I just haven't seen your actions.

About the nonsense of comparing weather predictions to climate modeling, see here. But hey, you can't even bothered to read a scientific paper in Nature, so why should I expect any attitude improvement.

"Intelligent design" is abject nonsense concocted by religious fundamentalists in a last, desperate and pathetic bout to cast doubt on Darwin's findings. Yes, I'm a skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist.

Why, for Pete's sake, am I my wasting my time writing this exhaustive response to another one of your insolent screeds? Dunno. I must be bored. Or it must be that your latest series of provocations were the last straw.

I don't know anything? Try me, joker. Five weeks. Unbelievable. Respect has to be earned CameronFanSite.

Show "Cree-fricking-py. I never" by CameronFanSite

I agree

It seems that he's (CameronFan) either got a disruptive style or agenda.


The OP is Shermer and his documentary on 'conspiracy theories'- he referenced 9/11, Pearl Harbor and primarily JFK his trip to Dealey Plaza

The topic is not ID or CFS, or any other user.

This is a warning to everyone; 911Blogger is not a message board. While threads naturally meander off-topic and back on, keep your comments focused on the topic, not other users and stuff not directly related to the OP. And keep your comments civil.

These comments will stay up for the record.

Arianna Huffington

The Huffington Post had courage at one time. Part 1 is still online. Part 2 was taken off.


Comments to part ! are 100% pro-truth seeking/revealing.

At some point our wonderful media will have to acknowledge their base, namely the readers. They become, at best, an irrelevant sham once their readers know more, far more, than they are allowed to admit.

Schermer the squirmer

"Both from the street level looking up and from the window looking down (there is a museum on the sixth floor from which you can gain the perspective of the assassin), it seems clear that Oswald could hardly have missed."


I'm glad to see Schermer's bothered. He's right up there at the top of my shit list.

You know who could hardly have missed? Jack Ruby.

Thanks for the video


That's the coup that paved the way to


perhaps if the CIA hadn't doctored the zapruder film in it's eastmen kodak facility then bill could have added on the bit beforehand when JFK's car slowed massively

Bill Hicks

I sure miss Bill Hicks. 9-11 and the anthrax attacks aren't funny, but neither is Kennedy getting his brains blown out. But Bill Hicks could still make people laugh and think at the same time. I feel robbed not getting his take on the 9-11/anthrax attacks.


Here's my favorite tribute:

The guy who originally made it disappeared from Youtube, this is a copy. Don't know for how long it's going to be here.

I would love

to have seen Bill Hicks using 911 on his shows. If he thought that Kennedy was a big deal, well he ain't seen nothing yet with 911. I can imagine him going completely out of his mind on the various issues, the buildings, the planes, the hijackings, passports, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice etc etc.
Too bad his ride ended a bit early.

Could someone write to HuffPo / Shermer that...

... even according to the official story, Kennedy was assassinated as part of a conspiracy:

"The [United States House Select] committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy."



This is truly a pathetic display by the CBC.

Shermer puts up photos of JFK, 911, Aliens and the Lochness monster -- all in one!

He's about as skeptical as a little boy at a monster truck rally.

Guv stories - true.

Non-guv stories - false.

Kooky stories are equivalent to non-guv stories.

Any questions?

The best response to his "documentary" is laughter, nothing else.


Danse, have you heard...

They're framing you:


Don't let these people get to you, you hear me? You're a hero to all of us here and nothing is going to change that.


And look at this:

"Update: Looks like someone was able to guess Clay Duke's password—the account has been commenting on its own posts, and joined the group "R.I.P. Clay Duke, a Martyr for Class Warfare." We're still confident that the account originally belonged to the real Clay Duke, as it was created before Tuesday's shooting, and most of the updates referred to in this post occurred on Dec. 8.

Okay, never mind all that—the Clay Duke running around Facebook joining groups is a new Clay Duke with an account built to be exactly like the real Clay Duke account."

Cached version

In the original, the part up to "Okay never mind all that", is striked through....So there is an account "built to be exactly like the real Clay Duke account".

But... supposedly after the fact. How convenient. A suicide note on Facebook. Completely unattributable to the actual person.

Jesus Christ

Well that's alarming.

Either way I don't see how any of this reflects on my work.

Human Resources actually has a whole section devoted to multiple-murder-as-primitive-narcissistic-rebellion or "frustration-aggression" sublimated onto minorities or innocent bystanders.

I'm no JD Salinger but we don't blame him for the assassination of John Lennon.

If anyone attempts to link my work with this mentally disturbed individual and his actions they clearly haven't watched my films. I do not advocate violence and I condemn the targeting of innocent people in all shapes and forms.

P.S. Thanks for the heads of SnowCrash. Yikes.

Your work

"Either way I don't see how any of this reflects on my work. "

It doesn't. In fact, as you describe, your work predicts this sort of behavior as a symptom of a diseased society, where the psychological stresses of a competitive society drive human beings to violent excesses.

I'm glad you're taking it so well. There are appear to be some dark corners on the internet where debunkers gather and they seem to always have the 'scoop' on 'links' between violence and dissent. I find that strange.

Danse's films

Shermer is a moron. The (alleged) citing of Danse's films by the suicide guy is, in my opinion, more disturbing and more important for 911Blogger. Danse: I don't know whether you want to draw further attention to this or not, but the issue raised by SnowCrash surely deserves its own thread. If this is a set up we should be trying to figure it out and trying to determine how to help.

It gets worse...

Here's a screenshot from the article over at PrisonPlanet:

He links to Danse's site first? He also links to We Are Change & John Doraemi's blog Crimes of the State, which doesn't appear to be active anymore.


Thank you Snowcrash, Satya, Lullaby,

This is the last sort of of publicity I want or need, so for now perhaps under the radar is the best approach. If it blows up I'll write an article on the subject. For now, it looks like few if any of the MSM articles are pointing to my work as a motivating factor, which of course it wasn't, though an enterprising shill could cloud the case.

This is crazy. I make a film in which I portray the mass murderer as a sad tool of divide and conquer by elites, and some would be mass murderer cites my work in his suicide note!

I have no hatred for the man. I'm only thankful he didn't manage to hurt anyone except himself. I've been reading up and it appears he was bipolar. I feel we will have more and more of these incidents as the economy crumbles and people have fewer and fewer venues to express their rage. 99 percent of the mentally ill are non-violent, but people tend to ape what occurs in their own society, mentally ill or not.

The state is the ultimate role model, and the state is ultra violent. I am not. And my films do not endorse violence, especially against the innocent.

I wouldn't worry about it Danse...

Like you said, Salinger didn't make Chapman kill Lennon. A nut is a nut, period. Even though your subject matter is dark, I've interpreted nothing but beauty and enlightenment from your films. If an "enterprising shill" out there wants to make something out of it, linking this guy to 9/11 Truth, I expect they'd go after We Are Change first. The MSM is already making the V for Vendetta case. This poor bastard was obviously in a very bad place to begin with...it makes no difference if he was watching Little House on the Prairie. One thing's for sure, Media Matters doesn't dare mess with us this time.


Thanks Lullaby A -- aka he or she of the most original name on blogger --

I did a news search and it's all about V for Vendetta. I liked that film, BTW, except for an unfortunate scene in which some guy robs a mom and pop store and screams "Anarchy in the UK!". If I'm not mistaken, that scene made the original graphic artist disassociate himself from the film itself. He argued that anarchism is not about robbing the middle class by gun point. That's the state's job -- and her corporations.

This poor chap was obviously in a very, very bad place, and clung to to his "progressive" websites as justification for his ensuing would-be atrocity. I only wish he spoke to friends and family beforehand, or did he have any? Did he have any support network at all?

In a socially atomized society, people feel desperate, frightened and alone. In keeping with the John Wayne themes of rugged individuality and manly, avenging violence, he struck out at anyone and everyone.

Any attempt to "explain" the actions of a Clay Duke are met with derision. What are you, a bleeding heart liberal? Yet without understanding we can't stop these sorts of acts. All the naked scanners in the world will not prevent a man properly motivated.

When did understanding become a dirty word?

Thanks Lullaby

Your good-hearted nature will win in the end.

I don't know about you

but I feel a bit haunted by our discussion of the France Télécom suicides. Like you, I'm glad he managed to hurt nobody but himself. Judging from his body language, he wasn't open to reason anymore and had his mind made up about how he was going to end it.

Looking at Media Matters: there seems to be no report. Some mention in the comment section, I believe, but apart from that, just silence. Which, incidentally, in my opinion speaks loudly, and not on their behalf.

Contrast that with the Byron Williams case: just look at this title:

RW blogosphere's silence over Beck-inspired shooting speaks volumes

The bitter irony. I think the lesson here is that anybody will cite anything to justify any criminal act. (Which emphatically does not mean we should stop listening) I'm not about to demonize this man, though, we live in a society that exasperates mental despair.... but I don't have to tell you, you've analyzed this in depth in your film.


I do find it a little strange that virtually zero news networks have included the final passage in his suicide note -- which was a link to my website. However I am ultimately glad for this apparent oversight.

Increasingly, and regardless of political persuasion, many Americans feel that they have no avenues whatsoever through which to pursue their grievances. People are isolated, frightened, and above all, angry. In Europe , people can channel this rage into productive political action -- whether forming or participating in a union or joining comrades on the front lines. In America, the union movement was long ago decimated.

At the heart of the issue is the social isolation inherent to modern capitalist society.

In many “third world” countries or “primitive” socieities, social solidarity is much more pronounced, class hierarchies much less so. A study by the World Health Organization found that “People with schizophrenia, a deadly illness characterized by hallucinations, disorganized thinking and social withdrawal, typically do far better in poorer nations such as India, Nigeria and Colombia than in Denmark, England and the United States. The astounding result calls into question one of the central tenets of modern psychiatry: that a "brain disease" such as schizophrenia is best treated by hospitals, drugs and biomedical interventions.” (Washington Post)

In the absence of strong community bonds, meaningful participation in social and political life (even if on a local scale), and any sort of purpose other than acquiring objects, it should not be surprising that increasing numbers of people are lashing out in violent and counter-productive ways.

If the United States had a functioning “left”, in which people were able to channel their frustrations into meaningful and peaceful activism in support of the common good, perhaps the Joe Stacks and Clay Dukes of the world would put away their guns (no, I am not advocate of "gun control"). Until then, we can expect more seemingly “random” acts of violence in which suicide notes are written in the blood of innocent victims.

PS - Snowcrash and Lullaby, drop me a line at the contact link at Metanoia films.

altho salinger didn’t make chapman kill lennon. . .

...there is significant circumstantial evidence indicating that “someone” programmed chapman to be a manchurian candidate type assassin. see “who killed john lennon?” by fenton bressler http://www.amazon.com/Killed-John-Lennon-Fenton-Bresler/dp/0312034520.


I think this is a good time to remind others where the opinion of the mental health professionals opinions, which are favorable to us. I wish we could use material out of the issue of AMERICAN BEHAVIOR SCIENTIST. Darn. Any one have any insights or ideas how to make that happen?

And, as to how to counter that perception of us as "kooks" when the professionals in the field, who have the credentials to determine "good mental health" versus "out of balance mental health" we win that contest too. High school physics? We score 100%. They score 0. The simplicity, and obviousness, solidness of, and irrefutable case we would have if an actual investigation took place! Which is why it is poo pooed. They know what the outcome would be. So obviously the media ties are tight with some big players like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher quite a few FOXes, except for a few valiant men of honor, Geraldo and Judge N. Many that spoke out saw their careers get trashed. Some do it anyway. Self serving or humanity is what it comes down to. We know they are not so stupid as to believe the fairy tale of the "gubmint". As it stands, we also know that the many a citizen, at this point are fearing our information about anything now. They literally, I believe are fearing their own objectivity, knowing at some horrifying level of their consciousness, we are right. Their hesitancy to think literally puts us further into a regime of an internationally, lawless nation, and no amount of flag waving will prevent this if they don't wake up.

Well, if someone is going to

Well, if someone is going to call him "Schermer the Squirmer" I am going to have to call his publication, instead of Skeptic, more appropriately "Septic". Cowards are more common, than I'd ever realized until this phenomenon of denial which spans a vast stretch of our population, literally the question that makes all look at the opposing view, in disgust and astonishment, that they continue to hang on to all rationale, the one you are trying to wake up from this self destruct mode the US of A is presently in, has to abandon his own capacity for honest, objective evaluation, especially with all pieces of the puzzle already more than obvious, and easy for anyone to be able to piece together. It's either utter stupidity, fear, or craven state liars preventing these many from taking note of what has just happened to this country. It's called CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT. That tends to bring one back to the PNAC document.

Show "When you think about it, the" by CameronFanSite


Just curious if you have a problem with your own effemininity (after the 3rd time you used this irrelevant adjective). So, how about Effeminate Design? Should we teach it in schools? How about Closeted Intelligent Designers? A new variant of the 700 Club on Bravo. Maybe the men who lived with dinosaurs were the first effems. They must have felt so small. Is God pink or what?

I note that...

...pre having kids i was more concerned about other people's effeminiininninnity and post- becoming a Dad i couldn't give a fig what other people get up to or are like.
It's maybe some butch gene that ensures reproduction happens and keeps non dads away from effeminites at least until the non dads have become dads.
Maybe cameron fs is'nt kidded up yet.

anyway all people, whether effeminite , butch or whatever can join together in the pursuit of 9/11 truth and without divisive outfoxed like divide and conquer tactics of deriding effeminininity
Though i'm straight I'm told I'm a bit camp- I take it as a compliment when it comes from an 'effeminite' !

Show "Maybe if you'd gone for" by CameronFanSite


Your pass is granted if you'll excuse my excessive attempts at zinging about homophobia and religiousity making such great "bedfellows" :) with a lack of intelligence (or at least rationality) and closeted truth. Even more than effeminaniciprocity. There I go again... Deal? (And BTW, I think Shermer's a twisted man, but have no idea how effeminate he is. I guess I don't think about it much.)

Show "Maybe it says more about my" by CameronFanSite

I've been called "weird" and "weirdo" since the sixth grade,

and always considered it a compliment.

wrist flick

What the heck is normal anyway, big boy?


This is my, hopefully humorous, way of saying "lighten up, dude", we're all individuals first, eh?

(and Yes, I do live in the SF bay area, if that makes any difference...)


Show "If you're trying to brag that" by CameronFanSite

I'm not trying to "brag" about anything.

I'm just pointing out that we definitely have different ideas about what constitutes an "insult" (and I don't think I'm alone here).

Funny how you often seem to take things in a different direction, but as individuals we all think differently (some more than others, of course).

Human characteristics can be interpreted quite differently by everyone, especially when cultural influences are taken into consideration.

Do you really equate "effeminate" with "creepy"? Always and in every case?

Perhaps we can have an off-blog conversation about this sometime.

I hope that you and yours are well.


These things have been shown

Gordon Ross essentially described how the towers were demolished a few years ago. The outer core columns were removed and the corners of the perimeters were cut removing orthogonal support and causing them to petal outward from the floors coming down on them. This method will replicate the collapses everytime with no need for any tortured explanations.

As for how it could have been set up without it being noticed, the security company was compromised and they installed a new security system and there is a good chance the elevator maintenance crew was compromised as little known Ace Elevator beat out Otis (the original system designer) for the maintenance contract and was in the midst of a large elevator system renovation program for the eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Work done by security can be done unseen by security or anyone else as they have all of the access and control. Elevator crew work in elevator shafts is not visible to people in the building.

The fact that none of the steel was salvaged from WTC 7 and less than 0.5% of the steel from the towers was saved for analysis was the start of the cover-up. This destruction of evidence would have been performed by Rudy Giuliani's Dept. of Design and Construction and Bush/Cheney FEMA appointees under Bush crony Joseph Albaugh who just happened to arrive in Lower Manhattan on the night of Sept. 10, 2001, with the cover that they were there for a bio-terror drill in Battery Park on Sept. 12th.

The primary motive (in my opinion) would have been to gain the support of the American people for the use of their military for wars for resources under the guise of "The War on Terror". So it would have been people in the oil business and those they control in government with the motive.

Of course, all of the people who potentially could have been involved in the set-up of the demolitions and the destruction of evidence, as well as anyone who gained from the event should be interrogated.

So, you have a new security

So, you have a new security team as well as an elevator construction team, working in some sort of tandem to actually install the explosives.

This would probably be a crew of at least several dozen men, done over many weeks, right? I'm just imagining that working the way through the building and doing all of this stuff would take a long, long time.

For that many people to be working in secret, they would have to be really hardcore zealots (especially since none, to our knowledge, have come out to confess involvement).

I know that there have been some theories that the explosives-installation crew didn't know what they were doing. These theories have stated that either (a) the crew didn't know that the materials they were working on were explosives or (b) they were told that they were explosives but they were being put there as a "Plan B" in case the building ever needed to be suddenly imploded. However, I think that both of those scenarios are unlikely for a few reasons. The first reason is because, if the explosives crew were ignorant at the time, then they would've shared this knowledge with others after-the-fact; the mainstream media would obviously not go along with it, but they could still start up their own blogs, call into Alex Jones, etc. (Most likely.) The second problem is that I just find it hard to believe that any group of people could mistake cutter charges for paint or for ceiling tiles or anything else. I believe that there were many columns which had the diagonally-placed charges on them, and people just aren't that stupid.

This means, then, that the entire explosives installation crew was most likely in on it. And, again, that means that you've got some hardcore, murderous zealots - almost like a cult. Who else would do such a thing and then never repent? Assuming that this is the nature of the men who planted the explosives, then you're dealing with high-level special forces soldiers and, let's not be children, Zionist agents.

Because you've also got the Israelis featured in FABLED ENEMIES (Jason Bermas's documentary). They were arrested video taping the first plane impact as it happened from across the river in New Jersey. (The video tape of the impact, by the way, should still be in the possession of the government. That's like the Zapruder Film^3!) These dudes then went on Israeli TV and admitted that they were "documenting" it! (Also in FABLED ENEMIES.)

But many in the clean-up crew could well be ignorant of the crime. They could just be contractors told that there was a pot of gold waiting for them if they got their work done by a certain date and time. The trick there is to see who financed the waste disposal crews and see if there's any connection there (although I guess it'd probably just be NYC).

But there's still so much more: How were the planes hijacked and flown into the towers? To me, the claim that a bunch of scrawny Arabs could overpower the crews and the pilots - or that they would even WANT to kill themselves and total strangers - is absolutely, hilariously bogus. I know that NASA space shuttle engineer Dwain Deets and others have talked a lot about remotely-piloting the planes (I believe that Deets himself has said that this could easily done with a pre-routed flight path), but it doesn't explain what happened to the other planes and stuff.

Anyway! I obviously don't have any real answers - but let's keep naming names: Jerome Hauer, Rudy Guiliani, Sivan Kurzberg, etc. This was, I thought, another good thing that Bob Mcilvaine has done: speak names. You can qualify it if you're worried about being wrong about an individual and suffering a slander lawsuit, simply be clear that it's what you suspect based upon the evidence, not a concrete fact.

I don't want to come across like a Bible-thumper, but I'll close this post with a Bible verse, just the same:

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
-Ephesians 5:11

In your 'b' scenario

If the people planting the explosives were led to believe that they were doing it to save lives in the case of a successful building topple (as was allegedly intended by the '93 FBI led bomb plot) then bearing in mind the murdering psychopaths that want 100's of thousands to die in war , and are happy to saccrifice 3000 americans on 9/11 and countless afterwards from respiritory illnesses then do you think it beyond them to bump off a team of explosives guys in case they turned into witnesses
they positioned john o'neil well enough on 9/11

No, no, no. You

No, no, no. You misunderstood me - maybe I didn't articulate my point clearly enough.

I wasn't saying that, whoever orchestrated the WTC aspect of the day would have a moral reservation against killing the crew that installed the explosives - obviously, they have no reservations about killing!

I was just saying that the murderers would probably just prefer to have their own team do it to keep things in-house. An outside crew wouldn't put explosives in a building because they've got common sense (can you imagine - some dude sneaks a cigarette in a back corridor on his lunch break, flicks the butt away, KA BOOM! It's a manifestly ridiculous concept. If a group of airline mechanics were told that they now have to put explosives in airplanes to blow them up in case they're hijacked, do you think that they would go along with it?).

Even if an outside crew were hired, it would seem that one of the guys would, ya know, have had to have quit during the middle of the job and moved with his family down to Orlando or something. Wouldn't that (hypothetical) dude have started a blog or called Alex Jones?

I'm not saying that it's impossible that an outside contractor installed the explosives. I'm just saying that I believe that, most likely, the installation team had to have known what they were doing, and that would mean that the work was probably done in-house.

How about this? Here's a crew that could've done it: how about the 60 (?) Israelis arrested in NYC that day? The ones who Alan Dershowitz got out of jail? Isn't that the perfect crew? They're foreigners who can flee the country in no time so they've got a getaway (though it failed), it can be assumed that they're connected to Silverstein because of his rumored (and assumed) zionist ties, and Israelis were caught videotaping the incident in real-time. (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a331whitevanbolo#a331whit...) What other function did these people serve in the murder?

WTC 7 might've been wired by a separate team of Americans because of the building's CIA data - so that would be a few dozen special forces murderers. This would explain why Bldg. 7 came down in such a dramatically different way than the twin towers.

Does this make sense to everybody?

If the '93 topple plot

wasn't designed to actually topple the building and was designed to give the pretext for installing (KROLL and other Bush pals) an anti topple aka A.T. (top secret but 'to save collateral damage' son you're doing a good job, now get on and put those bombs in place) then I can see how the installers of the anti topple (nanothermite) would have thought they were doing it to minimise loss of life to a couple of thousand rather than have a building 1/4 of a mile high fall lengthwise across Manhattan. that's all the people in the building dead who are dead anyway in either scenario PLUS the death and destruction for 1/4 a mile along the ground and in other high rises

in brief:
1 want dramatic effect
2 need bombs to collapse building
3 need valid sounding reason to install bombs
4 fake 93 terror to start fear of toppling
5 poppa Bush/ neocon CIA-linked pals take over renovations
6 install anti topple with protocol that it only be used in event of probable topple
7 on 9/11 blow stuff up at the bottom of the towers
8 engage anti topple or let well-meaning non evildoers do it
9 think of all the money soon to be made
10 remember to send geological surveys into newly invaded territory to check what natural wealth can be redistributed upwards

such an anti topple would have to be designed to be used if there was an attack at the base of the building


like conjurers and magicians, they certainly had us looking one way (UP) and something happened/had happened somewhere else and then the grand finale

cameron i hope you follow these somewhat weird (was the only person i could find who looked deeper into the JFK meisters movie) links to decode oliver stone's movie and if you , as i have, rewatch the movie in a new light- you might see some new points


If you read Ian Henshall's book "9.11: The New Evidence" you see that people who are part of a plot can be compartmentalised.

It's one thing to try to create a caricature of another person's point KABOOOOM, ridiculous , dude sneaks a cigarette, etc etc , and another to look into it

I'm not saying i have all the answers, just a possible simplification of the "there would have to be so many evil doers involved that what you're saying is impossible" non sequitor that so many people tell us when we tell them about 9/11 truth

as for your divisory mentioning of zionists , israel, larry silverstein, I think that Israel isn't the evil puppet master of the US that you might fear it to be

I see it more as having been intended by the western elites to be a proxy base in its region for western empire following the dethroning of the rothschilds in europe during WW2 (the rothschilds lucked out big time eg1 central banks changed hands in europe en mass and eg2 they didnt get any of their austrian palaces back until the late 90's eg3 lots of people of their racial origin died in concentration camps) and at the same time it is convenient to the west to have the israelis in a constantly dangerous situation to keep them on the back foot and totally dependent on US money. I think Israel was formed by scaring people to go there via the nazis and the holocaust.
As diesel fumes were used more than gas in the gas chambers and the Nazis were supplied fuel by SO (Rockefeller) and used IBM (Rockefeller) census cards to round people up then whose product were people inhaling in their last breaths? Rockefeller's?

the AIPAC supposed control of the US in my opinion looks more like the western elites making it look like just that
ie the puppet master(US elites) holding the puppet (israel) above his own head and pretending to be manipulated by 'israel the puppetmaster'

and your divisory mention of effeminininnnninininty as if it's a bad thing, cameron man jus relax, learn much from many here like i have - it's not just for one thing that you're getting voted down

I'm not sure 100% about the things I put out but I think it's intelligent to try and see cui bono and how a plot might work more simply with the actual evildoers reduced to very few, not some too big to believe massive, foreign, secret society, scary, eyes wide shut, cue the spooky music ...

Show "The idea that the twin towers" by CameronFanSite

Please list them

you're too dismissive- i want to learn from debate so we can all be better informed - fire away

Here's FABLED ENEMIES, with a

Here's FABLED ENEMIES, with a link to the middle of the section about the Israelis arrested filming the first plane hit the WTC and admitting it:


I was looking for the reports that there were around sixty Israelis arrested in New York - I believe that they were in Brooklyn, dressed like Arabs and pretending to be happy after the attacks, but I'm not at all sure (it's a vague memory of the report) - and thinking that this group could well be the group that planted the explosives for the reasons I mentioned before: (1) Easy get-away by virtue of being foreigners who have homes in other countries, (2) they could be the sort of group with the commitment to murder and secrecy because of the zionist's long track-record of this, and (3) Larry Silverstein, who I think we all assume was a participant, is reportedly has very close ties to Israel - one report said that he talks with the former Israeli PM weekly. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3... though the link is now dead).

So, you have a large group of foreigners (assuming that my memory is right) in New York City, with explosives in their van (see FABLED ENEMIES) and cheering when the first plane hit, and with a national connection to the owner of the WTC.

Yes, I believe that it is this group who is most likely to have planted the explosives which murdered many helpless people. They were in FBI custody.

I would appreciate any insight or problems with this theory (and, of course, I recognize that it is only an inferred theory).

It might show

that foreign intel services knew what was going on
but we knew that anyway
the planting of bombs is more likely down to Bush associates who importantly had access to the twin towers
anything else is speculation
who had access?
that's where to start- kevin ryan has done some excellent work on this point, sorry it's not in the form of an Alex Jones youtube clip that starts off with 'US elites did 9/11' and by the end diverts you to 'fear china''fear china''fear china''fear china''fear china''fear china''fear china''fear china' with scary emotive music
... but kevin has done the research of a pro, not the research of a channel hopper hahahaha

so there's the emotional response that the government wants from you and theres the logical response and critical thinking that they dont want

i made my choice when i stopped solely playing video clips off the internet and picked up a well written book (crossing the rubicon by MCR)

put down the comforter and pick up a book

Men videotaping the attack

Men videotaping the attack before it starts suggests complicity as well as foreknowledge. At least to me.

And then you just declared that "the planting of bombs is more likely down to Bush associates who importantly had access to the twin towers"....

I think the owner of the fricking buildings also had access to the towers.

Anyway, you're just writing these mostly illegible posts that seem to be replying to what I was saying but then they're just full of declarative statements and irrelevant opinions. You then started making fun of Alex Jones (or at least awkwardly trying to) which makes no sense, that somebody in 9/11 Truth and Justice would do that. Alex Jones has done so much work on this matter - from the very start, when most people were still bending over to the neocons - that there's nothing to say about him besides, "Thanks, I'll try to follow your leadership."

My point was this: the large group of Israelis who were reportedly arrested in New York City around 9/11 (and defended by Alan Dershowitz) seem, to me, to be the perfect crew responsible for planting the explosives. The crew who planted the explosives would probably have to be true zealots, secretive, large in number, and they'd have to have access. This, I believe, would perfectly describe a bunch of Israelis who come over here (Why else were they in the U.S., exactly?) and then flee, under the defense of layer Alan Dershowitz (do your research on him if you want to see a sketchy scumbag), and largely without media attention.

I think I'll go with Kevin

Ryan's work though i'll consider other stuff too as long as it's not based on simple minded circumstantial accusations.

I think someone of massive importance in this is....

Paul Bremer.

His company Komatsu had a thermite product, he had access to the twin towers and he was the first on TV saying whodunnit.

I'd start there.

Why start with some people that got rounded up by the authorities reporting to the psycho neocons? Duh! by that logic we should rule Cheney and Bremer out straight away as noone rounded them up !

Why muddy the waters looking for mysterious unprovable wildly speculatively alleged henchmen and pointing fingers at people who due to compartmentalisation may not have even known the whole of or any of the plot?

The ringleaders are there in plain sight.

It's good to read crossing the Rubicon - the accused there include Cheney, for one.

It's good to look into Kevin Ryans work and see about Paul (spittoon spitting noise) Bremmer- who can be seen in the vid below;

(Pls ignore the anti - Assange attitude linked to this next vid if you see it in the posters comments but otherwise its a knockout vid i think.)

And Alex Jones makes us look like idiots to the public. He's a one stop conspiracy nut shop and I'll quote a quote from David Ray Griffin. This he told me face to face about why on one of the times I was assisting him he wouldn't go on Talksport Radio in the UK at the same time as Alex Jones,

He screams.

In italics and emphasis- DRG's

The effect of AJ featuring on talk radio shows in the UK is that uninformed members of the public remain uninformed and call up saying what an absolute lunatic he sounds like.

You would do well to put down your Disinfowars comforter and pick up a book written by DRG, MCR, Ian Henshall for 9/11 or Michael Parenti if you want to understand the basic factions within an empire.

Do you really think that whoever did 9/11 would have let key players get in a position to be rounded up?

Do you really think that after all that meticulous planning they would have thought - Duh I just don't know what to do next- what should we do ? just act normal I guess and hope for the best - HaHaHaHa! cfs u crack me up- glad to see you're awake to 9/11 truth , now wake up more!

I'm writing this for anyone who wants to read it- I dont expect you to do much more than rebut, argue and stir again CFS, you're so far out of my


First off, Kevin Ryan has

First off, Kevin Ryan has never championed a theory that said that WTC 1 and 2 were pre-rigged with explosives as an "anti-toppling" system. Never. Nothing I've said has conflicted with Kevin Ryan's work (which I personally think is pretty darn awesome). You're the one who's "anti-toppling" theory conflicts with him. (I guess that WTC 7 was also rigged as an "anti-toppling" measure, eh? And the reason that Silverstein, et al never just explained this otherwise psychotically dangerous new "safety" mechanism was because....they wanted to jump-start conspiracy theories? And the reason that Buildings 1 and 2 actually exploded outward destroying several buildings rather than safely imploding was because....why?)

You also wrote, "Do you really think that whoever did 9/11 would have let key players get in a position to be rounded up?"

So your reasoning is this: Because the Dancing Israelis were arrested by the East Rutherford, New Jersey police department....they couldn't possibly be in on it. (Because, apparently, the East Rutherford police department knew who to let skate by, 'cause they were in on it, too.) Seriously, you're making a total contradiction. On the one hand, you're saying that the arrest of the dancing Israelis prove that they weren't in on it, but you ignore the fact that they were released by the FBI. So you claim that clout with law enforcement agencies is evidence of complicity, which means that you should have no arguments about the Dancing Israelis.

Seriously, their long arrest and magical deportation to Israel (with the aid of torture-advocating lawyer Alan Dershowitz) are evidence of the political power these men had working for them, not their arrest by a New Jersey municipality.

Let me step back for a sec. Are you seriously claiming that the Dancing Israelis were not involved with 9/11? That is insane: Dudes were caught video taping the incident as it happened, panicked when cops pulled them over, and went on Israeli TV and admitted it!

Here's part of the HistoryCommons.org summary of the event: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101fiveisraelis#a0911...

On another note: WHERE IS THE DANCING ISRAELI'S VIDEO TAPE OF THE FIRST PLANE IMPACTING? Isn't that, like, the Zapruder Film? Has anybody sought an FOIA request for that video tape, which is reportedly in FBI possession?

Finally, Alex Jones has done more to bring about truth and justice in any given week than I'll bet that you'll do in your entire life. And if David Ray Griffin supposedly talked sh-- about Alex Jones to you (yeah, right), then he's a hypocrite because he goes on his show to promote his books, including recently to promote his WTC 7 book. (For the record, I think you're lying, anyway. But even if your claim about David Ray Griffin is true - which it's not - why would you tell people of a comment made to you in confidence that can only cause division in the 9/11 Truth and Justice community? If nothing else, have some regard for David Ray Griffin's private comments. But, of course, he never said that to you, anyway. Anymore than the drunk dude who claims he parties with Eminem actually does.)

Alex Jones has passion and courage. I'd rather somebody be too passionate and too forceful than too docile and submissive. You obviously prefer docility. That's fine - different strokes for different folks. But Alex Jones's continued growth and success totally disprove your claim that people don't listen to him. Start up your own radio show and see how you fare against him, eh?

Urban Moving Systems

I don't think it's wise to ignore it, I could care less what AIPAC thinks.


But lets be honest. If Bandar was A Zionist Israeli Ambassador instead of the Saudi Ambassador you'd be all over this.......

"2. Al-Bayoumi has been determined to have co-signed for hijackers
Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar when they rented an apartment at
the Parkwood Apartments complex and to have sometimes paid rent for
them." page 1/8

"Then, last November, Newsweek reported that Princess Haifa, the wife of the long-time Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar, had over the course of a couple years sent $130,000 in charitable donations to the wives of al-Bayoumi and another San Diego-based Saudi friend of the San Diego hijackers, Osama Bassnan."

“Bayoumi should be in jail,” Baer told me by telephone this week. “He is much more connected to September 11th than Zacarias Moussaoui.”

“As a former intelligence officer, I focus on these governments,” Baer says. “It’s a classic operation where a government sets up front companies. How did Bassnan get on Princess Haifa’s charity list? He didn’t just show up and write her a letter. The Saudis check these people.”

Off topic

re cameronfansite
this is starting to be like in a movie where a set of horrific circumstances that happen to an unsuspecting person cause a new arch villain to be born

after stumbling drunk into a clued up 9/11 truther site a well intentioned but slightly eccentric and argumentative CFS got voted down, so many times and down soooooooo low that a new arch villain was born.......


(cue scary loud drum banging)

New Jesse Ventura 9/11 Episode

According to TruTV's episode guide, tomorrow Ventura's going to have an episode about the Pentagon:


He mentioned a few months ago in an interview with Alex Jones that he investigated the pilot of Flight 77, Charles Burlingame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burlingame

Who was:
(A) in great shape (I always joke that he was built like LeBron James; an exaggeration obviously, but the point is is that this dude was physically imposing and yet he was supposedly overpowered by, like, 110 lb. Arabs)
(B) Reportedly trained in counter-terrorism by some special forces division
(C) His daughter died in a "suspicious apartment fire" (see Wikipedia page)

Among other things. So, although I'm as dubious about Pentagon hypotheses as anybody, and although I believe that Ventura gets kinda sloppy in his research, this could still be really revealing.

The first four minutes of

The first four minutes of this video show archival footage of 9/11.

First, there's a 9-1-1 call of the cop reporting that they've pulled over two men with explosives in a van. Then, there's a CNN report discussing the same thing. Then there's a CBS report on the same thing.

If anybody else has info about this second group of Israelis arrested with explosives in the van on the day, please share it.

More to the subject that was being discussed, this is still more substantial evidence that the legendary Dancing Israelis installed the explosives: they had a van full of explosives on 9/11!

It's also worth noting that this next video below shows footage of "Urban Moving Systems" (the front company that "employed" the Dancing Israelis) had a fleet of trucks and the owner of the company fled to Israel on 9/11. Clearly, they weren't moving couches and pianos in those trucks! Here's a link to the video, followed by a screencap of the Dancing Israeli's fleet of trucks:

Can somebody please comment on this theory of mine. That's all it is - a theory. But does this make sense? What are the problems with it?



I'm seriously requesting

I'm seriously requesting feedback. I think that this is a totally valid and intriguing theory.

The Dancing Israelis had the means (the trucks, a bunch of young men loyal to another country) the motive (the country's prime minister bragged about how much 9/11 helped it) and, most likely, the opportunity (the owner of the WTC chatted weekly with said prime minister).

More importantly: They were caught with a truck full of explosives on 9/11 and were videotaping the event before it happened! (See the all points bulletin that the New Jersey cops had.)

Is something critical being glossed over or omitted altogether?

Please, there were dozens of responses when I quoted a scientist who supports intelligent design making a light joke, but this has effectively gotten nothing?

It would be kind of you to list them

"The idea that the twin towers were legitimately pre-rigged as a fail-safe... ...a list of reasons why it's stupid"

I would appreciate it if you would list them bearing in mind:

I speculate more precisely:

The idea that the twin towers were covertly and illegitimately pre-rigged with the pretext given to those at the right clearance level that it was a fail safe


Your challenge from London UK
(a mile south of the square mile alleged root of all evil on the planet)
(Oooooh scary to Alex Jones fans!!)

I hope you will list them.

If you do, you know what? You might move me an inch or two closer to the truth......we are all students here- your co-student is waiting...

For the record I'm not one who thinks you have a disinfo agenda- I think moreso that you just might have (- or I might have) gone up the wrong alley.

Perhaps we can help each other cleanse each other's minds of any useless ideas.

We're like kittens cleaning each other behind the ears here at 911blogger and there's nothing effeminate about that.

Oh my God this is so

Oh my God this is so stupid.

Listen, it's not about me and your theories about my psychology or vice versa. What is with this total fixation on trying to read other people's emotional states and motives at this site? Do many of the people who post watch Oprah and Dr. Phil every day or something?

We're all strangers, okay. We don't know each other, and we can't know each other. We don't really "know" the motives and inner-psychology of the luminaries in 9/11 Truth (and Justice) like Alex Jones, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, James Gourley, etc. Sure, we can all have general gauges and use common sense and intuition to determine whether somebody's trustworthy or a liar; brilliant or not too bright....but you never really know, because we're all strangers. I'm not somebody who convinces myself that I truly know politicians and movie stars and athletes. I don't. We just have to keep things largely on a conversational, semi-professional level.

I mean, seriously, don't you have enough time understanding your family members and close friends? How in God's name do you expect to fully know the psychology of hundreds of internet strangers from across the planet? It's an impossible and insane task. Keep things largely at a professional level.

Like I said, you just gotta have some common sense and use intuition. But most of all, just keep focused on information and ideas, not the inner souls of people you'll never meet in your life.

Yeah, there are definitely some people who me or you can sense have bad intentions, and you can also get a sense that some people are honest and good. And, to a large extent, you can follow make your decisions and actions off of those judgments. But not to the extent that you're doing.

So the bottom line is: please stop with your failed attempt to know my inner soul and motives. My name is David and I live in Oakland County, Michigan. I could write 5,000 more words about myself, but you still wouldn't know me, anymore than I could "know" you by your internet posts. Like I said, don't we all struggle enough with trying to understand our girlfriends and siblings and co-workers who we're in close physical contact with every single day? You can't know strangers online.

This is just so stupid and childish.


Once again, I couldn't totally discern much from your post. Truthfully, either your writing or my reading just don't work, somehow.

I truly do not want to start a debate about whether the twin towers were pre-rigged as an "anti-toppling" fail-safe. Like I said before, I personally find that idea absolutely, insultingly dumb. I'm sorry, I'm not even going to waste my time.

And, by the way, a few posts above you implied that Kevin Ryan believed in that hypothesis and then linked to a video where he said absolutely nothing like that. So it's not right for you to associate strangers with insane concepts that you believe in. In principle, it's actually slander - not necessarily legally, but effectively. And you also dubiously claimed that David Ray Griffin and you had a chat and he talked sh-- about Alex Jones to you - even though he's appeared on his radio show numerous times and you have no evidence at all to support this supposed conversation. So....I really don't wanna respond to this sort of silliness. I think that I proposed a solid, valid theory. Can anybody please do a few minutes of investigation and introspection and provide some thoughtful responses - critical or supportive.

Welcoming you to list:

"The idea that the twin towers were legitimately pre-rigged as a fail-safe... ...a list of reasons why it's stupid"

At least there's one person taking notice of you here- I have a pet theory and I see you have a different take on it.

It would be constructive to me and useful to me if you would attack it with points that I could read and I would genuinely be grateful for that input.

I'm not battling you - I want to test my pet theory.

I have put my pet theory on the firing range of public discourse.

I hope you realise that there could well be a seriously disillusioned person(me) walking this earth if he thinks his pet theory is so air tight that no one can pointedly critique it.

bearing in mind:

I speculate more precisely:

The idea that the twin towers were covertly and illegitimately pre-rigged with the pretext given to those at the right clearance level that it was a fail safe.

Please, logic- abandon emotion - I would appreciate it if you would humour me. (excuse the uk spellings)

Okay. Fine. I'll respond to

Okay. Fine. I'll respond to this lunacy - which you wantonly, falsely also attributed to Kevin Ryan (how about an apology?) - and then how about you do me a favor and respond to all the info and the thesis I put forth (and, ideally, others, please? I think it's a good hypothesis.)

The towers were not pre-rigged as an "anti-toppling" method because:

1) Building 7 was also clearly rigged with explosives. Why the heck would they do it to that building?
2) The twin towers did NOT implode in a controlled manner, it exploded. Look that the images of the I-beams rocketed out into nearby buildings, and look at the savage damage that their explosions did to the nearby buildings. Therefore, they weren't even rigged to fall down in a totally controlled manner.
3) The idea that a building would be laced with explosives for any reason other than an immediate and planned demolition is absolutely psychotic from a safety standpoint. Any serious office fire - or even something stupid like a coffee pot burner starting a small fire or even a stray cigarette butt - could lead to the building's total destruction.
4) In spite of basic common sense, if some large group of morons did lace the buildings with explosives as an "anti-toppling" mechanism, then they could simply come out and admit it and put all the conspiracy theories to rest. "Yep, many people died, but many more people would've died without or anti-toppling explosives." After all, that would be the entire purpose of doing it. They could say, "mission accomplished".
5) There is no precedent for it in the history of building construction. If this was done as a safety mechanism, then it would be commonly known in many skyscrapers, and it would be considered a common practice. (Though it never will be because it's absolutely insane.)
6) The building would never "topple", anyway. It was like a tree with deep roots in the ground. The only way that it could be "toppled" would be through means of an exhaustive engineering endeavor done by a large team of professionals. No stupid truck bomb or anything of the sort could possibly "topple" the building. When was the last time you saw a skyscraper "topple" over.

Okay, that's good enough. Now just concede the point: "You know what? That was kind of silly. Time to discard it and move along."

I'm not going to continue on with this idiotic and insane "anti-toppling" theory anymore.

Now please respond in kind to the thesis I put forth about the Dancing Israelis very possibly being the demo crew. Thank you.

I'm reserving

this reply slot , so i can write here
hopefully can edit this
thx 4 replying and im processing it - i learn slowly....

good job i did

guys , politely , would be cool if u butted out- dont wind CFS up- we're getting somewhere
balls in my court- im processing

would be cool if u guys congratulated CFS - he's engaging in debate on points that have given me food for thought


for the record i believed STRONGLY in no AA wreck at the pentagon before debate and info here changed my mind

there's some stuff about mossad in one of my books i bought - gonna dig it up for the camfan incl poss israeli students - not sure if its rubicon or henshalls book (or both) that may show some extent of foreign intel - i'll look into it

let's all chill or else paranoia will be alive and well in the 911truth movement ... looking back there was an occasion re. street activism where i and im pretty sure another person both thought each other were MI5

meanwhile the real perps are filling their boots in conquered lands and i dont mean the western troops who are lions led by donkeys steered by neoperps

after speculation, we can support or shoot it down with evidence

pls be logical to the camfan like mr spock so he gets his points addressed and polite pls even if you think he's wrong- in fact that's even more reason to be polite to win him over then one more in our number, or even if he has some relevant points then he contributes - we can only win but we must engage on points politely or he may pass on and seek refuge at citizens whatever group that says the pentagon f****** theory (flyover!)

I'm following this

conversation between you & Douglas, it's kinda interesting at times. After reading the various posts between you two I would only suggest that you just chill out a bit more when you think someone has a (according to you) stupid idea or theory. Behavior like that will results in things like nobody (but Douglas) reacting to your plee for a response to your thesis (which I think has some merit indeed), or more delicate responses like that from SC. That's not what you want now, do you?

The choice is yours...

Thanks for the PR

Thanks for the PR advice.

Meanwhile, the choice is yours to reply with something that's useful, informative, or otherwise relevant.

You said that the theory that the Dancing Israelis and the Urban Moving actually planted the explosives in the twin towers (though I think WTC 7 was almost certainly done be a separate crew, presumably American military intelligence) has "some merit indeed". I think that that's about 1,000,000x more important. So please elaborate on why you believe the theory has merit. Thank you.

What an awful display CameronFanSite

I think that Snow Crash's list of your childish behavior earlier in the thread speaks volumes. Unbelievable now that you have digressed into spreading hyper-speculation regarding potential Israeli involvement. The conjecture put forward by these vaguely referenced theories about Israel most certainly come off as anti-semitic.

And constantly tooting the Alex Jones horn ay? Jones angry and sometimes very juvenile tactics have done great damage to 9/11 Truth over the years. The few facts he mixes in with his broad brush conjecture serve to discredit many topics and movements AJ latches on to. 9/11 Truth has far more credible factually based researchers (like say, Nafeez Ahmed). I suggest just watching a few of Alex's bull-horning confrontations to see just how in-effective and damaging Jones can be. He is an exciting radio host and I spent lots of time and money supporting him unfortunately. I subsequently had to spend a long time going through all the junk Jones mixed in and presented as truth through the years. I'm happy that I learned where to begin to look from Alex. But unfortunately, if you show AJ to anyone who is of relative intelligence, some of the bizarre and baseless connections AJ mixes in will be easily debunked before your very eyes. Sending people to infowars was probably a very awful thing I did for 9/11 truth over the years. This site is plagued with racist and bigoted rants. Speculative articles that are laughed at and used to discredit 9/11 Truth and many other subjects.

CFS, just be careful of the potentially bigoted and angry material you ascribe to as truth. Your angry and oddly worded (your obsession with not being effeminate is unfortunately a personally trait that generally comes from homophobic individuals you see) attacks and fallacies are a waste of yours and our time. Keep looking into facts and just use those for what you call the TRUTH. Putting out weird conjecture is a huge detrimental waste of time.

Relax and check out some music:


No need to freak out.

Still more PR bullsh--.

Still more PR bullsh--.

Still don't care.

So, any actual replies to the valid, thought out, and substantiated hypothesis I presented? Something that doesn't concern "9/11 Truth Public Relations Theories" and/or "Psychoanalysis and Moral Pontifications about Total Strangers"?

Has everybody just given up the search for the actual, ya know, TRUTH and instead just become fixated upon media relations bullcrap? (Please, don't answer that question.)

So, the theory is this:

The infamous "Dancing Israelis" (a.k.a. the "High-Fivers" to the local CIA and FBI, according to the CounterPunch article linked to above) worked out of New Jersey, were an apparently large group of young, physically fit men who had been operating in the U.S. for some months. They also had a fleet of large trucks. These are all facts. Another fact, as reported by Counterpunch, is this "Be On The Lookout" bulletin (which sounds like an all points bulletin in common language) issued on 9/11:

"White, 2000 Chevrolet van… with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center… Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals."

Later on that night, two men reportedly associated with Urban Moving Systems were also arrested, this time in a tunnel in NYC....in a van or truck full of explosives. (See: The 8-minute YouTube video posted above.) Needless to say, the government let them go even though they failed lie detector tests. (See: Counterpunch article.)

Here are questions:

1) Why has the FBI never released the video tape and/or photos they took of the first plane hitting the WTC?
2) Why did they have a van full of explosives?
3) Where did they get explosives?
4) Why did the owner of the dummy corporation flee the U.S. within two days?
5) Did these men regularly use their huge Urban Movers trucks to freight the explosives to the WTC?
6) Can anybody check security footage or other camera footage in the months prior to 9/11 to investigate whether these trucks were regularly seen around the WTC?
7) Where did they get the explosives that they were arrested with on 9/11?
8) Were explosives regularly shipped to their New Jersey "offices"?
9) Am I wasting my time by expecting people to care about this as opposed to useless, naval-gazing PR crap?



The OP is Shermer and his documentary on 'conspiracy theories'- he referenced 9/11, Pearl Harbor and primarily JFK his trip to Dealey Plaza

CFS, if you want to discuss the high-fivers, Urban Moving Systems, etc., find one of the threads devoted to the topic, post a comment and bump it up in the tracker. If you feel there's some new angle to this that hasn't been covered adequately in an article posted to 911blogger, find or write one and submit it.

This is a warning to everyone; 911Blogger is not a message board. While threads naturally meander off-topic and back on, keep your comments focused on the topic, not other users and stuff not directly related to the OP. And keep your comments civil.

These comments will stay up for the record.

CameronFanSite and Sandberg


I found info on what CFS is looking into
the topic has been called Zihop
the 2 comments written 10/19/2010 after pfgetty's piece look sound to me:
CFS what the mod is saying to you is that you can put a comment on a piece like that even though its a year old which will reactivate it and those who use the tracker button at the top of the page will see that blog resurrected and can comment

Waiting for Shermer...

to debunk his own skeptical thinking...

Anyone know. . .

Who is behind Michael Shermer? I refuse to believe he is a "lone nut." Who is he fronting for? Where does he get his money/support?



You can also look up: Michael Schermer Phil Donahue on Youtube for a blast from the past. Schermer used to focus on Holocaust denial now and then. Perhaps he still does. Of course, I am no Holocaust denier and Schermer is right there.

I would like to know more about him also. He strikes me as the perfect Sunstein candidate, in league with Popular Mechanics. They have this habit of playing the 'reassuring skeptic', and really strain to attack straw men and argue from alleged authority. They also don't seem to want to really research the claims they're dismissing.