Alex Jones on "The View" drops WTC 7 mention on 30 million unsuspecting viewers

No it's not jet lag or too much cough syrup. This is actually AJ on "The View". And yes he drops a WTC7 mention.


Alex Jones on The View!? Surely this must be a sign of the apocalypse or something. ;0

I thought 'The View' itself

I thought 'The View' itself was the sign of the apocalypse.

Show "Aw c'mon..." by Lullaby Academy

Better than that?

It's one of my favorite videos. Sorry you don't like it.

You don't need editing to make Alex Jones "look crazy", btw.

PS: the 9/11 Omission Hearings isn't gathering dust at 9/11 Truth News - top of the front page.

You're welcome!

Yet apparently YT, YOU DID

Yet apparently YT, YOU DID need editing.

I agree that this threads direction is ridiculous: And that video is proof.

I'm not following

Alex Jones is an entertainer.

Sue me for being entertained, I guess... or do something useful.

I would not sue you. And I

I would not sue you.

And I am trying to do many useful things.

But that video sucks.

Rosie O' Donnell is an entertainer as well.

Are we posting mash-up videos of her?

Please don't mis-interperate me for a staunch AJ supporter.

You say it sucks, I think it's great

Hopefully by now it's perfectly clear that we have different opinions.

I want to apologize for posting the Wicked Devil video which was clearly seen as a grave offense by at least two users of this site. For me, the video is a perfect artistic representation of Jones and I enjoy it quite a bit, so I felt I was contributing to the thread in a positive way while reserving comment on Alex Jones and his adventures on The View. I don't consider the video to be an attack on Jones and I doubt he would either. However, I can understand how it might be construed as such and as my intention is not to cause gratuitous offense, I'll try to be more sensitive in the future.

I liked the video

and I think the silent majority does, too.

There are dozens of AJ montages, every one of them entertainment guaranteed.

A L Cool J can rap !

Rosie O'Donnell is not making

Rosie O'Donnell is not making a living off conspiracy theorizing.

you know that.

Rosie O'Donnell does not make a career out of supporting every insane wacked out theory. Rosie simply gave an opinion on national TV. Jones is in the BUSINESS of compiling DVD and marketing them - essentially SELLING his crazy ideas.

now - i know you know this. i know you are smart enough to understand the difference between Rosie and Alex.

so why do you force us to waste time explaining it to you?

Continued Bashing Of Popular 9/11 Skeptics By Truthers

No one in the 9/11 Truth movement has a perfect delivery but I find your relentless criticism of Alex Jones notewothy. Perhaps you as an aspiring filmmaker, simply envy his success as a filmaker.

Overall, Alex is a credit to the cause.

I also note your appearance once on Fox News. Also noted are other Fox News appearances of self-identified 9/11 Truth luminaries like Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and Kevin Barret who have supported "TV fakery" and "space beam" use on 9/11.

I agree! I also oppose the continued bashing of 9/11 Truthers

"No one in the 9/11 Truth movement has a perfect delivery...."

I also oppose the continued, strained bashing of some of our popular 9/11 Truth Advocates.

Dissemination is one of the 9/11 movement's greatest challenges.
Yet, some of the most successful and active public disseminators in the 9/11 Truth Movement have been butchered by strained, carping, viscious, mean-spirited, fault finding by a relatively small group.
Evidently, some of these loud carpers feel like their ivory tower, hypercritical bashes are not harmful. My opinion is that this strained bashing is harmful.

Personally, I despise parents who carpingly belittle their children's faults.
Personally, I detest employers who focus on and sarcastically demean their employee's errors.
Personally, I do not hang out with bitingly hypercritical people because I feel that it is an unhealthy mental environment.
Personally, I have observed that some of the most ardent, viscious carpers also have their own history of major faults.

I third the motion!

No suprise here.

You bashing hypocrites

Yea, let's stop the attacks that don't use fact and know like the ones you guys constantly push here...



peacefulwarrior: (the worst example)

I see guys, you can throw out your baseless accusations of some made up clique that won't let you into some tent...
with nothing but rhetorical insults...
or claiming you spotted some kinda infiltrator..
all towards people who have spent years going for the truth...

and you are still gonna get upset when people site SPECIFIC, CRITICAL reasons for questioning someone's factual claims. Your response to those questioning, who spend hours coming up with thoughtful REAL LIVE FACTS, JUST FOR YOU!....insult them with accusations and claim that your favorite researcher is getting "bashed."


Why do you trust Alex Jones

Why do you trust Alex Jones more than the people criticizing him? The people criticizing him think that they have a better idea of how to move 911 truth forward. Why do you disagree with them? They claim that Alex Jones promotes false and baseless conspiracy theories. Is this false? If so why?

I object to the criteria for acceptance at 911blogger

Alex Jones has advocated 911 truth for a long time. As have many of us who no longer like the atomosphere here at 911 blogger. Which false and baseless conspiracy theories are you talking about? Some of us have a difference of opinion on tactics, strategy, and overall view of where the movement is now headed. If we question excluding and not supporting people who have demostrated a sincere committment to a new investigation of 911 because they don't seem to meet the political guidelines here at blogger we are trounced on with ridicule. If we question the validity of the FDR data or reserve judgement on exactly what hit the pentagon or if phone calls made from cell phones are genuine we are told that is unacceptable. If a phone record shows the call lasted past the crash time it must be an oversite by the phone company. If we question who piloted the plane into the pentagon we are told it doesn't matter. This is the current climate here at blogger. Some people are allowed to question and reserve judement on controlled demolition for god's sake but not on pilot control of AA77? If I suggest that the movement is running around in circles instead of direct confrontation of authority I am ridiculed. If someone points out that even with a rock solid presentation of proven facts there has been no guarantee of success or even acknowledgement by the established media , academics and political leadership that in itself is unacceptable here.

AJ is

an entertainer

I like watching his stuff occasionally because I find him amusing

I don't take him seriously- surely you must see that he is tongue in cheek

Yep, that triple agent is obviously a patsy for the globalists 'AJ' quote from rap news 6

Oil at $150-$200 a barrel

Thanks to the Alex Jones show, I knew in November 2009 to expect within two years a renewed crisis in the middle east to be used as a justification to manipulate the price of oil to $150-$200 a barrel (with gas prices going up to $5 or more per gallon). In Nov 2009, I emailed out this forecast to friends and family. In that same forecast email, I also stated that we should expect another significant false flag event soon which will be used to instigate stronger police-state type policies. Fortyfive days later the first domestic terrorist attack since 9/11/01 occured (Flight 253).
This forecast came soley as a result of the Alex Jones show.

So, Doug, you can choose not to garner information from his news site.
It does not bother me.
I respect people's right to choose their media sources.

I personally choose to garner and evaluate information from his news site.

The forecast was spot-on. Crisis in the middle east is now occurring and we will soon see oil at $150-$200 a barrel. A major false flag event did soon occur which has ushered in TSA and Homeland Security police state actions.
(...and get ready for the dollar to collapse as a world currency before the end of 2012.)

I know that you want a mass

I know that you want a mass movement for 911 truth, on this we are in total agreement. What we disagree about is how to achieve that mass movement. You think that making 911 truth a comfortable atmosphere for people who promote controversial ideas is the best way to go. I am trying hard to use neutral language, so when I say "controversial" lets just say I mean theories like these: "world governments are secretly trying to implement a new world order", "global warming is false", "there is a government conspiracy to hide evidence of extra-terrestrial life", "groups and organizations such as the bilderberg group, the council on foreign relations and the bohemian grove work together across generations to implement a satanic agenda". So you think that if controversial ideas like these are unchallenged then we will have the best atmosphere to grow our movement. I disagree. On the contrary I think it is an environment that nurtures these kinds of ideas without criticism that makes the movement look "fringe". Fringe is a pejorative term that people in the general population use to deride ideas and groups that are thought to be small, without influence, and largely to be ignored if not guarded against. My alternative suggestion for growing the movement is that the movement appeal directly to common sense arguments based on widely available information. I think that when people hear calm rational arguments for specific claims that can be evidentially supported they feel comfortable accepting what they hear. For the movement to transcend the "fringe" label it must not play into the public perception that we are only interested in promoting controversial ideas, but that we really do care first of all about truth and accuracy. So what will it be, rational argument backed up by evidence, or a haven for controversial ideas? I really believe to the core that the latter strategy has been shown to have limitations. We already did that for ten years anyway, why can't we try something new? I think the world is more receptive now than ever if we can just appear credible.



Vullich, The people who are


The people who are dis-crediting Alex are offering nothing other than their opinions.

It is not about believing this or that. Beliefs hold very little water here around here: But I respect that everyone is welcome to there beliefs.

If anyone has some EVIDENCE to offer that Alex Jones is Dis or Mis information. OFFER it up.

Otherwise all I hear are people complaining.

Complaining, complaining, complaining.

Whats the point? You want to alienate 9/11 blogger from million+ of Alex Jones fans?

Are some poeple angry or jealous that Alex hasn't gone broke selling 3 for 1 DVD's?

Would you rather have a bunch more quiet, ignorant, mention-9/11-twice-a-decade radio hosts?

Again, whats the point?

Just remember how to differentiate between fact and opinion.

I absolutely think that 911

I absolutely think that 911 blogger would be better without millions of Alex Jones "fans".

Thanks for the opinion

Thanks for the opinion

Vullich, I respectively disagree.

Firstly , I don't think you have any real choice about who demands 911 truth and what other agendas or theories they may also believe in. Just because 911blogger does not want to support someone like Alex Jones or Tarpley or even Barret does not mean you can stop them. Yes you can divide the movement and try to move away from these people and think that someday this will make a difference but I don't see how it can.
The power behind the 911 lies doesn't care what evidence you have or who is onboard unless IMO hundred of thousands are protesting directly. If 911 truth can ever deliver a mass movement then you cannot really restrict people like David Icke from supporting it and claiming he has talked about it for years etc. A strategy of scholarship has failed time and time again with the examples I have quoted endlessly, including this movement sending thermite papers to our leaders in Congress and the Judiciary .
No mass movement has happened in the last 10 years, what's the biggest number of people that have shown up in support of 911 truth in one place? A few thousand perhaps? And some news coverage was present but it looks like a fringe element without larger numbers. How do we know what tens of thousands of people protesting in NYC in front of the City Council for a new NY investigation can accomplish? No the movement has never really been sucessful in getting large numbers of people in the same place at the same time, and the current divide and disassociate strategy almost guarantees that it will never happen unless we can come together.

I hope you will help to

I hope you will help to create a mass movement. First step get more people to ask for 911 truth. To get that we need to appear presentable to the public. This has not been tried yet. Giving thermite papers to congresspeople is not the same thing as starting a mass movement. A Mass movement needs a coherent PR and media strategy. I am trying to get this movement organized, organization is the only way. It seems like you prefer anarchy and disorganization. That's not how a mass movement is built. Don't you worry about how to convince people who do not already agree with you? Research successful social movements and see what you find

Would have been nice

to hear Walters say "Building What"? for the record.

Show "Buy his latest DVD at..." by Jon Gold


the negative vote?

because of the sarcasm, I

because of the sarcasm, I guess?

I'm all for Alex Jones though, even if he seems a bit crazy at times.

People must realize..

911blogger is but a part of a greater movement.

Or watch 'em for free online

Or watch 'em for free online - he gives away high quality versions for free.

One way or another, just watch 'em. (Although the production values are so high that they clearly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, and the dude's spreading 9/11 Truth, so, yeah, you might wanna buy the DVD to subsidize more work.)

Sad to see Jon Gold voted so down

Sorry folks, hate to break the news to you, but AJ getting this publicity is BAD NEWS for the truth movement. One visit to infowars and you are immersed in conspiratorial theories, mixed in with facts, so that while some of the facts are true, there are so many theories and mis-info linked, that the media will only use it to rip us apart. Try going on there and simply find basic facts about 9/11. It's rather difficult and takes some sifting. They will paint all people who are seeking justice being just like Alex Jones, and in case you didn't know...
That's a bad thing.
He's even had up Mark Dice links recently!!
The types of offensive rhetoric coming from AJ and from a load of the people he has on his show regularly are detrimental to the truth of 9/11 coming out. We are discredited by associating with people who capitalize on the 'theory' market rather than stick to the facts. It's as simple as that. People are gonna hear on the news about how 'Charlie Sheen went off on a coked up rant, and it was on the radio show of a crazy 9/11 truther who was defending him. He even says he's sobered up! Listen these are the kinds of people who claim there was no plane a the pentagon etc.' Defending Charlie Sheen right now is the last thing we want to be associated with.

I think that if I committed the crime of 9/11, I'd be happy to have Alex Jones out there making those who ask questions about my crime appear easily discreditable and cooky after one visit to his webpage. And seriously, don't feel like you have to be defensive of him and I'm sorry if this post offends you, don't fear, I was as big an AJ fan as you;)!

Show "Hmmm" by TripleChin


Another idiot who forgot to read the rules.

This movement...

Was infiltrated and manipulated LONG before Cass Sunstein made his suggestion about doing so. When he wrote his piece, the first thing that popped into my mind was, "where the hell have you been?"

Show "ignoring the cell phone issue in DRG's work," by Douglas Hilton

There is a second author

His name is Adrian Vermeule....

Show "was just editing- pls read below" by Douglas Hilton

i recommend you to

read the book as the decode shows something potentially diametrically opposed to what we thought when we instantly jerked our knees

seriously we could discuss the mentions of ultra nationalism in government that are referenced by CS

why would he reference that?

he's referencing the neocons, perhaps or perhaps not with the knowledge of vermeule- the reference to ultra nationalism is more in line with what we say about the neocons and the 9/11 wars based on the OCT

my copy was last seen on its way to

a friend in the US but to date hasn't arrived
watching the recent prof jones vid that mentions tampered mail i dont know if my book will surface ...
advise you buy it as you're high brow, intellectual
i needed it spelled out for me but DRG simplifies it- just ignore the cell phone stuff- it's not the main feature of Cog Inf


I would like to read it, although reading Sunstein's paper on my own account was satisfactory without DRG's interpretation...

However, yes, I would like to read it, out of intellectual curiosity.

I'm just very reluctant to pay for a book that has essentially been used to brandish several members of 911blogger "disinformation agents" (me in particular), even by prof. Griffin's own research assistant, Tod Fletcher.

I don't like to be compared to DSGE murderers, and I don't like being snitchjacketed. I don't like to pay the persons responsible for these activities, as if to reward them for their stupidity.

It speaks volumes to me that Adrian Vermeule is completely overlooked. Tells me we're dealing with tunnel vision.

Sunstein could be, in his perspective, related to the SLPC, who see everything through a leftist lens, therefore all conspiracy theorists are militia members. Hence the citation of other authors who investigate (potentially violent) militias and ultra-nationalist hate groups.

It's all so predictable.

But still, I appreciate you pressing me to read the book. Maybe I can buy it second hand.


Snitchjacketing, accusations, insinuations... all because Erik showed the world that DRG's fake phone calls/voice morphing crazy sounding theory that never helped us, was wrong.

I'll ask again, when did we turn from this to the crazy theorist movement we are today? This movement was infiltrated and manipulated long before Sunstein wrote his paper.


"Proof" is hard to come by. However, the "campaigns" over the years for certain theories, the divisive arguments between groups like the Scholars, things like the Kennebunkport Warning, etc... scream infiltration.

Let's not forget that after 9/11, COINTELPRO was reinstated. There are a multitude of examples of different dissenting groups being infiltrated over the years. I think there was even an example in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. We would be fools to think it hasn't happened to us.

One thing I think is funny is how they talk about William Pepper's Chicago presentation about how "you will be discredited." Sooo... promoting voice morphing won't discredit us?

"As noted here, Ashcroft has revived the FBI's totally discredited COINTELPRO program, which flourished from 1956 to 1971, during the anti-war and civil rights movements. In those years, the bureau monitored, infiltrated, and disrupted an array of religious and political organizations that were critical of various government policies."

"From now on, covert FBI agents can mingle with unsuspecting Americans at churches, mosques, synagogues, meetings of environmentalists, the ACLU, the Gun Owners of America, and Reverend Al Sharpton's presidential campaign headquarters. (He has been resoundingly critical of the cutting back of the Bill of Rights.) These eavesdroppers do not need any evidence, not even a previous complaint, that anything illegal is going on, or is being contemplated."

"Ashcroft has restored the reckless spirit of COINTELPRO by again giving the FBI the power to conduct investigations under such loose guidelines that the Fourth Amendment might as well be obsolete."

"Some fear that something like COINTELPRO may again be at hand. There are undercover agents infiltrating peaceful protests in America. Pretending to be political activists, local law enforcement officials are monitoring the activities of advocacy and protest groups based on what one judge calls those organizations’ "political philosophies and conduct protected under the First Amendment." The tactic has come about as a result of the relaxation of guidelines first put into place after the COINTELPRO scandal investigation."

"Disclosure of a confidential memorandum sent by the FBI to local police disclosing a massive program of infiltration and surveillance of lawful anti-war and anti-WTO protest movements confirms what most progressives and leftists in the U.S. knew already--that the Bush Administration and the Ashcroft "Justice" Department have ushered in a full-fledged return to the Nixon-era practice of employing police-state tactics against opposition movements."

"The abuses of the Hoover era, which included efforts by the F.B.I. to harass and discredit Hoover's political enemies under a program known as Cointelpro, led to tight restrictions on F.B.I. investigations of political activities. Those restrictions were relaxed significantly last year, when Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidelines giving agents authority to attend political rallies, mosques and any event "open to the public."

Who are...

Some of the people that have caused us the most problems over the years, and where are they now? Not really diehard advocates for 9/11 Justice were they? Seems to me like certain people did their "jobs," and left. A for instance... without naming names... who wrote the Holocaust Denial book that was on the committee for the 9/11 Accountability Conference a week before the conference, giving someone like Stephen Lemons ample ammunition to discredit us (the entire press conference was about Holocaust Denial for the most part), and where is he now?

Again, no proof, but some actions speak loudly. I think in order to get "proof" there would have to be the equivalent of the Church Hearings to take place again to see which causes were targeted.

Edit: Also, do you really think that certain posters on this site over the years didn't have a malicious intent? I mean... c'moooon...


snowcrash said...."In fact, I'm rather disappointed that we've never succeeded in unmasking a single infiltrator, if they are claimed to be omnipresent."

That isn't how it works. It would be extremely stupid for real infiltrators to ever be in a position to be "unmasked". It's the "useful idiots" that are used that are "omnipresent."

For instance-let's say it is discussed on a forum and/or meeting about the seemingly lack of wreckage at the pentagon. As an "infiltrator" I could direct people to Meyson's "hunt the Boeing" website, edit Mike Walters interview on the day of 9/11 and let others come to the conclusion it was a missile. Have them pass the edited clip around (deleting the one I made) and disappear into the void as people's egos and need for attention carry out the false claim of a missile hitting the pentagon all the while no one even knows I exist. This can be done in a number of ways. Only a truly incompetent idiot would expose himself. People and their egos can be easily manipulated. I'm not claiming "infiltration". I am claiming if it is done, only a real amateur chump would be detected. The goal is to let the useful idiots get all the "credit" and "fame". Although I do admit I find it very hard to believe Stubblebine is as incompetent as he acts. I also don't believe he tried walking through his wall for years. He isn't in the Army Intelligence Hall of Fame for nothing. Perhaps he is an incompetent loon. I doubt it though.

enough: off topic- relate it to the OP

or post a blog, or bump an existing one in the tracker. For instance, like this one:

"On Disinformation and Damaging Associations"

hard evidence? none but when

hard evidence? none

but when you see ex-Bush administration officials like Morgan Reynolds going on FoxNews and declaring the videos of 9/11 depicted cartoon planes - what would you call that? soft evidence?

and when a man like Dr Jim Fetzer is cited for disrupting the JFK assassination movement AND the 9/11 Truth movement - when he has written academic papers that champion disinformation as a form of information - what are we to think?. in August of 2001 Dr Fetzer pens “Disinformation – The Use of False Information” in which he outlines the basic principals, applications and approaches to “Disinformation.” In this paper he categorizes 5 levels of disinformation – all of which seem eerily similar to his approach in spreading disinformation in the JFK and 911 Truth movements. One could argue that Dr. Fezter is indeed and expert on the theory of disinformation – and is putting this theories into practice in the 911 Truth movement.

and then when you see a man like Fetzer teaming up with Reynolds and Judy Woods and Rick Siegel... a pattern begins to emerge that all points in one direction

hard evidence? no. common sense deductive reasoning? yes


the book arrived at my friend in the US
i could ask for her to send it to you when she's done- any good ?
u can message me via my profile here

How did we get...

From this to where we are today? In my opinion, that is when we were most dangerous.

I just want to be sure, but

I just want to be sure, but you are expressing an opinion, not a fact.

That's when...

The "media" gave us the least amount of attention, when they should have given us the most. It wasn't until Nov. 2005 when Steven Jones came out that they finally started to give us some attention. Steven Jones came out on a Friday, and on that following Monday, he was on Tucker Carlson. The "media" JUMPED at the opportunity because they knew they could control and use the "crazy sounding" message (believe it or not, the idea of a "Controlled Demolition" does sound crazy to a lot of people). Then came a string of easily discredited people that appeared on the TV. Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, David Von Kleist, Webster Tarpley, etc... and so on... When we were the most credible, the media ignored us. In my opinion (as I said the first time to be sure) it's because that's when we were the most dangerous. Here's another example of when we were most dangerous. That footage hasn't been available since some time in 2007. I found it last night, and made it available online.

Noteworthy: Truthers Bashing Our Best Evidence & Biggest Voices

Being brought under regular attack of late by the same sources here - the Loose Change film series, David Ray Griffin, Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones and the only scientific evidence for 9/11 foul play - the demolition evidence.

Over 100 victim family members feel the evidence for demolition is plausible enough to sign the NYCCAN petition. And all of the above have brought international attention to the most damning evidence of 9/11 foul play. That supporters of a new investigation would continue to attack these sources of information is noteworthy.


Who was one of the first individuals to give you evidence for explosives in the World Trade Center?

Jim Hoffman. Could you elaborate on what Jim Hoffman's positions are on cellphone fakery, no plane crash at the Pentagon, Loose Change, and Alex Jones?

Can you imagine this movement without Jim Hoffman's website? Why are you equating everybody with Jon Gold? We have our own opinions. Why is my name 'SnowCrash'?

I'd like to add that the peer reviewed paper by Alan Poteshman about 9/11 Insider Trading is 'scientific' as well.

I said...

Jim Fetzer, David Von Kleist, Kevin Barrett, and Webster Tarpley... they have "brought international attention to the most damning evidence of 9/11 foul play?" Are you saying that, or are you saying otherwise?

You say "over 100 victim family members feel the evidence for demolition is plausible enough to sign the NYCCAN petition." Are you referring to this one? You do realize that those signatures all came during the time when NYCCAN was about a ballot initiative for a new investigation into the ENTIRETY of 9/11 right? I don't know how they all feel about "controlled demolition," but please don't try to pawn that petition off as you have.

Is anything I said untrue?

Edit: Ok Aidan... you've had several hours to respond. Since you haven't, I can only assume that your intention wasn't to converse, but instead, to accuse. I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Feel free to accuse and insinuate all you want.

correct, Jon

originally NYCCAN was about petitioning for a reinvestigation

at first there was Les Jamieson at the helm and that didn't work out

then i believe there was a dispute and LJ was booted out, and things started being run better

it was only after the NYC petition didn't succeed that they got media advice, rebranded and became "Building What ?" - ie more focused on CD

that's where Jon and them parted

I'm pro Building What? but CD isn't my only focus

when asked about 9/11 i point to the flawed Zelikow commission and to the families who want an investigation

i might mention CD but it's a fraction of my talking time when speaking to people

The Jersey Girls and others

The Jersey Girls and others have publicly expressed support and even signed the petition of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Lets not forget that the Jersey Girls have led the way in more ways than one!


Told Richard that their endorsement was an honor not to be taken lightly, and that he should be more careful about endorsements like the one he made for CIT.

The "Jersey Girls" just made an effort to get Behroor Sarshar's testimony out in the public view. Did you do anything to promote that? In that thread, I asked for people to "please do what you can to circulate it WIDELY. Please and thank you." Can you show me an example of you doing this?

Did you do anything to promote the multitude of letters they have written over the years? Did you help them to get the signatures for the petition they passed around calling for pertinent information regarding the 9/11 attacks to be released? How much did you do to tell the media about their call for a new investigation in Feb. 2008? I have supported them for as many years I have been involved in this cause. They are national treasures and heroes of mine.

Don't act like I don't support them. I just dedicated an arrest TO them.

And on another note, as you posted a "flashback" today (or last night) on Blogger, I posted a "flashback" as well, yet it was specifically to Kissinger being appointed and resigning as chairman:

Dont put words into my mouth, nor non-actions to my energy.

You have no idea.


I'm glad you promoted it.

Thanks for the

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Those are very important stories, and they still need more exposure.

"..their endorsement was an

"..their endorsement was an honor not to be taken lightly.."

Please know that I completely agree with this sentiment.

Furthermore and as a disclaimer: I am an active volunteer with AE911Truth, and I don't think anyone on our team takes their support as a light honor. We are hard at work to honor their mission of 9/11 justice through a new 9/11 investigation. Architects and Engineers can only take so many angles: they are not NORAD experts.

This is my perspective and should be in no way taken as a comment of AE911Truth.

Jon, I am not questioning your history or intention in this movement: I respect you.

Who is downvoting the Jersey

Who is downvoting the Jersey Girls?

Are you serious, what a joke....

This rampant

paranoia has got to be curbed. But since you're not naming names, and I have a raging ego, I'm just going to assume that you're talking about me. Now, I haven't really seen a lot of people doing what you're saying they're doing, unless in your dictionary 'criticize' and 'attack' have the same definition. Do they?

Let's take your list of the sacred:

Loose Change - A true model for David Ray Griffin to follow. Sharpened their craft to be more credible and engaging over time. Dylan is incidentally a friend of mine, so I don't see myself "attacking" him or his documentary anytime soon.

David Ray Griffin - A great and pioneering aggregator of 9/11 research. Him, along with Michael C. Ruppert, Paul Thompson, and maybe a couple others, helped to open my eyes about what happened before, during, and after 9/11. I've supported him financially and in my own activism. On the other hand, I've engaged in criticism and lampoons of Professor Griffins' theory regarding cell phone fakery. I guess I shouldn't single him out, since theories are like assholes, and the board, and people who post here have both. Either way, I continue to support Professor Griffin, and hope that he'll correct himself in the future and perhaps think before he takes shabby information mainstream on broadcast television. With all that being said, I sincerely hope that he continues on the road to recovery so that he can get back to spending time with his family. That's what he deserves.

Jesse Ventura - An idiot ex-wrestler who likes to lump us in with Area 51, HAARP, and 2012 doomer wet dreams on national television. Here is the last guy I'd have represent me on TV. Maybe you were a wrestling fan as a kid, and your nostalgia hued shades are contributing to clouded judgement. I dunno. But there's not enough criticism in the world for this guy. Is that an attack? I don't think so. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and just happened to find a nice niche to get into. Speaking of..

Alex Jones - The King of All (conspiracy) Media! A one stop conspiracy shop. What terrifies you? FEMA? SKULL & BONES? THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB? GLOBALISTS? ECO TYRANTS? HAARP? ITS ALL HERE! And Alex has a DVD and t-shirt he'd like to sell you. I discovered him AFTER I began learning about 9/11. Slightly after. He drew me in. Then I realized listening to the show everyday was taking a toll on my nerves. And I was always embarrassed to share him with friends and family. But that's just me, I guess. Has he done some good work? Sure. Has he done good interviews? Absolutely. I think he's a great businessman and promoter. I think he's usually sincere. I think he's a jerk, too. I've seen the best and worst of Alex Jones, and I've had my fill. I wouldn't qualify being honest about my feelings toward Alex as attacking him, however.

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION - I'm a believer! Better yet, I'm a believer who's satisfied with a 'conventional explosives' explanation for their destruction! That means I'm not going to try to inject things like mini nukes into the discussion. Wouldn't that just suck? What do they call that? A turd in the punchbowl? Just my luck too, if I started going on and on about mini nukes or space beams the inevitable TV cameras would show up. It's like a mating call for them. We whistle a little diddy about lasers from the clouds, and cable comes to fuck us. Hey, you know, I just thought of something...I think I'm starting believe that Jon Gold is on to something! They always use this shit to make us look crazy and discredited! Goddamnit. That's no way to win hearts and minds! Alright, I guess I'll tell you how I REALLY feel; CD is strong evidence, and a very compelling theory. One of our strongest, in my opinion. Hell, my names on the A/E911Truth list of supporters, and I've even donated. I think its a strong pillar holding up 9/11 truth. One of many. And that's where I tend to part ways with most CD enthusiasts. We've really done a great job of censoring other strong evidence as a result of equating 9/11 truth with controlled demolition. This is where I take umbrage, my friend! I wish nothing but success for NYCCAN. I wish I could sign the petition, but alas, I'm not a New York resident. I really hope this makes sense to you.

And finally;
[EDIT for punctuation and clarity]
I'm not here to make friends. I'm not here to cheer lead for researchers or talking heads or wrestling stars. I'm here to get to the truth. I'm here because I want a new investigation. I want everything that entails. An end to the resource wars. An end to the actual attack on our civil liberties. Oh, and there's a good use of the word 'attack'. What's happening to your right to repeat the same boring shit you always do when someone criticizes a sacred idol is, it's being impinged on and attacked. Your rights. My rights. And that's why I'm on your side. Because maybe one day, partly as a result of your contribution to this movement, we will get a new investigation, an end to the wars, and the restoration of our rights. And by then, I won't have to deal with you!

Take care ;)


Said. Thanks. Did you see this? I found it last night. From 7/22/2005... I wasn't there, but I was at the Emergency Truth Convergence.

I also found this awesome clip of Nafeez at Lafayette Park...

And this video...


Nafeez Ahmed makes Alex Jones sound like the half-truther he is. Jon this video really saddens me in a way, because there were way more people in the US back then that were ready to join the cause and didn't see us all as extremist theorists yelling '9/11 was an inside job'. People have learned a lot of truth from Alex amongst the garbage. That's why these people appealing to accomplishment on the thread must be careful when you are 'learning the truth' from AJ's perspective. It's kinda like why people start to believe they are psychic or can "channel" people. It's because some receptive people visit a "psychic" and see them get about 50 percent truth, well then after a while, even if they know a lot is not true, the mind fills in the gaps in order to embrace the new acceptance of the entire person, rather than specific ideas.

ya know...

ya know Aidan - i am getting pretty sick and tired of you distorting people's intentionality here.

you seem like a smart guy. so how do we explain that fact that you seem to willfully distort people's concerns about CREDIBLE RESEARCH - and equate it with ATTACKING RESEARCHERS??

i know this has been explained to you - multiple time.

yet you persist in INTENTIONALLY INFLAMING the discussion by claiming that we are ATTACKING researchers.

again - for the slow to learn:

it is NOT attacking researchers to strive for credibility and ACCURATE RESEARCH.

1) i'm sorry - but for years people supported the Loose Change films that postulated extremely dubious research. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE OUR FACTS STRAIGHT?? i have NO bone to pick with Dylan. It is nothing personal - but - it is important in a truth movement TO DEFEND THE TRUTH!! IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE AND RESPOND TO IT!! THAT IS WHAT A TRUTH MOVEMENT IS ABOUT!! and missing planes in Pennsylvania and plane switches was INACCURATE.

2) I always had enormous respect for Dr. DRG. I was one of the organizers that brought him to St Marks Church in NYC to speak. He was the ONE researcher that convinced me that we needed a new investigation for 9/11. But again - i'm sorry - voice morphing and faked called to the families is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. it is nothing personal. but when someone profits from selling books that forward research like this - IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE AND RESPOND TO IT!! THAT IS WHAT A TRUTH MOVEMENT IS ABOUT!!

3) Jesse Ventura promotes the work of CIT and Voice Morphing as well - on a TV show that also examines many many other discredited ideas and theories. it is nothing personal. but - i'm sorry again - if you go on national TV claiming to represent the interests of 9/11 Truth while forwarding BAD RESEARCH and DISCREDITED THEORIES - IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE AND RESPOND TO IT!! THAT IS WHAT A TRUTH MOVEMENT IS ABOUT!!

4) Alex Jones? He supports the Birther MOvement and Global Warming is a hoax and a LAUNDRY LIST of discredited research - and the same rules apply. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE AND RESPOND TO IT!! THAT IS WHAT A TRUTH MOVEMENT IS ABOUT!!

This is a simple concept Aidan. so why is it that you continue to inflame and accuse those of us who care to stand up on the side of facts and TRUTH?

what is more important Aidan? the research or the researcher? the facts or the people promoting them?

what would you have us do Aidan? get behind whatever BULLSHIT gets put out there in the name of 9/11 Truth - simply because it is being put out in the name of 9/11 Truth?

how is correcting the record - and standing up for the truth - AND CREDIBILITY - an attack on anyone?

no. it is MY opinion that accusing researchers here of ATTACKING is a way to disrupt and divide the movement - and obscure the facts - and aid and abet the spreading of disinformation.

this thread is about Alex Jones. he promotes RUBBISH as FACT - and that is the TRUTH. stop your whining and accusing us of ATTACKING ALEX JONES. THIS IS A TRUTH MOVEMENT - NOT THE ALEX JONES FAN CLUB!



I voted this guy up, but as

I voted this guy up, but as I'm typing this, he's at 0, which means somebody voted him down....

....For expressing enthusiasm....

"Down in front, youngster! Leave the work to us geriatrics and eunuchs! We know what we're doing - our picket signs and timidity are working just fine, thank you."

Yeah, this system works just great.


I only voted once on this thread, and that was Danse, and up. Still the case.

But I would have preferred it if Alex would have just calmly continued his talk about Charlie Sheen and then found a more refined way of introducing the topics he wants to discuss on mainstream.

Then again, I thought this was a pretty funny appearance, he dropped building 7, millions heard it...

In a broader sense, my views don't align with AJ's no. But I won't spend too much time on that... got other things to do..

ETA: and now I have spent time on it... I guess there are plenty of things left undiscussed about this.

It's a recurring and tiring discussion though. I don't hate AJ, but I'm too far removed from his ideology, and his bombastic mixture of credible critique & poison pills... Conspiracy pimping.

People like Ray McGovern... now there's someone I admire... He faced off with Rumsfeld and instead of yelling "NEW WORLD ORDER SHILL", he utterly defaced him on national television, by reading back to him his own lies and fact-checking his responses live with his VIPS crew. Awesome. Clash of the titans, Rumsfeld isn't stupid, it took a CIA professional like Ray to nail him to the wall. No more spin.

Speaking of Ray...

I found this yesterday to...

Picking up

where Rosie O'Donnell left off. Nice work.

And here, they probably thought their show had heard the last of Building 7--not to mention anything 9/11-truth related--once Rosie made her acrimonious exit. Ha!

Even Whoopsi

admits to not being able to keep up with AJ and would rather stick to Charlie's personal problems.

I love the fact that you

I love the fact that you wrote "even Whoopsi", as if Whoopi Goldberg is the arbiter of intelligence or something.

And InfoWars continues to grow, spreading 9/11 Truth to more people than any other agency, bar none.

TerrorStorm and LC:FC: By far the two best 9/11 docs!*

*My opinion.

Watching those 6 minutes and 12 seconds ...

... is like having a stroke in slow motion ... very, very, very slow and painful motion. --- When will it end, you ask? --- It never does. --- Alex Jones. --- Barbara Waters. --- Everyone keeps talking at once. --- --- Wooops, deja vue, there it is again. --- More Alex Jones' big head on TV --- Why won't it end? --- Oh Whoopi --- please God --- Six Minutes and Nine Seconds --- Six Minutes and Ten Seconds --- Six Minutes and Eleven Seconds ... Help me!

God I know!

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. Really sad.

My main man. Dude's

My main man.

Dude's courage, energy, and force of will make his popularity continue to grow.

A comic book artist friend of mine linked me to a PrisonPlanet article back in 2006 which had a subsequent link to Building 7 (this was before YouTube; it was on their servers). That just blew me away (both making me angry but also just plain ol' fascinated) and he soon had 'Terrorstorm', '911 Road to Tyranny' and 'Loose Change Final Cut' (which was easily the best, in my opinion) and I've never looked back. Great to see his popularity grow.

Good to see some assertive confidence (even cockiness) when presenting facts.

Could have gone worse.

I guess it could have gone worse. Anybody concerned for Libya? Because I am. People are dying to establish a democracy... literally.

Second Favorite Noteworthy Use of a Mainstream Platform

"Inside Job" director Charles Ferguson accepting his Oscar Sunday night for best Documentary

"Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong."

All Hell Breaks Loose on The View After 9/11 Truther Cuts Loose

February 28, 2011
All Hell Breaks Loose on The View After 9/11 Truther Cuts Loose

Alex Jones, a 9/11 truther and promoter of other conspiracy theories, appeared on ABC's The View Monday to defend his friend Charlie Sheen, but diverted the interview into slamming George W. Bush for turning American into "a police state." Veteran journalist Barbara Walters did not denounce the radio host when he referenced the theory that the government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, who walked out when they objected to a comment Bill O'Reilly made about Muslims, did not leave when Jones attacked, "[Charlie Sheen] didn't kill a million people in Iraq. He wasn't involved with the takedown of Building Seven here in New York."

(Building Seven, across the street from the World Trade Center, is a key component to those who believe that the Twin Towers were taken down by a controlled demolition, not as a result of international terrorism.) Later, Jones shifted the subject to politics again and ranted, "Let's compare George Bush, a million dead in Iraq!"

An exasperated Elisabeth Hasselbeck complained, "If you're going to come here and go there, we're asking you about your friend! Let's stick to the topic!"

The first 9/11 Truther

Alex Jones was on the case in July 2001.

He's earned his success through hard work and hands down woken up more people to 9/11 Truth than anyone else. Yesterday he reached into the matrix and did what he could, knowing full well that if he didn't dominate the discussion the hosts would keep it superficial.


(I strongly disagree with both Cooper and Jones idiotic rants about NWO, one world government, communism and socialism, they got the prediction right, but the culprit wrong, the culprit is fascist)

"they got the prediction

"they got the prediction right, but the culprit wrong, the culprit is fascist"

The 9/11 culprit is a word? Can we prosecute the word "fascism" in criminal court and finally be done with this whole thing? Did the word plant the explosives in the WTC and do whatever was done with airplanes?

'Cause I coulda sworn it was murdering human beings not a fricking political word.

Seriously, you know who did 9/11?!? Great! Now please provide the names. And I don't mean name-dropping politicians you don't like, I mean the actual names of the murderers themselves.

In direct and total contrast to your posturing, has, over the years, provided a lot of detail about dudes who were very probably involved in 9/11. For instance: And, of course, he's covered the Dancing Israelis on the air. His documentary 'Martial Law' also provided what I think was a very pointed, solid theory of what was done on the planes.

I'll take a virile, robust man who actually succeeds now and again like Alex Jones over a bunch of limp, useless picket-wielders any day of the week and twice on Sunday. He's done more for 9/11 Truth than all of his critics combined.

Go Alex!

Virile robustness

"Virile robust man" .... now we're talking! LOL.

Do you feel manly? I feel testosterone levels soaring. I bet Alex Jones' glockenspiel can crush those useless sign-wielding activists like overripe melons. Maybe Alex Jones, if prodded and pinched beyond a certain threshold, will morph into one of those fire-breathing dragons like Barbara Streisand in South Park, wreaking havoc across his detractors. Roasting them like marshmallows and flattening them like pancakes, while making high-pitched, shrieking noises.

Anyways, as I pointed out, the 9/11 culprits are neither communist nor socialist.

i think the

online lectures of michael parenti educate well on the substance of empire- anyone who wants can find him on google video

this can help to explain how fascism is the wedding of industry and politics
eg the military industrial complex

though i think that 9/11 is an example of the neocons scaring not just the public, but some other elites too into believing they were under attack from an external threat so they would ok the war on terra

the elites run the empire but the neocons are the militarist engineers of empiric expansion

most elites are happy just to use aggressive capitalism to try to dominate the world but the neocons wanted to speed things up via a new pearl harbor

Show "I hate to break it to you but" by TripleChin


(Not dignifying this with a response - retroactively)

i think fascism

usually involves some level of cooperation between military power and rich industrialists but socialism generally doesnt

that's my impression - perhaps not 100% correct

AJ WAS on the case

Bill Cooper, of course, was his source.

I wonder though

Does AJ's following, let's broaden that, do the anti-NWO activists actually believe 'socialists' and 'communists' were behind 9/11?

Because I seriously recall Operation Cyclone was an anti-communist operation, proposed by the anti-communist Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Show "GLOBALIST= 'socialists' and 'communists'" by Joe

Could you explain

why globalists are socialists and communists, considering that anarchists, socialists and communists are the original anti-globalists?

You know, the folks who died in the streets in Genoa.

I agree Snowcrash.

I think Fascism is a much better description of what has been taking place. Corporations taking control over the government and running the world in a disaster capitalism mode. Seems to be the case from where I see it.

Corporatism - private

Corporatism - private ownership of government.

Yes, who is JFK speaking of here?

He is calling them "communist", but is addressing the same ideology/ideologists that is running things.


We've had this discussion before.

The last time we had this discussion, I tried to point out to you that JFK's speech had to be seen in the context of the Cold War, the National Security state, and most prominently, the tensions leading up the Cuba Crisis.

So, are you saying Soviet Russia was responsible for 9/11?

JFK is not talking about

JFK is not talking about Soviet Russia (superficially maybe). He is referring to something larger.

Remove "Soviet Russia" and insert "Globalists".

They have been working on this for a long time.


This was all dealt with at the link I posted. But let's return to my question:

Are you saying communists did 9/11, Joe?

Listen again- and insert "Globalists"

JFK is not talking about Soviet Russia (superficially maybe). He is referring to something larger.

Eisenhower knew of and spoke of this in his "Military Industrial Complex" warning speech saying essentially that they would infiltrate and take over as they already had.

Kennedy warned of it.

The CONSPIRACY is bigger than what meets the eye and especially the eye that will not see.

I have a better idea

Listen again and insert "Lizard people".

After all, we're free to "insert" anything we want and completely ignore the context, right?

This nonsense has been dealt with.

The Youtube video is a SHAMEFUL contextomy. It is an edited, abused and mutilated version, cut and pasted to fit someone's fantasy. Ethically, I can not ever approve of such opportunistic revisionism.


Just to return to my questions.

Did communists and socialists do 9/11, Joe?

Why don't you answer this question?

Is the Military Industrial Complex secretly "communist" or "socialist" (note the two ideologies are distinctly different, too)?

Or would you rather describe the MIC as 'capitalist'?

Do you even know what globalism is?

The United States arms industry is "communist", Joe??!?

Rather than provide answers to your questions I will...

allow you to find real answers to what ails us both.

John Parulis and Tod Fletcher

Are you watching?

I'm going to take you back to early 2009.

Here is me, defending David Ray Griffin from the allegations of an AJ fan, making DRG out to be an "NWO-conspirator".

The response I got included the remark: "enjoy your death", so I made no effort typing another verbose rebuttal.

I forgot I ever had this exchange, but I just remembered. Now, does this "fit" in your paranoid delusions?

You're free to apologize. Anytime.

Show "Moscow and Beijing are not" by TripleChin


(Why dignify this with a response, anyway)

i did read

"none dare call it conspiracy"
i dont know if that book has been debunked as early cointelpro but i found it very interesting
the new york- backed october revolution is co-called to distinguish it from the other more peaceful one earlier in the same year where the tsar agreed to hand over power to the people
lenin went from new york with financial backing and cronies that took on russian sounding names
the rockefellers+co profited from subsequent dealings with lenin
the wheels fell off for the rockefellers+co when their favorite to take over, trotsky, got ill and mad uncle joe stalin took over
i think the rockefellers were one of the only non russian entities that lenins cccp had dealings with for industry

anyway that's some of what i remember from that book

also the rockefeller's Standard Oil fuelled Hitler and rockefeller's IBM helped with punch card ID methods of census data gathering for efficiency

i remember reading that somewhere too, pls let me know if its just hearsay and bunk- i take everything with a pinch of salt these days !

and the chinese

version of communism is different to the russian model as in the russian doctrine is that a country's power is in getting peasants out of the fields and into factories- ie industrialisation whereas mao said a country's power is notably in manual farm labour
i think mao copied a brand and changed it to suit his purpose but still claimed the altered version was true to the original and still paid lip service to the original

anyway lucky the chinese were influenced by the US via Dr Sun Yat Sen when he set up a monetary system based on the US's pre rockefeller-controlled federal reserve system (yes i know - it's not federal, there are no reserves and it's not a system!).... i read about that in "the web of debt" by Ellen H. Brown who autographed my copy!- in Germany the German version topped the best seller list and was featured prominently in bookshop windows

i don't claim to know everything- pls correct me if im wrong

i read in NDCC

that the london based roundtable spawned the Trilateral group and the CFR in the US

not sure if i remember that 100% crystal clear

Well said


"Does AJ's following, let's broaden that, do the anti-NWO activists actually believe 'socialists' and 'communists' were behind 9/11?"

Fascism is a better term for the evils of the day.

Thanks chriskin.

Alex Jones is my main man also and yes he has done more for the truth movement than all of us put together. "He's earned his success through hard work." You bet your sweet ass he did. Alex is a true Patriot.

The first...

Were the family members. They built the foundation for this cause. All Alex Jones has done was introduce catch phrases like "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB," "NEW WORLD ORDER," "FALSE FLAG ATTACK," etc... and so on. You know... things that aren't helpful in any way, shape, or form. Things that have helped to make us a laughing stock. He's also shown us that we should avoid putting people in the "conspiracy theory business" on a pedastal.

Ya know, Jon......

One of your self-admitted heroes, Ray McGovern, is a frequent guest on AJ's radio show. And he is courteous and polite toward Alex, cuz that's who Ray is. I could say more, but I think I've made my point.

Show "Ray isn't someone..." by Jon Gold

AJ supports family members too Jon

I'm truly baffled by your strict either/or stance. Calling him the first truther doesn't make the families less important. My point was that he (and apparently some others) were warning us of this before there were any victims. And the slogans are apt and useful in my opinion. To each his own I guess.

Bob McIlvaine has appeared on the Alex Jones show and AJ has supported NYCCAN etc. Interjecting into the show is the equivalent of you holding up your sign at the White House: it's intended to get some more people to check it out for themselves. Yes he is promoting his sites, because that's where the info is stored! Hello?!? We're all trying to open fissures into the matrix. If one tenth of one percent of that show's audience logged onto infowars yesterday to try and figure out what he meant by the WTC7 takedown, then 30,000 people maybe got a clue, putting us collectively that much closer to the tipping point we so desperately need. I don't swallow everything every guest on his show touts, but I'm sure glad that we haven't gotten so fascist yet that he can be silenced. The media landscape would be poorer in spades without him. Let's quit bashing each other and keep moving forward in any way we can think of. The hour is running late.

AJ does whatever makes AJ...

Money. He has a business to run. A "conspiracy theory business." He is no leader, and shouldn't be presented as such. My sign cost me $85, and didn't make me any money.

So an interesting question would be

what Alex Jones does with all that money he makes off of selling conspiracytheory products?
I'm wondering about that myself.

To me there's nothing wrong with making a lot of money, as long as it's "well spent" so to speak.
I also wonder how much people like Charlie Cheen and other people with "more than average incomes", who publicly or quietly support the cause, donate to the various causes (relative to their income).
I always think it's a little strange the amount of time it takes for gather enough money for those FOIA requests or other stuff that needs to be financed. Especially when thinking about the unlimited resources that our adversary has at its disposal.

It's called leverage

What does he do with the money? He makes more videos, hires more writers, buys servers and cameras, leases more bandwidth. All in an attempt to counteract the 100% co-opted mainstream media. Media is a business and it's being used very effectively to bludgeon this movement, so when a guy supporting our issue tries to level the playing field, I say more power to him. I never called him a leader, but I do consider him a more courageous journalist than most.

Having said that, your $85 investment was extremely well-leveraged and I give you credit for that and all your efforts.

he built himself a

TV studio

AJ is in entertainment

that's why he makes people smile

like a jester

in olden times only the jester could tell the truth and stay alive as he would mix it with a jumble of gobbledegook

the more things change the more they stay the same


oops - just voted you down by mistake - who cares right. But you´re absolutely right - Jones grasped the bull by the horns - used that opportunity to put the whole world in perspective - wasn´t so concerned about currying favour with Walters et al - as he was to get the truth out !! The guy rocked that silly gossipy program. Brilliant !

You've done it too!

I am a witness!

The producers and the hosts

The producers and the hosts knew all about AJ before they invited him. They have to. Vetting guests is a major part of their job.They know he is a loose cannon, and about his theories and his (and Charlie's) thoughts on 9/11, but they invited him anyway. So, obviously, there is not a total blackout against those who question 9/11. In and of itself that is good news for truth.

The off-topic 9/11 and NWO comments were AJ's version of civil disobedience, and if we are gonna go down that path, we need to embrace everyone who is willing to face public humiliation.

AJ did a really good job.................for AJ.

Agree Wholeheartedly

Alex Speaks Out About The Charlie Sheen Controversy and Appearing on ABC's 'The View'


Alex did great! He really came off as a level headed guy who just cares about his friend! Im glad he kept the self promotion to the minimal! This was almost as good as the time Charlie interviewed Obama!



The answer to 1984 is the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It's awesome for the exposure

It's awesome for the exposure to the idea, same as when Rosie O'Donnel used TV as a platform to spread word of WTC7. Alex Jones is not the best spokesperson for 911 truth in my opinion, but you can't hate on exposure, wherever it comes from.

Critical Mass

I agree with you, Vulich. Would anyone here rather that AJ did NOT mention Building 7?? He had the platform and he took advantage of it. Otherwise the appearance would have been solely about Charlie like the View intended. I'm glad he shook things up!

No, I don't agree with AJ across the board, but I welcome the exposure. Getting a new investigation requires reaching critical mass.

This is a position

I can sympathize with, certainly.

Yeah i guess....

...grudgingly big up to mad alex jones

Alex Jones: Producer of the

Alex Jones: Producer of the Three Greatest 9/11 Documentaries:


Loose Change Final Cut

Fabled Enemies

Alex Jones - 9/11 truth champion.

Yeah, hey, about Loose Change Final Cut

Quoting Dylan Avery, here on 911blogger:

I'm not sure how I feel about Alex being represented as the leader of the 9/11 truth movement.

Or any of us, for that matter.

No he´s not THE leader

but he´s one of a handful who have been instumental in taking 9-11 Truth mainsteam. You said something above about Libya being important. Does that imply that jones was remiss in not bringing that situation in to the conversation AS WELL. Lot to ask. The point was this, in case you missed it - getting drunk and/or "blowing up" is NOT a crime in comparison to murdering 3000 on 9/11 or one million in Iraq. He put it forcefully and I´m sure the audience grasped the point if you didn´t.


I'm not sure what you're on about, to be honest?

I was tempering the AJ panegyrists, but I don't recall requesting that AJ should talk about Libya... nor do I understand what you mean by getting drunk and blowing up.. are you referring to the stories doing the rounds about AJ.. getting drunk and wanting to beat up his friends, as relayed by Jack Blood?

And what is this patronizing poppycock about me not "grasping the point"? There are multiple comments on this page by me to choose from. I do believe plenty of them explain how I think it's a good thing if AJ draws attention to some potent areas of 9/11 Truth in mainstream media.

You know full well AJ is no stranger to any of us and we are discussing the merits of his approach. That is a discussion way beyond "grasping" the fact that he's generating attention to 9/11 Truth regardless.

You yourself admit there is room for improvement. So let's not pretend I need to be 'schooled' by you on the basics of who is Alex Jones and his relationship to 9/11 Truth.

I could write a book about Alex Jones. LIke many others, I didn't start out with such a skeptical disposition towards him. But people, hopefully, grow up to grow wise. In fact, a prominent friend in the 9/11 Truth Movement told me something about leadership not too long ago that I will remember, especially since it came from him: "Don't follow leaders"


I was refering to the theme of the above "view" telecast - the theme was Charly Sheen "blowing up" and attacking his producer and the sub theme of Sheen's drinking and drug habits. I was saying that Jones did an excellent job putting that gossipy business in context - mentioning Iraq, 9-11, torture, police state, etc, and of course
Your first post above says that Libya is important to you - I was asking YOU why you were injecting that issue into this particular threat.


Because.... this whole movement is about wresting democracy back from the hands of potentates.. and in North Africa they are doing what we can only dream of doing.

Yet, suddenly our military might goes limp and we hear all sorts of whining from military tacticians about the "complexities" of imposing a no fly zone over the airspace of a dictator who has gone bonkers.

I didn't hear all this whining about military "overstretching" when NATO was playing Genghis Khan in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Libya is a lot closer to where I am than it is to you, I guess. Maybe that explains the disinterest. What is happening in North Africa is MONUMENTAL. This is the Project for a New Arab Century

But yes, it is OT. I consider this way more important than "The View" though.


The US and Nato have been trying to destroy the Gaddafi regime for 40 years now - since he overthrew the US puppet monarchy and nationalized the oil. They have gone to great extremes to vilify the man and the regime since, in contradistinction to Mubarak, the Saudis, etc. they are consistantly opposed to Zionist policy. He also gave help to the Salvadoran revolutionaries among others. In the 80´s they attempted the blame the LaBelle Night Club bombing on Lybia with no shred of evidence and bombed Lybia, sending cruse missles into his home killing several of his children. And yes, I am very concerned about Lybia, that´s why I was actively organizing protest of that murder and intervention and Big Lie slander campaign. And of course the imfamous pan Am 103, Lockerby, blamed on Lybia - as excuse for "sanctions", etc. The case has completely fallen apart.

well, dont worry to much about the imperialist losing their will to use military power to destroy the Gaddafi regime. it´s a secular regime in which the oil wealth has been used to benefit a broad majority of people. No, I don´t particularly like Gaddafi´´s ideology, nor can i vouch for his personal character or honesty, but that´s hardly the point. the point is they have the greatest oil reserves in Africa.

Still can't figure the context in which you were bringing it up in the Jones/View discussion.


I think it is historical revisionism to say of Libya that it has good leadership and that the fact that they are falling is due to American influence and not a spontaneous popular uprising. The people in the Arab world are all working to destroy the status quo that has existed there for a generation, and I'm having a hard time seeing that as a bad thing. Under the Bush regime Libya was hailed as a "partner" in the war on terrorism, which essentially means they abused their own domestic population and curtailed their civil liberties. Now under a new President even stalwart allies of the American empire are beginning to fall. Stop preaching defeat! The world is changing for the better and we can be a part of that positive change if we can just get on the right side of history!! I believe we can! The revolutionary period happening in the Arab world right now is not designed by the Western world, it is the effect of the Arab world asserting itself and an American administration that is willing to let it happen for the first time in a generation. For so long the US allied itself with these despots because it suited our foreign policy interests, now we are allowing them to fail. This represents a significant shift in US foreign policy. Under Bush we would be hearing the US administration describe the protesters as "mercenaries", "insurgents", or even "terrorists". Look at Gaddhafi's own statements from a few days ago, he is saying that the protesters have been drugged by Al Qaeda. He is appealing to the big lie that is being allowed to become ineffectual!!

A basic point I failed to

A basic point I failed to mention above is that Gaddhafi is openly killing his people because they were peacefully protesting. I can't believe he would get any sympathy from anybody writing here. I would be supportive of a full range of options to dislodge him from power as he is now properly considered a war criminal and an enemy of civilization. Please people make distinctions, not all situations should receive the same anti-govt. analysis that seems so automatic to some.

well said

well said

Libya is off topic: enough - additional posts will be removed

a post was created awhile back related to the uprisings in Egypt/the ME; this discussion would be appropriate there.

i think you overstated

i think you overstated Libya's "nationalizing" of its oil.

Libya only partially nationalized its oil after the revolution

Like other oil producing countries, Libya nationalized its oil companies in the 1970s, but it stopped short of full nationalization. In a declared attempt to obtain more control over its oil production, Libya moved in the 1970s towards Participation Agreements. Under these agreements, the newly established National Oil Corporation became a majority partner of the foreign oil company in return for an agreed compensation to the foreign oil company for the nationalized share.

I also have a problem with this comment you made:

"it´s a secular regime in which the oil wealth has been used to benefit a broad majority of people"

according to Ralph Shoenman:

"Libya is a country of six and a half million people with oil production of a million and a half barrels a day. Huge fortunes derive from the sale of oil and none of that goes to the benefit of the Libyan people. All of it goes to the apparatus that you described; that military apparatus; that oil company apparatus, that exploits people and sustains repression. It's not an opponent of repression but is the instrument of it. "

so - overall - i would say your attempts to frame this issue as "Gaddafi is a victim of western imperialism" (my quote- not yours) is rather weak - both in its historical accuracy - and in light of the fact that he is now slaughtering his own people for protesting in the streets.

A deed well done

is all I can say. Thanks AJ.

Credibility Matters

this brings us back to the 'big tent' - 'credibility' debate that seems at the center of so many of these stories.

Alex Jones has forwarded many ideas and conspiracy theories that I think discredits him - and his judgment.

For example - Alex Jones has endorsed the 'Birther Movement' and the 'global warming is a hoax' movement - and the NWO diatribes.

in my opinion - credibility matters

what good is it if someone screams about 9/11 Truth out of one mouth - while preaching demonstrably false assertions out of the other?

a very wise man named Zombie Bill Hicks once said- 'when you mix one pound of bullshit with ten pounds of ice cream - you end up with eleven pounds of bullshit.'

(i paraphrase of course)

WTC7 comment censored:

In case nobody noticed check this link out:

The audio of Alex mentioning wtc7 is cut out! More precisely it is the the word seven which is cut out. Incredible!

PS Personally I think Alex is doing more good than bad and it is not a good move to try to divide the 911 community into Alex Jones supporters and non-supporters.

Right you are!


changed from

building seven


building s

ie buildings plural meaning the twin towers

he needs to repeat and repeat "building 7" not just to avoid the edit but to reinforce the message to the public

glitch or dirty trick?

what an 'incredible' coincidence if it was a glitch, huh? But if the intent was to prevent people from hearing "7", it failed, unless it was censored during the live broadcast. And omitting it from the recording makes it look like crappy equipment was being used, or more likely, that there was an intentional effort to manipulate the public, which makes mediaite/whoever look like shit, while fueling speculation about their motives/journalistic integrity.

In addition, the Fox post prominently notes the mention of 7:

""[Charlie Sheen] didn't kill a million people in Iraq. He wasn't involved with the takedown of Building Seven here in New York."

"(Building Seven, across the street from the World Trade Center, is a key component to those who believe that the Twin Towers were taken down by a controlled demolition, not as a result of international terrorism.)"

I agree with other commenters here that Alex Jones, while he may have introduced many to 9/11 lies and facts, he's contributed in a big way to the negative stereotype of 'truthers' as 'wild-eyed conspiracy kooks', with his consistent promotion of sensationalistic, unsubstantiated and demonstrably false info, while simultaneously engaging in a huge amount of self-promotion of his for-profit ventures - how many times was mentioned, vs. Seven?


let me tell you something about infowars and the product placement of infowars - i bet i could mention infowars way more times than i mention buiding seven, that's infowars

good product placement AJ, almost as good as jim carey selling redbull : (i jest !)


Doesn't help advocates for 9/11 Justice at all. At... all.

Every Comment is Favorable to AJ



The article doesn't help, and neither does he. Remember when he put all of our resources into supporting Ron Paul for President, only to find out that Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about this cause? Remember when he was pushing Stanley Hilton who turned out to be a charlatan? Remember when he insisted on first class travel for the Chicago event? Remember when he refused to help the "Week Of Truth"? Remember when the September Eleventh Advocates were seeking signatures for the 3 pertinent classified pieces of information they wanted released that he didn't mention on his show or his site? Remember all of those sensationalized tidbits of information that were inaccurate and used against us? Remember how every event that has happened since 9/11 has been blamed on nefarious individuals? Remember when he introduced the nifty catch phrases like "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB," "NEW WORLD ORDER," "FALSE FLAG ATTACK," that have never helped us at all, and only helped to make us look more crazy, etc...? How does the Bohemian Grove, Skull & Bones, Bilderberger, Birthers, etc... etc... etc... help us? It doesn't in any way, shape, or form help advocates for 9/11 Justice.

He is a business man, and conspiracy theories are his business. He has helped to make us a laughing stock.

Laughing stock's exactly

"This kid Loughner disappeared for days at a time before the shooting? My gut tells me this was a staged mind-control operation. The government employs geometric psychological-warfare experts that know exactly how to indirectly manipulate unstable people through the media. They implanted the idea in his head by repeatedly asking, 'Is Giffords in danger?'"

Jones doesn't stop there. The Gates Foundation? "Obviously a eugenics operation." The latest WikiLeaks dump? "All the hallmarks of an intelligence disinfo campaign.'

"Government-lab-produced airborne Ebola?" Jones thunders. "It's comin' your way! Enjoy it, yuppies!'

Look at all this conspiratorial garbage. Not a THING about 9/11 truth, but that's not the worst part. The worst part is how most of the people who read Rolling Stones political articles, have heard the phrase 9/11 was an inside job and probably Alex....the problem is then the average open minded leftist can than begin to assume that everyone who has questions about the official story of 9/11 :
a. KNOW'S that 9/11 was an inside job and KNOW it soooo well, that they can just decree it in an audaciously presumptuous fashion.
b. Are all like Alex Jones and assume, and some have for years, that he is our leader and a staple representative of the majority of people who have basic questions about 9/11.

GROSS. I was afraid of all the publicity he would get from this. The fact that he was on the view and in rolling stone frankly says a lot about how much of a "threat" he is to the people committing high crimes in this world.


I'm wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on your position and more precisely state what it is you are advocating. In particular, can you elaborate on why you think Alex has a more negative effect than positive? Do you think that the 911 movement would have been stronger if Alex would not have been around? How do you come to such a conclusion? What criteria are you using here to determine such a thing?

Furthermore, suppose now we would be successful in dividing the 911 movement into two rival groups: AJ supporters vs non-supporters. Where is the obvious benefit here? It seems to me that the debunker sites are only going to ridicule the movement more and mainstream media will still only cover the cranky side and take advantage of the rivalry.

I agree with you that when trying to convince an academic person that we need an independent 911 investigation, it is definitely not a good idea to mention Alex Jones, and I never do. Even talking about about 911 is rather tricky among academics (physicists in my case). They will find all kinds of excuses not to be interested, change topic, or joke it away, but even when I come so far so that I can start discussing some of the most convincing analysis (which for me is the nano-thermite paper and free-fall of wtc7) they will not be willing to take the step and stand behind 911 truth. Some will cite debunkers claiming it's paint, kaolinite, it was produced during the collapse, misleadingly citing fig. 14 instead of fig. 7 etc. But after further discussion they generally see that the debunkers do a really poor job. The depressing point here is that it still does not matter! They will have been exposed to hard evidence and various details, understood that the debunker critique is very shallow and non-scientific, but still that is not enough to make then say "ok, this is a real issue".They still are unwilling to support the 911 movement, *even* among friends.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the issue of getting credible people behind the 911 movement is not just about providing accurate and convincing info and facts. The movement need to become socially acceptable and something people find interesting and acceptable to talk about.

I would also like to question the idea that it is somehow Alex Jones' fault that the 911 truth movement is ridiculed. I do not see how that is the case. It is the media propaganda machine that is at fault here. If Alex Jones was not there media would find somebody else. And there will always be cranks around.

We are a movement...

That requires absolute credibility in order to maintain any relevance. If a mugger were to mug you with a gun with no bullets, would you give them a bullet? No. Alex Jones has given too many "bullets" to count over the years to our detractors. I bumped the 2005 9/11 Congressional Briefing thread, and I also posted the 9/11 Omission Hearings. When did we turn from that movement into the "New World Order," "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!," "FALSE FLAG ATTACK," "BLACK OPS," "BILDERBERGER," "BOHEMIAN GROVE," "SKULL & BONES," movement? He had A LOT to do with that.

You ask, "do you think that the 911 movement would have been stronger if Alex would not have been around?" Absolutely. We would be less of a laughing stock.

Haze, I'm surprised that you, someone with a science background,

do not consider someone, like Alex Jones, who promotes misinformation and half-truths as certain facts, to be discrediting to their self, as well as to anyone that relies on their misinfo, or promotes them as credible/useful/serious/more than 'entertainment.'

As if that wasn't bad enough, AJ is also someone who makes sensational and disturbing claims based on misinfo, while strongly urging people to send him $ for his various products and services.

"The point I'm trying to make here is that the issue of getting credible people behind the 911 movement is not just about providing accurate and convincing info and facts. The movement need to become socially acceptable and something people find interesting and acceptable to talk about."

This is a Truth Movement, not an opinion/speculation/conspiracy theory movement, or a religion or a fandom. Providing accurate info is a must, because 1) it's about truth, and justice will depend on the truth, or at least the facts as they can be determined by evidence, and 2) this movement has been continually disrupted and discredited since 9/11 by people pushing BS claims and engaging in behavior that either makes them look ridiculous or like psychos. Whether or not they're doing it to be discrediting, or whether they're doing it to get attention and make a buck, or whether they simply think that's the right way to do things doesn't matter; one end result is disruption and discredit. If this movement is going to be "socially acceptable", among other things, activists need to reject the BS claims and figures that the MSM so easily uses against it.

"I would also like to question the idea that it is somehow Alex Jones' fault that the 911 truth movement is ridiculed. I do not see how that is the case. It is the media propaganda machine that is at fault here. If Alex Jones was not there media would find somebody else. And there will always be cranks around."

If everyone interested in truth and justice acted reasonably and only promoted credible evidence, admitting mistakes when made, there would be no fodder for the MSM to use against the movement. There likely will "always be cranks around", but people interested in truth and justice should reject unsubstantiated/controversial claims, and disassociate from people whose statements and behavior have brought discredit and caused disruption - imho.

Many thanks Loose nuke

I agree that providing accurate information is a must and one should never deviate from that. I will never deliberately promote misinformation just to convince somebody and I will never encourage other people to do that.

This statement

"If everyone interested in truth and justice acted reasonably and only promoted credible evidence, admitting mistakes when made, there would be no fodder for the MSM to use against the movement."

does not seem to me to be completely accurate. The situation is more complicated in my opinion. For example, the nano-thermite research provides plenty of material for ridicule despite this being solid research. The idea that someone managed to plant explosives in the WTC is, for most people, a preposterous and downright kooky idea not worthy of any consideration. For example, Chomsky is belittling people who think that there is evidence for nano-thermite in the dust. For him you're a kook if you mention nano-thermite, period. So I think it is important to recognize that the ridicule also comes from not having a politically correct opinion and not just from the presence of inaccurate information.

Furthermore, even your statement would be completely true, the 911 movement is not somehow going to be liberated from cranks. I don't see how that could happen in the real world. People are people. And media will find those people for various reasons.

From personal experience it seems to me that promoting accurate information, although absolutely necessary, is only part of a good strategy. People think the 911 truth movement is kooky not just because there is inaccurate claims out there but also simply because it is not politically correct and socially acceptable. The accuracy of the information can and often is largely irrelevant. I think this is one of the major problems we have to deal with.

I would think that it would be more productive to come up with ideas how to make 911 truth a socially acceptable topic. This seems to me a central issue. I don't see how dividing the 911 movement (which consists both of cranks and very credible people) into AJ supporters and non-supporters, will make 91 truth any more socially acceptable in academia.

Perhaps I'm misjudging the situation because of my own experience which might not reflect how things are for most people. I feel isolated in academia since I think 911 truth is very important and it is not an acceptable topic (there are of course isolated exceptions). That might contribute to me feeling that the 911 movement is more fragile and weak than it really is. And perhaps you are right that the movement is strong enough right now so that the best strategy is simply to expel the people in the movement that are not promoting 100% accurate info, and so divide the movement into roughly two camps, and that this would not have negative consequences.

I need to hear some good arguments here for why this would be the best strategy to increase the influence of 911 movement.

refreshing insights, you must be new here.

"The situation is more complicated in my opinion. For example, the nano-thermite research provides plenty of material for ridicule despite this being solid research. The idea that someone managed to plant explosives in the WTC is, for most people, a preposterous and downright kooky idea not worthy of any consideration. For example, Chomsky is belittling people who think that there is evidence for nano-thermite in the dust. For him you're a kook if you mention nano-thermite, period. So I think it is important to recognize that the ridicule also comes from not having a politically correct opinion and not just from the presence of inaccurate information.

Furthermore, even your statement would be completely true, the 911 movement is not somehow going to be liberated from cranks. I don't see how that could happen in the real world. People are people. And media will find those people for various reasons"
Great Point!

Here's another:
"The accuracy of the information can and often is largely irrelevant" fox news does it all the time!

One point I would make is that 911 truth is already becoming a more socially acceptable topic, however, this is not entirely good news because the lies of the past including such events around JFK,RFK,MLK, Iran Contra, Gulf of Tonkin and even WMD's are socially acceptable and swept aside under the mantras of moving forward and other such nonsense. Some noted exceptions are the Lavon affair and the Attack on the US Liberty which enjoy special status even after many years. Plenty of credible evidence and research exists for a great many disturbing lies surronding numerous events, but has failed to win the day in helping humanity.

Finally, my views are not accepted on this site any longer without extreme sanction or partial censorship in the form of below the threshold posting. However, I see your comment as insightful, objective and thoughtful.

"The accuracy of the

"The accuracy of the information can and often is largely irrelevant."

It is to our detractors, but not to those we want to reach, or to those who might do something because of what we've told them.

We are not the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Movement. You might want to read this...

In my

discussions with people I'm not dealing with detractors. I'm dealing with colleagues in academia. But I think that these are indeed the people you want to reach and it is these people for whom " the information... often is largely irrelevant."

Perhaps we are talking past each other here.

Haze, cont.

I should've been clearer, but my point was that if truth activists don't promote misinfo as fact and speculation as truth, then the movement is not providing the fodder.

You've made an important point, and this actually underscores the importance of the need to be credible, in addition to appearing credible. Certainly, the MSM and establishment pundits and pols will spin the facts - they're also pretending the 9/11 Commission's make up and investigation were credible, as well as ignoring hundreds of unanswered questions, or questions answered w/ bogus/incomplete answers. Anyone who suggests the investigation was inadequate is immediately looked at/labeled a 'conspiracy theorist.'

So, you're correct that the 'fodder' is still there, in that many Americans have been socialized, with some success, to shut their minds and mouths in the face of obvious problems with the stories being fed to them by the media, pundits, govt. officials, institutions, etc., and that this socialization is being exploited. But there's no value in making it easy for them to discredit the truth movement, i.e. giving them ground to do it legitimately, by promoting misinfo as fact and speculation as truth.

I don't think people can be 'kicked out' of a movement, but we have a choice about who we choose to associate with, promote, who we will allow ourselves to be associated with us, speak for us, etc. For instance, McKinney didn't invite any cranks to testify at the Omission Hearings, though she probably got many offers. Certainly, the MSM will continue to pretend there's no difference. And, this movement has been divided in this way since 9/11. For sure, though, a big tent that includes bogus 'evidence' and tolerates people promoting bogus evidence and and claims and behaving badly is not going to become influential.

The establishment media and pundits have framed the 9/11 truth movement as a subculture of conspiracy kooks and turned it into a tar baby, and they would've tried to do this w/ or w/o people promoting BS info, but those promoting BS have made their job easier. Time called the 9/11 truth movement a 'mainstream political reality' but they didn't mean that in a good way; they meant that there are millions of politically and socially active people whose views are based on misinformation about 9/11. Unfortunately, there's truth to that.


There are many parameters that influence credibility. Accurate information is of course one of them. A second important parameter is the amount of infighting. If people see a lot of infighting in an already controversial and socially unaccepted movement then the chances are that they will try to "stay out".

As there are a lot of unsupported theories out there floating around, it is of course important for credibility to try to "clean up" (i.e. try to steer people within the movement to focus more on solid research and facts). But credibility is not just about accurate information and hard evidence. If the "cleaning-up" will also involve significant disruptions and creation of infighting and division of the movement we have to be careful.

I like your study on the DRG phone calls theory and I would like to thank you for the effort as it made me and probably several others more aware that there indeed are real issues with DRG phone-call theory. It is indeed a good clean-up "operation".

The first thing to gauge is whether your essay caused significant disruption. I find myself not knowledgeable enough to assess the situation. Several comments under your essay seems to me to be clear warning signs but perhaps I misjudge the strength of the 911 truth movement. What is your impression here?

The second issue is whether the disruption (significant or not) was really necessary in the first place. It seems to me that the task of "cleaning-up" is approached in a rather coarse way here at 911 blogger. It is as if we only have two choices: either a) do the necessary cleaning and cause major disruption or b) don't clean and suffer the ridicule that comes from being associated with cranks and "crazy theories". But this seems to me a false dichotomy: it is very possible to clean up and at the same time minimize disruption.

Here are a few ways to avoid unnecessary disruption and infighting. (Let me stress that I do understand that I'm in no real position to give advice.)

1) Have private conversations with the person(s) with the opposing view. (This you probably already had.)
2) Let potentially disruptive essays go through some kind of peer review with one of the referees representing the opposing view. Perhaps it would have been appropriate in this case to have submitted the essay to 911 studies with DRG as one of the referees?
3) Always be overly polite and friendly no matter how many times you feel disappointed. Your essay could have started "I would like to invite DRG to a discussion and reappraisal of the evidence for the 911phone calls. Many of us here at 911blogger feel that the evidence for the claim that these were fake is not strong enough....And given that this issue is rather sensitive for many 911 family members I would urge ...." or something like that.
4) As far as possible try not to make it explicitly into being "right or wrong", although this is of course what it is actually about.
5) Be careful with wording. The sentence beginning with "A Professor Emeritus and skilled rhetorician,..." could very well be taken as a direct accusation.
6) Think creatively in advance on how to minimize potential disruption.

But of course, there are extreme cases which should *not* be approached in this way, e.g. DEW supporters, no planes. If it is possible to get away with a well-researched but blunt dismissal and with minimal disruption then there is nothing to worry about. But then we have people like CIT who push a speculative flyover theory (contradicted by eye witnesses) and have managed to impress well-meaning activists like Zwicker. And then we have the phone calls issue.The situation in these cases quickly becomes more complicated as disruption and infighting becomes a real issue.

It is clear that we have to continue "cleaning" but we must also think hard about how to go about doing that.

Please Jon repost this as a

Please Jon repost this as a blog or news entry. I think people need to see both sides of the story and understand that Alex Jones is being recruited by the MSM to be the spokesperson for all manner of crazy theories, thereby bringing 911 truth into discredit. Can it be a coincidence that he is getting more exposure as the truth movement begins to orient itself towards honest activism and public outreach?

I did...

But it hasn't been posted yet.

Well said!!

'in my opinion - credibility matters

what good is it if someone screams about 9/11 Truth out of one mouth - while preaching demonstrably false assertions out of the other?

a very wise man named Zombie Bill Hicks once said- 'when you mix one pound of bullshit with ten pounds of ice cream - you end up with eleven pounds of bullshit.'

If only Alex had just looked at the audience and repeated three times..don't believe me or anyone here...Do your own research. Google WTC 7..... .instead of plugging INFO WARS

Show "Credibility is not all that matters" by phredo


"Actually, Alex Jones brings lots of credibility with him because of his good command of facts and research, even if he may not always be accurate."

this has to be the funniest comment on this thread

credibility and accuracy

I knew I'd take some flack for saying that, but I'll explain.

Jones is not always accurate but he knows a lot and is often accurate. So while it's true that you can't trust entirely what he says, often it's true, often he's one of the few people saying it, and often he's saying it to the people who need to hear it.

Another ugly thread

Man, there is a lot of anger, vitriol, name calling and ugliness on this thread............. coming from people who don't like AJ because of his anger, vitriol and name calling. What does that say? I think we need a few more mirrors in this movement.

Au contraire

Actually seems rather well behaved and civil to me. Especially compared to some other threads on similar topics.

Ugly's in the eye of the beholder


exactly! Some think Alex is ugly and some Don't!

I certainly disagree with some of his comments but overall I consider him a solid patriot. He gives away lots of his movies and tells people to copy them. Yes he needs money to run his shop but why hold that against him. While he may be deemed unfit for access into the "elite tent" here at blogger, he certainly could come to any backyard barbecue I have. Personally I think he probably wishes he had better self control skills and could communicate more effectively to more people, but I will accept him for who he is and I believe he is genuine in his beliefs. I don't see him as an entertainer at ALL! You want uniformed entertainment listen to Howard Stern!

Alex, good job, but don't repeat

Alex, I am a supporter of your channel, buy your materials, share them, and consider you a great American patriot. But really Alex, you gotta stop repeating "!" like that. It sounds like am advertising chant. It makes you come across as a guy trying to use his friend's sickness for free advertising, "plugging" your web site. Just say once, then stop. We heard it the first time. Better to stick to the topic and get invited on to more talk shows. Unfortunately, after such obvious plugging, the View probably won't invite you again.