Engineering Change: A Blueprint for 9/11 Truth (featuring Richard Gage, AIA, Cynthia Mckinney, Luke Rudkowski and April Gallop)



Join We Are Change Atlanta at the First Iconium Baptist Church in East Atlanta 542 Moreland Ave SE Atlanta, Ga 30316 4-9pm Saturday, May 21st, 2011 as we present:

“Engineering Change: A Blueprint for 9/11 Truth” Featuring: Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Special Guest: The Honorable Cynthia Mckinney, U.S. Congressperson & Green Party Presidential Candidate Luke Rudkowski, Filmmaker, Avant Garde Journalist, Founder of as well as April Gallop the brave whistleblower and pentagon survivor!

As your nation approaches the 10 Year anniversary of The War On Terror here is your reality Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the paradoxical "Humanitarian Air Strikes" against Libya without congressional approval or even consultation (UN and Arab League consulted ) Crushing national debt, mind blowing annual deficits, a rising cost of living along with lowering wages with a military budget that has almost doubled since 2000. Over 1 million estimated killed during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan including over 6000 US service men and women and their devastated American families. No seeming end in sight to armed conflict...

The justification for all of these realities is the epic tragedy of 9/11 burned into the soul of every American. Many experts, architects, engineers, physicists and even 9/11 commissioners have hard questions regarding the 9/11 Commission Report and are calling for a reopening of the investigation as hard science is being uncovered which cannot be explained by or even contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. If all those realities above are based on evidence which can be scientifically proven false then we as a nation must ask the question: what have we done?... and what will we do? COME and SEE just a few of these experts present their evidence on Saturday, May 21st. PLEASE RSVP ON FACEBOOK HERE

Engineering Change: A Blueprint for Truth Saturday May 21st, 20114:00 – 9:00 pm @ First Iconium Baptist Church542 Moreland Avenue, S.E.Atlanta, Ga 30316 $10 Suggested Donation. No One Turned Away (Sliding Scale Available) Local Contact Info: & | (404) 890-6321 Sponsors:WeAreChangeAtlanta.Com


The posters are great and it

The posters are great and it looks like a great event. Cynthia McKinney is an extremely inspiring speaker.

However . . . I think its unfortunate that someone who claims that a plane could not have made the hole in the Pentagon will be involved in this. That claim is contradicted by dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach and crash (likely hundreds if not thousands saw the plane approaching and / or hitting but were never interviewed).

Although many people support April Gallop as a survivor, and we all understand it was a horrible tragedy to have to live through, it is unfortunate that she has been a central source for the misguided claim that a Boeing jetliner could not have hit the Pentagon.

Here is a statement on the Pentagon issue by Richard Gage:

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle. In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.


Richard Gage, AIA

Recommended Reading:

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010

The Pentagon: A joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010

A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t, by Kevin Ryan, Oct 2010

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) Jan 2011

What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011


Including April Gallop with the others in this line-up is out-of-place, IMHO.

Richard Gage is Happy to Have April Join Us

Just so you know Victronix. April is welcomed at this event.

Let's not conflate different aspects of a major story. Let's not be divisive and let us not forget that April is bravely pursuing justice for
those slain at the pentagon. The reason being we know they had forewarning according to Norman Minetta's sworn testimony.

Therefore they are liable for not warning the men and women working at the Pentagon that day.
April is speaking out as a direct witness to the utter lack of alarm on behalf of those who died, and this does not discredit or distract from the evidence the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are bringing forward, focusing on the Destruction of the Three WTC Towers primarily.

As for the debate about who saw what with the pentagon. That is not the purpose of her visit so please don't run to assumption.

"However . . . I think its unfortunate that someone who claims that a plane could not have made the hole in the Pentagon will be involved in this. That claim is contradicted by dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach and crash (likely hundreds if not thousands saw the plane approaching and / or hitting but were never interviewed)."

What she actually says is that she did not see anything resembling a plane had hit the pentagon or that there was any jet fuel on her or the other survivors.

How about we focus on promoting the event instead of nitpicking little details immediately?
I appreciate your concern but please note that Cynthia, Richard & Luke are more than happy to have April as part of this event.

Please respect her as part of this movement and please understand we have this under control.

Thank you

-We Are Change Atlanta

It is not "nitpicking" to limit our claims to what we know

WeAreChangeAtlanta, I note that you say "we have this under control". That is great.

It is certainly a very important fact, i.e. something we know, that Cheney was informed of the approach of an aircraft, monitored by radar, and took no action to evacuate the Pentagon. If that is the case which April will present, all is well.

RE: "nitpicking"

Yes I agree.
I understand it is crucial to focus on what can be known so as to avoid any unforeseen complications.

I do appreciate everyone taking pains to ensure that we do not compromise the great work of any of the organizations or presenters involved.
That being said, April is doing something incredibly heroic and does not intend to cause any difficulty for anyone in the movement.

Also she is not speaking on behalf of any organization that I am aware of other than her self and the victims of the Pentagon attack.

Best wishes

-We Are Change Atlanta

Ignoring pentagon victims and witnesses

WeAreChangeAtlanta said..."What she actually says is that she did not see anything resembling a plane had hit the pentagon or that there was any jet fuel on her or the other survivors."

So what? This April Gallop no plane garbage is getting old. She didn't see a plane and there was no jet fuel on her or the other survivors? Of course she didn't see a plane so what? She was inside, the people outside all saw the plane hit, and as for no jet fuel on her or the other survivors, it's a load of garbage again, keep pretending people like Brian Birdwell don't exist.....She isn't the only pentagon survivor.....,

"Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."

WeAreChangeAtlanta said..."Also she is not speaking on behalf of any organization that I am aware of other than her self and the victims of the Pentagon attack."

BS...I just showed she is not speaking on behalf of the victims of the Pentagon attack, nor the witnesses. This isn't truthful it's the opposite. She represents "ye honorable pentagon plane crash skeptics".I wouldn't dare use the term "Pentagon No Planers" , that might be objectionable to "ye honorable pentagon plane crash skeptics" , and we certainly wouldn't want that for some reason.

The truth???

I would think if this event promotes the idea of no plane at the pentagon, then it is not a "9/11 Truth" event (or maybe it is). It will be more along the lines of a "ConspiraCon" event because anybody interested in the truth about 9/11 knows a plane hit the pentagon by now!!!

You will know them by their fruits as someone once said :)

ps: Jim, you got voted down pretty hard since the last time I checked. 911Blogger is very confusing sometimes!


Maybe I got "fooled"

Shure said...."ps: Jim, you got voted down pretty hard since the last time I checked. 911Blogger is very confusing sometimes!"

That's probably because I got "fooled" and didn't realize that Brian Birdwell's scarred lungs and burnt body are "in on it", while not praising how brave and courageous April is when she claims she wasn't doused with jet fuel and didn't notice plane parts when she wasn't looking for them or even knew a plane hit, like all the people who were outside and did see it hit which makes them "in on it" or "mistaken". I keep getting 'fooled" or could possibly be a super duper undercover secret agent trying to "fool" others into thinking planes flew into buildings on 9-11 just like all the witnesses (who therefor must be "in on it")said. I also don't think April is a very good actress based on her performance on Jesse Ventura's pentagon program. Which makes me a horrible critic, and "under cover jreffer".

I was "fooled" thinking Brian Birdwell was a pentagon survivor as well. I wonder what he thinks when he hears.......

"What she actually says is that she did not see anything resembling a plane had hit the pentagon or that there was any jet fuel on her or the other survivors."

"Also she is not speaking on behalf of any organization that I am aware of other than her self and the victims of the Pentagon attack."

"he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."

With all due respect

It may very well be that April has no intention to invoke any controversy at your event. She seems very sincere about her experience and there are some chilling aspects of her account that warrant exposure. However, the fatal flaw (flyover) in her lawsuit is potentially just that -- fatal -- and not just for her but for the entire movement.

I encourage you to rethink your perspective on two points:

1) On the one hand you say that "she is not speaking on behalf of any (911T) organization." But then you encourage us to "respect her as part of this movement." While it is true that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not an "organization" in the traditional sense, it is a definable entity, and by inference she, or any of us who speaks publicly, is speaking for the movement, especially in the minds of our critics and the media, who are looking for any opportunity to discredit us. She will be justifiably associated with anyone who takes the stage and with the organizers, at the very least, regardless of any clarifying introductory remarks you put forth.

2) It also appears that the Atlanta organizers are being both thoughtful and cautious in the run-up to the event. That's commendable. However, to make the claim that "we have it under control" is a bit presumptuous. It may be true that you are taking every possible precaution to keep a lid on potential controversy, but you cannot possibly have control over who will be attending, what questions or comments will be made, or how the event will be reported and/or viewed. It is reasonable to expect that CIT or any other "flyover" supporters will be in attendance (I can think of one outspoken person whom I'd bet $1000 will definitely be there). S/he/they will have a spokesperson in the person of April in the spotlight, and could easily take advantage and exploit that, all of which could potentially distract from and/or dilute the potency of the messages of the other speakers.

Experience in this movement tells us that even our most reasonable and demonstrably provable claims and questions are attacked and/or twisted by the media and our critics. The inclusion of the "flyover" claim in her lawsuit is extremely speculative with an overwhelming amount of contradictory testimony, and is, at the very least, bad legal advice. IMVHO, the potential benefit of including her does not outweigh the risks.

That said, I hope it all works out for the best.

Bad Legal Advice

I agree with Peacenik that it was bad legal advice to include the 'flyover' claim in her lawsuit. The case should have been strictly about the lack of any alarm or evacuation of the Pentagon despite the fact that Dick Cheney was tracking the plane. This should have been based on Mineta's testimony. The former Transportation Sec. could have possibly been subpoenaed along with Douglas Cochrane -- or at least his video testimony could have been played. I fault Bill Veale.

Should have's

People practically begged them not to include the flyover or any "no plane" stuff, and made every possible case. All efforts were ignored. The attorney openly said he wanted to include everything and the kitchen sink.

Just to clarify:

WeAreChangeAtlanta, you say the situation is under control. If a member of the audience asks April whether she believes there was no plane at the Pentagon, what will she say?

Accusations with no evidence

WeAreChangeAtlanta said..."Let's not conflate different aspects of a major story. Let's not be divisive and let us not forget that April is bravely pursuing justice for
those slain at the pentagon. The reason being we know they had forewarning according to Norman Minetta's sworn testimony."

Mineta's testimony is not evidence that "they" knew the pentagon was about to be hit. That would presume they had ESP and knew the plane was not going to hit the white house, or the capital, or somewhere else. Perhaps the pentagon should have been evacuated
but to imply "they" deliberately allowed the pentagon to be hit implies they knew the plane was targeting the pentagon, and not targeting the white house or capital building. Where is the evidence that "they" knew where this plane was going to crash? I doubt that Cheney would be in charge of evacuating the pentagon, that would probably be more Rumsfeld's duties. It was also not Cheney's job to issue shoot down orders, that would be Rumsfeld's(and Bush's) again.

Show ""WeAreChangeAtlanta" by tit2

Say tit2


What's this? Isn't that an imprint of AA 77's tail section? Note how the angle corresponds with the angle of the left wing impint?

Or did the 'missile' do this? How about the 'bomb'?

When are you going to quit this nonsense?

Would you like to post more pictures? I can post a whole slew of them.

For each one, I look forward to you explaining how each artifact along the damage trail was caused by either a 'bomb' or a 'missile'.

What you did to History Commons is quote mining. You abuse HC.

It is supposed that there is

It is supposed that there is an imprint of the tail of the plane to the left of the impact zone?

Read points 7 and 8 of this study: “The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?”

Extract of the point 8:

“The problem of the official story as regards the tail of the alleged B-757 is well summarized in the Report itself (p. 36): "The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

If there was an explosive fireball...

... when the front part of the plane hit the reinforced wall, the explosion wave, moving faster than the plane, would have reached the tail of the plane before the tail reached the wall, possibly displacing it and even partly or completely breaking it. The crash of the front and middle part could in themselves also have affected the trajectory or integrity of the tail section. I see no reason to expect that all parts of the plane would have hit the wall in an unchanged trajectory.

There's no need

to hypothesize about the percussive effect of the fireball: the tail section impacted the façade above column 14: it's in the picture.

A plane hit the Pentagon. I sympathize deeply with April Gallop, but this is fact. Speak the truth, or may the heavens fall.

The refutation of your

The refutation of your assertion is in the study of Sami Yli-Karjanmaa. In any case at a distance of forty feet of the impact point, of a 100 ton aircraft travelling at 781 feet per second, nobody can hope to be still alive, due to the protection of some walls.

Blowing smoke

No. You are blowing smoke and ignoring the picture of the tail fin imprint. Ever heard of Stanley Praimnath?

And your link is wrong. I wonder: do you read your own posts?

1) Praimnath's office was

1) Praimnath's office was located at the southwest corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower. So Stanley Praimnath was not exactly in the path of the aircraft ? See :

In his complaint April Gallop stated that :  « At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. »

Officially the impact of flight 77 took place mainly on the first floor of the pentagon the height of which is only 14 ft 1 in. So unlike Stanley Praimnath, April Gallop's office should be on the path of the aircraft. Of course if that assertion were false, I would admit that my assertion that at 40 feet from the impact point, the plane should have been killed April Gallop is uncertain.

2) The pilotsfor911truth link was given because it specifies the speed of the plane: 781 feet per second.

3) I still have great difficulty distinguishing an imprint of the tail of the plane located in column 14, to the left in this picture:

In any case it seems difficult to see something resembling the imprints of the tails of planes that hit the twin towers. However according to study “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” the tail of the plane penetrated into the building in all its height despite the fact that " The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail”!

Hufschmid is not a source

Hufschmid is a mentally disturbed Jew hater whose work is untrustworthy.

I cited you Wikipedia:

He describes a burning wing of the plane ending up "in my office door twenty feet from where I am huddled under my desk."

Try again, tit2, and please cite a reliable source this time.

ETA: Oh, and let me remind you:

- People survive plane crashes. It happens.
- Examples galore of people on planes who didn't die in a crash. People who miraculously survived train accidents, boat accidents and even people struck by lightning.
- People also die in plane crashes. That happens too. Ecce:

Those are the plane passengers, tit2. When are you going to quit this nonsense?

"Great difficulty"

You're having "great difficulty" distinguishing a tail imprint because you're citing a picture taken after mine, when the tail imprint was covered up with fire retardant foam.

All you need to do is scroll up.

Sami Yli-Karjanmaa's study contains errors which produce false premises, and he attempts falsification based on those false premises. For example, he uses a grainy satellite picture from 2001-09-07, which I own as well, which contains unknown parallax distortion, then he zooms in, overlays a plan of the Pentagon's floor and shifts it a little to the left without justification. As a result, his impact angle calculation is off, but that doesn't prevent Sami from working with this faulty angle for the remainder of his document. I did my own calculation recently and it doesn't agree with Sami's. As an afterthought: apparently it's inconceivable to people like Sami and you that stuff was moved between September 7 and September 11, but not to me. Which is why anything other than a very high resolution picture taken on 9/11 at 9:30 won't do. He erroneously estimates the position of objects on the Pentagon lawn, because he's interpreting photographs taken at an angle, some of them with zoom, the wrong way. I don't even want to know how far such errors propagated.

There are numerous other errors, which is probably why CIT is a fan of his work and they used it in NSA.

Moreover: falsification never results in a plausible alternative scenario: that would require verification, which does not exist for either the ludicrous missile malarkey or the flyover farce. I have labeled this phenomenon "falsification-speculation", a fallacy which is committed over and over again. Even if you believe the falsification succeeded, it doesn't prove a "missile strike" or a "flyover" occurred: it may prove nothing more than mundane errors in the PBPR, some of which I've pointed out as well.


The maintainers of 911review and (whom I greatly respect) and I disagree about the tail damage. We just discussed it over e-mail before I posted that picture.

I'm saying this is it. The 757 tail imprint you see there? It crushed a blast-proof window.

Deal with it. The picture shows the tail imprint. A plane hit the building.

The PBPR contains more errors: like where they say what was hanging from the floor slabs were columns, and this error is dealt with by 911review: (But ignored by CIT, of course)

Error in the PBPR. Such is life. Nothing is 'supposed', the picture you cite from 911review was taken later, when foam covered up the imprint.

Show "well then ..." by Randy

Verbatim from April's lawsuit

"In the attack on the Pentagon, in particular, plaintiff avers [declares as fact] that the official story, that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon and exploded (causing the plaintiff’s injuries), is false. In fact, the bombing was accomplished another way, so as to limit the damage, protect the defendants, and only make it appear that a plane had been crashed into the building."

"If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else."

Richard, Cynthia and Luke do not support these claims.

Powerhouse line-up

Very original line-up and very smart to limit it to three very powerful speakers who represent three distinct aspects of the movement. Kudos.

Great Work

I think the poster is excellent. Great Work.

I would like to express gratitude and best wishes to WeAreChangeAtlanta. Also my regards and thanks to Cynthia McKinney, Luke Rudkowski and Richard Gage for their pursuit of justice and accountability.

If I had the chance to be in Atlanta, I would be very interested and grateful to be able to listen to April Gallop. I see nothing remotely wrong with hearing from such a brave human being.

...and finally

Cynthia, Cynthia, Cynthia, Cynthia, Cynthia, Cynthia, Cynthia!!!!

Richard Gage...

Maybe Richard Gage will have an opportunity to speak with April Gallop about how misinformed she is concerning what happened at the pentagon.

Engineering = Georgia Tech

So why not contact the engineering departments at Georgia Tech, perhaps for a debate or discussion with Richard Gage? Georgia Tech also has a strong Physics Dept. as well, with people working on nanotechnology. Contact them!

Richard Gage

What are you thinking showing up to an event sharing the bill with April Gallop? I hope you know that there are a lot of us in this movement that see right through this bullshit, and you should know better. I'm sick of prominent people in the movement acting as if they are ignorant of the important matter of discrediting associations. It doesn't matter how much good research you do if someone can simply say "This person associates with and supports the positions of X" where X is a person making an easily debunked and crazy allegation. So in my personal opinion Richard Gage is either being duped, or is irresponsible in the extreme, unable to understand something as basic as the principle that an activist ought not associate with fringe elements in order not to have his message discredited. You are a big disappointment to me and thinking people everywhere as of now Richard.

Intelligent people with

Intelligent people with common sense please vote me up so that what I am writing here appears to have some support. Otherwise I take it that this dislike of my commentary is the state of the 911 truth culture, a cult of personality built around unassailable leadership. If you knew what was good for the truth movement you would say openly and without shame that people like April Gallop are the worst thing for us and that we should refuse to associate with them. Instead you hold up anybody who says "911 was an inside job"as some sort of hero just for saying that in public. I believe that the movement is lost, listening to the wrong voices, and giving a platform to bogus, PHONY, and dishonest figures. Let's just name them off: Alex Jones, April Gallop, Eric Hufschmid, CIT, Jesse Ventura, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Thierry Meyssan, do I need to go on, because I could. Morgan Reynolds, David Icke, etc etc etc. Does anybody see a pattern here? We have a revolving door of crackpots, hucksters, and blowhards representing us in public, and nobody gives a shit. The least we could do is say that these people don't represent us, that we are a movement with intelligence and sophistication. But no, these people, in varying degrees, are embraced and celebrated as heroes. Wake up people, spread the information yourself. It's the internet era for Christ's sake, you don't have to identify yourself with any of these "leaders". I'm sure that somewhere reasonable people are reading my posts, and really I'm only talking to you, I don't care what all the idiots out there think.

Thanks to the idiots for

Thanks to the idiots for making the 911 truth movement the equivalent of a house of mirrors, you never know whats real or whats around the next corner. Appropriately the house of mirrors is located within a circus, and a circus has a big tent. Step right up and get yourself some cotton candy this is a lot of fun. On a serious note this mindless lemming march is depressing and makes me disgusted. There are very few rational people in this movement, otherwise Id be seeing more support.

The best way to *not* create

The best way to *not* create a constructive dialog with people (e.g. Gallop) and so convince and help them to cut out unsupported speculations, is to adopt a confrontational and dismissive attitude. People do not respond well when they are accused of being, or being associated with, cranks and crackpots.

That being said, the process of cleansing of the 911 truth movement from unsupported speculations is nonetheless very very important and should not be compromised. But calling people cranks and crackpots is clearly not the way to go. Accusations and intolerance help polarize the community and it is unclear to me if we can actually manage to "weed out" unsupported speculations in this way.

In my opinion the best we can do is to politely point out, over and over again, that the Pentagon no-plans, phone call fakery, etc.. are not supported by strong evidence. If we refrain from accusations and instead do this politely, repeatedly, and patiently, that will create a very good impression for outsiders that we are levelheaded, rational and not emotional.

I agree

I sympathize with Vulich' concerns but April Gallop is a 9/11 victim, and her son is permanently handicapped because of 9/11. As such, tolerance is in order. However, other people were also victimized or traumatized by the Pentagon attack, some of whom Jeff Hill and CIT interviewed, and we must think of them too. They saw the plane crash into the building, which is in a totally different league from estimating the exact path the plane took. To deny their experience of seeing the plane crash into the building makes us look like ignorant fools. By now, claiming no plane hit the Pentagon is simply unfathomable to me. I don't understand why I ever doubted it, save for one clearly identifiable reason: the crap documentaries that quote mined, distorted, omitted witness testimony and applied 'intuitive physics' and falsification-speculation. The 9/11 Truth Movement was severely damaged as a result.

I still see people telling bold-faced lies about the Pentagon all around the net, or who are in hardcore, vindictive denial when presented and confronted with undeniable plane crash evidence, and I tend to get real testy with such characters.

Richard Gage has retracted his endorsement for NSA, as have others, and I'm very happy about that. Let's not squander the progress we've made by being overly hostile. This event is organized by We Are Change, not by AE911Truth.

If nobody else will push back

If nobody else will push back and make people think twice about what they are saying and doing, then I will. It takes intellectual honesty and courage to tell people that they are wrong in their approach. But I feel disappointed that the movement is not critical. It's like a lot of the worst things they say about us are actually true. But I wish there were more like me, willing to say the necessary things, regardless of the politics of the movement

I don't know

if you've noticed, but that's what 911blogger has been doing. Many people, ranging from Erik Larson, to Cosmos/YT, to Jon Gold, to John Albanese, to Jimd3100, to me, to Frank Legge, Daniel (kdub), Kevin Ryan, Victoria Hoffman, Gregg Roberts, David Chandler, as well as Richard Gage... (sorry if I left anyone out) have done so over the past period. But a little tact sometimes goes a long way.

I have ceased to use tact with CIT and their supporters.. I think that was warranted. I don't know what I did to deserve your downvote.

Sorry man you are right.

Sorry man you are right. Voted you back up

False dichotomy

I agree with you Snowcrash. False information is a real problem and is hurting the movement. But I think many at 911blogger is under the spell of a false dichotomy: That either we must be in favour of a "big tent" or we must harshly "call out", exclude, and accuse people with which we do not agree with. For example, I take issue with the way DRG fake phone call issue was handled at 911blogger with some people ready to jump to the conclusion that DRG had hidden agendas and accuse him of trying to get rich out to the 911 movement. While this is a speculation on my part, it does not seem unreasonable to me that with a gentle approach, DRG would have given in and made a compromise not to push the phone call issue. Perhaps I'm wrong here and what I saw on 911blogger was simply the culmination of a long frustrating discussion with DRG. Was that the case? I view this case with Gallop the same way. A confrontational and dismissive attitude discredits 911blogger and work against your efforts.

The fact is that we can be against a "big tent" and at the same time be non-confrontational and non-dismissive. Being gentle but firm only adds to the power of the message. I do not see how it subtracts. That being said, the work of Legge, Larson, you, ... and others are invaluable. If you remember, you quickly convinced me about both phone calls and pentagon and I again thank you for that!

"Perhaps I'm wrong here...

...and what I saw on 911blogger was simply the culmination of a long frustrating discussion with DRG. Was that the case?"

As someone privy to many of the attempts to politely and reasonably convince DRG to reconsider his ill-founded position on the "fake phone calls" I can assure you that, YES, that was indeed the case. I agree with your comment in general, however, you must understand that we are very far down the road here and many people are just sick to death of the rampant bullshit that oozes from this movement in the name of "truth".

Damn right

And haze, thanks, I know I'm more effective when I'm patient and courteous. But YT is right on the money here. There are certain people whose I've studied and benefited from, and I won't "savage" them. Same goes for 9/11 survivors.. you just don't trample on these people. At least, you try very hard not to be harsh in your criticisms, because .... these are some of the people we're supposed to be up in arms for.

That said, I'd still do what I do without the support of all those people, truth is an end, not just a means.

Just to clarify. *Your* style

Just to clarify. *Your* style was not the issue here. On the contrary, I believe it is very effective.

Thanks YT,

That helped me understand the DRG situation better. Frustration is indeed hard to deal with and remaining patient is hard and I am certainly no "counter-example" here. I would also agree that a harsh tone has its place when used sparsely and should not be shunned completely.

On the other hand it is also the case that people who "fight" unsupported ideas, also often engage in equally unsupported speculations. Examples of this are accusations that DRG has hidden agendas, or simply want to make money, or that the Gallop case is simply a publicity stunt.