Being smeared as a "9/11 Truther" in the MSM

I just wanted to write a note considering the recent hack smear campaign against me for my radical roots in this movement. I stand by my grassroots activism and will never apologize for my past, which has gotten me to where I am today.

Unfortunately, publications like the NYT, Raw Story and Mediate turned the story into the fact that I was a "lunatic" because I dared to question 9/11, the event used to get us into the never ending War on Terror. They embedded an angst ridden video of me at a rally during college making comments that I do not stand by today.

I also gave a statement in response that I do not think the attacks were an "inside job." The language here is used as a discrediting factor, and it's irresponsible to assert such an unknowable claim. I distanced myself from that language years ago.

However I maintain the fact we were lied to, as do many victims' family members, government officials, commission members and world citizens. And as all of you know, I have never strayed from calling out the many inconsistencies in the official story as well as the cover up, and I will continue to do so on my platform, wherever that may be.

A "truther" on this issue is nothing to be ashamed of.

Keep Fighting,

Thank you, Abby!

Thank you for having the courage to use your platform to speak out about 9/11! The current brouhaha is no doubt a reflection of your effectiveness in getting the word out.

9/11 Was Most Probably An "Inside Job"

The official story is an unproven allegation.

However, the so called military-industrial complex are known to have planned false-flag attacks. (e.g.: Operation Northwoods.)

The so called military-industrial complex also had motive, means and opportunity to carry out 9/11.

Thus, they are logically at the top of any short list of suspects.

The entire body of evidence regarding the attacks strongly suggests that the public was more than "failed" and "lied" to by its leaders.

Prominent people like Bill O'Reilly and Gary Mack once pursued insider foul play regarding the JFK assassination. Were greater professional opportunities the reason that they also seemed to have "changed their tune" so to speak?

The "dirty work" of the "powers that be" in the world, is always facilitated by those who will do the wrong thing just for a better paycheck.

Is Martin Playing Both Sides Of The Fence?

Although I think the matter of what happened on 9/11 is important to Abby Martin, I sense that career interests have taken precedent at this time and that retreating from her previously espoused views is a "career move". If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but that is how things appear to be at this point.

Saying that 9/11 wasn't an inside job seems to say that there was not even a possibility of official complicty in the attack. If Martin believes there is no possibility of official complicity in the event, she should say so more clearly.

Retreating from her previous 9/11 views to a degree sufficient enough to preserve future career opportunities, may require burning the bridges that brought her to this point in the first place.

If becoming a controlled mouthpiece for a TV network is more important than speaking one's honest opinion, so be it. At this point, Martin seems to be playing both sides of the fence, in order to facititate her career and preserve her reputation within other circles, which in my opinion may be useful to her but is useless to the pursuit of truth and justice.

Martin's new position provides her with the perfect platform from which to ask responsible questions about possible official complicity in the 9/11 event. Instead, Martin's declaration that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, seems to say that there is not even a possibility of official complicity. In that case, such claims might make one more useful to Popular Mechanics than to truth seeking.

Mr. Monaghan's B&W World

Abby has probably made more converts than any of us individually, so give her a break, Aidan. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You made your point in the first comment.

well, that's disappointing

I for one am proud to have marched alongside you in that 2008 march in Santa Monica, and others. The movement will never see those numbers again, now twelve years after the attacks. The video should not have been removed. It should stand as a matter of historical record. I was glad to see that it was reposted elsewhere a few hours later (not by me). I watched it again, and you have nothing to be ashamed of. Now I will stop before I give you a schooling on Sandy Hook, Boston and Aurora (and maybe even the Pentagon). I always believed one of the importance of 9/11 Truth was to expose false-flag terror, in order to prevent the next one.

I like you Abby, and I know I'm going to get shit for this. My heart is pounding as I write this, but it's the Truth.


Video wasn't uploaded from my account but it contained very strong assertions that I do not stand by today. I'm happy it was taken down. There's plenty of other things for the historical record regarding my thoughts about the official story. I thank you for all your support during this insane time in my life.

I'm with you, Aidan

I agree with you, Aidan. It was an inside job. However, I come to that conclusion by a slightly different route. The fact that he buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition by itself demonstrates that it was an inside job. Who did it and why are--I guess--up for discussion.


Thanks for the clarification Abby. "We were lied to" is reasonable. Have people asked what you mean when you say that?

I have always felt that turning the question back to the families can be helpful in dealing with MSM smear efforts because many don't want to tread deeper into that area --

"Many of the 9/11 families have never gotten the answers to the questions they asked, and some have clearly asserted they were lied to and that information was withheld from them. We owe it to them to keep their questions alive."

Press for Truth isn't ideal, but it has a lot about the families and their questions, and is benign enough to refer to. (

I also think that using reasonable examples from the past are useful --

"I'm not an expert, but its surprising how many people of all stripes do continue to ask what happened to WTC Building 7, the building never hit by an airplane. Many people reject the findings of the report on that building. Geraldo Rivera has hosted people on his program -- engineers and a family member -- asking what happened to Building 7. Is Geraldo a "truther' because he had those people on his program? I don't think so. We need to be able to ask questions, for the families, if nothing else."

Conspiracy Theories are Opinions

"Inside Job" and "It was Controlled Demolition" and "Al Qaeda was a CIA Cutout" and "Osama Didn't do It" are all opinions--OK for the Op-ed page where they are weighed according to the credibility of the person who asserts them.

"We Were Lied To" is an irrefutable fact provable to journalistic standards.

"The Widows' 300 Questions got 27 Answers" is an irrefutable fact provable to journalistic standards.

"Condoleezza Rice Lied Under Oath at the 9/11 Hearings" is an irrefutable fact provable to journalistic standards.

Abby does well to stick to the world of journalistic fact. If more of us had done so instead of racing for the proof of inside job, our movement for truth and justice for 9/11 might have more traction than it does.

A Battle Between Two Competing Conspiracies.

Conspiracy - n. "A plan by two or more people to commit an illegal act".

Regardless of whether it was Muslim extremists, other parties closer to home, or a combination thereof, 9/11 involved a conspiracy. Everyone will acknowledge that it took at least two people to pull off that attack. (!). If, however as you say, "conspiracy theories are opinions", then the officially endorsed conspiracy theory must also qualify as merely an opinion. Unfortunately for us all, it is an opinion which is backed up by nothing except lies, fabrications, myths and fantasies. There is no hard, proven, tangible material which backs up the official conspiracy tale - it remains smoke and mirrors. This verbal diarrhea was dumped on the public from day one and has been has been repeated ad nauseam ever since. Repetition is one of THE most powerful weapons in shaping the mass consciousness - and in the hands of the corporate media, it has worked very effectively in misleading and bamboozling the public.

The endless repetition of speculative opinion started within minutes of UA175 hitting the South Tower, for example: "This bears the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden's "al Qaeda network" - a direct quote from Jerome Hauer - a hardline Bush Administration insider with some very controversial baggage, who had coincidentally been invited as guest commentator on a number of network shows that morning. He was telling the public the "who, how, and why" before anyone knew WTF was going down; Hauer claimed to know the full story while the attack sequence was still ongoing (!).(Perhaps he knew the outline of the real story, and was playing a part stage-managing the public awareness? Furthermore, the attack bore NO RESEMBLANCE to anything attributed to "al Qaeda"; it was 100% out of pattern, according to their alleged modus operandum, which involved nothing more sophisticated then crude truck bombs, more in the style of Oklahoma City.

Another example of this seemingly deliberate media infiltration was the infamous mystery "Harley Guy", who, while all hell was breaking loose in Lower Manhattan with people running northwards for their lives, remained cool, unruffled and emotionless, as he calmly and "matter-of-factly" explained to assembled media cameras that "the buildings collapsed on account of the intense heat melting and weakening the steel supports... etc". These interviews happened literally minutes after the Twin Towers came down - was way before any other probable cause had even been mentioned, let alone an investigation getting under way. This unidentified, unqualified man's "explanation" of the most bizarre, unique and unexpected building failures was widely written up in many of the nation's leading daily newspapers the following day, 9/12/2001.

So it appears, from this (and numerous similar instances) that the official conspiracy theory was very likely a prefabricated yarn, ready for instant, unquestioned and unquestionable media distribution to a psychologically softened, shocked and awed - thus rationally challenged - American (and global) public, all glued to their TV sets and radio, soaking up propaganda emanating from authority figures who are perceived to be "protectors".

To date, what we have been witnessing, to over-simplify a little, is a boxing match between two competing conspiracies, fought in an ring owned and refereed by those who stood to benefit from fall out from the attacks: In the red corner - the "al Qaeda did it alone" conspiracy, and in the blue corner the "alternative" conspiracy. Seconds Out - Round One. We all know what happened - as soon as the bell sounded, the red corner competitor was up from his chair like Mike Tyson, swinging wildly - while his opponent was still somewhere on the freeway, stuck in a traffic jam, miles from the dressing room. As Mark Twain said - "a lie can get half way around the world before the truth has got its bootlaces tied".

Regarding the credibility of the two eventually competing conspiracies: Any detective, when faced with solving a major crime, will look for motivation, or "Cui Bono", alongside hard factual material. We already know that the material supporting the official story has been garnered through torture and singled-sourcing, uncorroborated fabrications and rumor, so how about the motivation issue? Where does the official conspiracy theory stand up on this vital aspect of 9/11? Curiously, this area of inquiry has been studiously avoided by those promoting the official story, and perhaps for good reasons: there was massive motivation on the part of "rogue elements within the military-security- industrial complex" and their business associates. As Abby pointed out, the US corporate media is owned by 6 huge corporate conglomerates, closely linked to the military-security-industrial complex which made out like bandits from the huge influx of money - taxpayer largesse (corporate welfare) - enabled by the 9/11 attack. There's cui bono right there. In contrast, what did "fundamentalist Muslims" hope to achieve for their faith and community by attacking America?

The other big lead that investigators go after when trying to solve a crime, is the issue of who funded the operation. As regards 9/11, this fundamental matter was also cast aside as "irrelevant" by Bush Administration officials.


Then there is another issue which even the 9/11 Truth community has barely discussed: the priming of the American public. Providing a convenient backdrop when it came down to assigning blame for 9/11, Hollywood and the corporate media have indoctrinated their (global) audiences by stereotyping and vilifying Arabs (and by extension, Muslims) as universally evil, criminal, terrorists, dirty, lecherous and untrustworthy. This alone could have sold 9/11 to the US public, but there were several other events that cemented opinion on the "Muslims" issue - in the year prior to 9/11, Egypt Air Flight 990 (a Boeing 767) crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, just off the Massachussetts coast, in bizarre circumstances - one of the pilots was subsequently vilified in the media as a "crazy suicidal jihadist" - even though his background and circumstances provided no evidence for such. The US media instantly latched onto the unproven "jihadist" explanation and - bingo - "suicide pilot" was neatly added to the list of officially endorsed anti-Arab racism. Then, to consolidate the "guilt of Muslims" in the collective psyche, in the weeks after 9/11 came the anthrax attacks. Once more, the media sold the anti-Arab explanation, which the already psychologically devastated American public ate, hook, line and sinker. In the letters that accompanied the powdered weaponized anthrax came the following note:


Little did the public know that the entire scenario had nothing to do with al Qaeda - because as soon as it was discovered that the weaponized anthrax originated from the US Army Ft. Detrick bio-weapons labs, the corporate media dropped the story - from "all anthrax all the time" to absolute silence.

So, the public was preconditioned and primed to easily accept the 9/11 official conspiracy - either by coincidence or by deliberation - we do not know, but either way, mighty convenient. 9/11 itself provided the knock out punch, and the anthrax attacks was akin to kicking the victim in the face when out cold on the ground.

It should also not be ignored than a significant proportion of senior officials in DC (especially in the the George W. Bush Administration of 2001), are/were known to harbor hatred and enmity towards Arabs and Muslims... hows about that for motivation re. blaming an assigned enemy?

Exactly !

Abby is a fantastic role model for quality activism and journalism. Sticking to the facts, willing to change her reporting based on new facts. If more people were like this honest and reality based, the subject would spread far further than it has.

Washington Lies About Seemingly Everything

To accept that they simply "lied" is a premature conclusion.

Their potential complicity in the event remains an unanswered question, does it not?

I'm with Victronix on this one, Abby.

The advice given is great way to keep you out of the frying pan of the likes of James Kirchick and company who are clearly salivating at the mouth over the chance to paint you as an extremist.

Keep up the good work. I'm a big fan of your show and have complete faith in you.

You are awesome, Abby

Public figures will always be attacked, no matter what.

Just keep up the good work - stay brave, stay true.

PS. I miss seeing you on the streets on the 11th.

Kathy Rogers
Walnut Creek, CA

Thank you ABBY!!!

Thank you Abby, once again. All open-minded people throughout the world are on your side. When you lean towards the side of truth, logic and common sense, it eventually serves those who promote it. As I said in another thread, (9/11) truth is like a one-way ratchet - once a person learns certain aspects of the 9/11 attacks which the MSM have refused to cover and the powers-that-be have denied, he or she cannot unlearn that knowledge. That is why eventually we will win on this thing... and that is why the powers-that-be are so scared - to the point of abandoning and avoiding rational discussion and resorting to name-calling and violence... as that is all they have. It may take time, but time and truth are on OUR side.

A Truther on the 9/11 issue has everything to be proud of. This officially endorsed conspiracy theory is impossible on so many counts - in this Universe at least - (!) This includes hard, proven, successfully peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and leads us to the inevitable conclusion we were serially lied to at the very least. Even the panel members of that hairball of an "investigation", the 9/11 "omission" Commission, have now implied the same - the majority of the senior Commissioners have admitted they were lied to, their inquiry was 'set up to fail" by the Bush Administration, it was underfunded, severely time constrained and its executive director Philip Zelikow was a Bush Administration insider, in no way an "independent" 3rd party, as billed. In other words - the entire Report was a 571 page "steaming heap".

The US establishment and MSM insist it was "al Qaeda fundamentalists, alone, with no foreign state involvement or help, and no advance knowledge on the part of the US authorities". So, given that scenario, the powers that be have virtually admitted a degree of guilt by preventing inquiry, promoting the heads of departments and agencies which "failed" so completely that morning, and then going after those who uncover information - with occasionally fatal consequences.

Anyone who his actively trying to maintain the status quo on the 9/11 issue is now ,without a shadow of doubt, helping to protect and harbor terrorists - because whoever they were who planned and executed the murder of 3000 people on 9/11/2001 are undoubtedly still out there on the loose, alive and free, and possibly in a position of authority to pull off another attack, at a time of their choosing.

They - (I don't know who, as I am not a conspiracy theorist) - but whoever they are MUST be apprehended - by any and all means at our disposal - BEFORE they pull another 9/11 style stunt.

"We were lied to," says

"We were lied to," says nothing! We are lied to about everything all the time. The facts currently available prove beyond any doubt that the 9/11 implosions resulted from the detonation of massive amounts of nanothermite, as proven by the experiments of Niels Harrit and Steven Jones. Only the U.S. military has stores of such material. Therefore: INSIDE JOB.

You may know and I may know that we're lied to all the time.

What you and I think is not the point. The point is to reach the American people--and they don't know what we know.

Ace has it again. Radical

Ace has it again. Radical approaches where people claim to know inside job or speak as though it's a 100% proven fact are a primary source for the truth not being brought to light. The facts are the truth and there is no separating those terms. People ascribing to radical theories which are not proven is the greatest mistake someone researching into 9/11 can do. It's why the movements momentum slowed time and time again. Radical theories are spread amongst us to confuse our reasoning and logic.

Abby is super on point and is frankly jumping on a grenade for everyone. She's a hero.

Facts, and reasoning from the facts

'The facts are the truth and there is no separating those terms.'

Yes. And the next step is asking, what does a better job of accounting for those facts that are known? And what accounts better for why more is not yet known? There's nothing 'radical' in maintaining that a plot that was at least partly 'inside' does a better job of accounting for these than does the purely 'outside' official theory. Far from one of those theories that are 'spread amongst us to confuse our reasoning and logic,' this position is instead the result of reasoning and logic.

Ultimately what the powers that be have no tolerance for is anything that questions--i.e., that encourages the re-thinking of--the nature of the threat that was demonstrated by the 9/11 attacks. Because the more that happens, the more the ideological basis for their agendas of endless war and repression and illegality begins to crumble. Introducing people to those facts of 9/11 about which the establishment would prefer them to remain ignorant is crucial to stimulating such a re-thinking, so that they might then start to emancipate themselves from that ideology. If, in presenting those facts, one prefers not to use the language of 'inside job,' that is one thing. But to outright disavow it and treat it as something to be embarrassed about--as though it were something along the lines of red herrings like directed-energy weaponry or TV fakery (things that truly did work to slow down the movement)--that is something else again! It would be like introducing people to facts, and telling them to let the facts speak for themselves, while simultaneously warning them, 'but if it ever sounds like the facts are telling you something like "inside job," be sure to immediately censor it from your mind!'

That would be a formula for the official account, and the resulting mass perception of the source of the 'existential threat,' to remain effectively unchallenged; and for the related ideology and policies to continue winning by default.

"Inside Job" is a horrible

"Inside Job" is a horrible slogan in terms of Public Relations. The slogan doesn't have to "say" anything, it just needs to be universally agreeable. In fact slogans that don't say anything, like "Yes We Can" are the best PR slogans. Here is a quote from Chomsky:

"The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda.You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for.Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about."
Noam Chomsky

A fitting slogan...

I agree that "we were lied to" is a slogan that doesn't "mean anything", "nobody knows what it means", "it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something". And is therefore great PR for the OCT!

Surely we should be aiming for a slogan that does mean something, everyone knows exactly what it means and it does not divert attention. In that regard, I think "9-11 was an inside job" fits the bill.

Let's face it, 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

Better Luna than Pluto

For what it is worth, you've handled yourself splendidly. It's not easy to be in the spotlight, remain poised, intelligent, wise, and still have a heart. I think you are just warming up, but you owe no one a reason to take a breather if you need one, or a response to those hyenas who question your courage. You are a special force that has kept the questions coming, but you don't have to be anyone's martyr. Take care of yourself, Abby, we have a ways to go. We find out who we are under pressure -take that breath.

Do you want results, or to feel superior? You can't have both.

Friends, this is information warfare. There really is nothing you can take at face value ... including whether or not there was an "invasion" or if "shots were fired." We simply do not know. Most of what we do know is coming from a media environment heavily influenced by the world's 2 biggest superpowers' (unlimitedly funded) PR machines. I'm embarrassed by all of you people who claim to be critical thinkers and slop up this bullshit from either side. Use your common sense.

Further, why is it so hard to understand that it is OK to think that 9/11 was an inside job without running around screaming that phrase to people. Many of us that have been around a while have dropped that phrase long ago or never used it to begin with. Why? Because it is obvious that is doesn't work. You should be focused on results, not on feeling intellectually superior than other people -- which is why you use it.

Abby has made a conscious choice to work for the Russian government's media outlet because it is the only place she can do what she wants. And now that there is Cold War 2 brewing, it's a dangerous place to be. I thank Abby for risking her health, career and safety to be there for our cause. She doesn't have to ... not at all.

And to all you people that are thinking she is "controlled" or after some personal gain ... fine, think that. In fact, I respect the fact that you are questioning someone in the media. But I know as Abby's friend that those claims are not true and that she fights like hell to get every detail out about 9/11 that she can. So, if you are going to be unconvinced, at least be respectful when you challenge her motives. The behavior of many, many, many people in the movement right now is horrible and embarrassing and quite frankly CULT-LIKE. There I said it.

Is it really that hard to understand that a PR strategy needs to be involved if we are to break through to the mainstream? Your average 5-year-old understands what happens when you alienate everyone at school, you become very unpopular. It's my personal opinion people are more concerned with "being right" (ego check, please) than with getting RESULTS. All the people that will respond to "inside-job" rhetoric have been reached, it is time to start thinking about critical mass awareness. And you know what? Facts do not matter, I'm sorry they don't. Or maybe I should say that people do not respond to the facts. Read some Edward Bernays. People want to be popular, they want to go with the tribe. Alienating people with this kind of language, along with mixing 9/11 up with all kinds of unproven conspiracy theories IS NOT WORKING to reach the critical mass. We have to be smarter than this or we will lose. It simply does not matter how true "Inside Job" is or not. It cannot be proven at this time, and on top of that it is divisive.

You want to reach people? What's called for here is COMPASSION, not douch-baggery. There was a time when you were hopelessly naive as well, maybe you need to remember that.

Abby Martin is not the enemy. Neither are the journalists who do not touch 9/11, Greenwald, Goodman, Scahill, etc. They are not the enemy. Please go read page one of the Art of War if you are confused as to how important it is to know your enemy.

So, what is more important? Your need to be right all the time? Your need to be better than all the "Sheeple." Or do you want RESULTS? If it is results you want, you have to convince people we are the winning team. That people hunger for the truth is a lie. People want to WIN.

Abby made a decision to get results. It is the right decision for victory. I support what she has done 100%

Over-Reactive Alarmism?

For years, some have urged that activists shouldn't openly discuss the biggest 9/11 discrepancies because they might seem like "conspiracy theorists" and weaken the cause.

On the contrary - the best evidence is what put this whole thing on the map, not the weak Washington "failed" and "lied" cards.

I disagree

Aidan, I disagree with you on your point about what is best evidence. I've worked in marketing/PR for 25 years and just don't think it is that simple.

That said, I don't mind disagreeing with you on it, and I am perfectly fine with you working your angle while I work mine. I don't have to lose my shit over it and start attacking people that disagree with me. I know about all your FOIA work over the years and even though I don't agree with some of what you say, about the Pentagon for example, what you have actually done is more important and valuable to me than trying to convince you to agree with me.

The same cannot be said for the cultists that want to bring down Abby because she doesn't say things like they do. It's an ego problem. This behavior is not helpful, period.

Thanks for your reply, brother.

I too agree with President Ford

I too have worked in media marketing/PR for more than 20-years and the message DOES need changed and so does it's delivery system.

Unless you want 12+ MORE years to pass, then we cannot keep regurgitating the same crap, especially when it is crap that harms not helps; crap that divides, not unifies.

Old News

The fact that Abby has chosen RESPONSIBLE journalism over labeling things an, "Inside Job" is not anything new at all and anyone who is acting like Abby has suddenly turned her back on Truth or has somehow thrown Truthers under the bus is ridiculous.

Abby's stance on the issue is not "new", this is old news and if those of you that are screaming and bitching had really been paying attention to her reporting instead of mindlessly hitting "share" buttons you would have already known this.

Abby Martin IS a woman of Truth and she is 100% right in her approach.

I agree with everything "President Ford" has said here and would like to add...

I have seen countless activists viciously attack Abby online and one of the most common things I hear them saying is that THEY made Abby Martin who she is, blah blah blah...

No one "made" Abby, but Abby. In fact, I would go so far as to point out that it is because of her stand-up work that many of you are activists and involved in seeking truth, so if anyone "made" anyone and deserves due credit for doing so, It is Abby who in part made YOU.

The truth of 911 was self-evident

.. in September 2001, when three buildings plunged too fast and too symmetrically downwards. These facts ulitmately stand on their own and don't need Abby or anyone else to bolster them.

Like anyone else, Martin is only as trustworthy as her latest statements. I say this with all due respect to Abby whose reporting I respect.

Despite your statement, Cheri, Abby is not '100% right' in her approach.

She gave the smarmy Piers Morgan a free pass - failing to challenge him when he asserted how free the corporate media is - and has then backpedalled somewhat on her own views. This knocks a chip out of that "100%" figure you cite.

Also, what is' RESPONSIBLE' (sic) journalism, in your view? Responsible to whom and responsible for what?

Well said. People

Well said. People purposefully and unconsciously push these dangerous buzz phrases like 'inside job' to blur facts with theories. Abby is keeping it real. People yelling names and theories was the biggest gun to the foot that happens to 9/11 truth.

Greenwald, Scahill, Goodman....

... are not 'the enemy' but neither are they pristine truth-tellers.

The fact Greenwald and Scahill have linked up with establishment billionaire Pierre Omidyar - who has NSA-linked buddies, as Kevin Ryan has pointed out - is troubling.

The fact Greenwald-Scahill think there's absolutely no problem with that is more troubling still.

The fact they can't seem to tell the difference between primary source information and secondary information feed - via 'personality' journalists - is troubling.

Why should we trust Greenwald who went so far with the anthrax story - and no further?

Why don't they share the leaks with the world, instead of drip-feeding them for the next 20 years? We'll all die of boredom before we get the full picture and the surveillance state will settle in nicely in the meanwhile. Unwittingly running interference for the surveillance state?

I find Abby's coy back-pedalling a little troubling.

Hearing you Pres...

Thanks Scott!

Cenk Uygur agrees with Abby

Cenk Uygur (of the Young Turks) gives a highly sympathetic account of Abby's interview.

Thanks Abby. As a friend of mine once said, "Truth, especially, must be repeated."

"Outside Job" claims have the lesser credibility.

Abby, I support you and your rare example in the world of professional journalism.

I will also say that to claim that 9/11 was "an outside job" is more speculative and unproven than the "inside job" scenario. For their "militant Muslim" story, the "evidence" cited by the powers-that-be and their media lackeys is single sourced (violating all the rules of proper journalism), lacks certifiable chains of custody, and have been extracted from prisoners using torture. In other words, the story that 9/11 was "an outside job" has relied entirely on fabricating, misinforming and lying to the people.

In recent years, science - devoid of politicization or agenda - has provided us with successfully peer-reviewed evidence that points away from "militant muslims" as the perpetrators... unless "they" were in possession of the appropriate security clearance and access to US Government laboratories and military facilities. Given the evidence we have, this scenario this is the best shot that the official story has. If this unlikely scenario is true, then these alleged "al Qaeda" members would have had collaborators on the inside, which would render the 9/11 operation partly a joint inside-outside job.

Science has also demonstrated in a number of ways that the destruction of the 3 WTC Towers could not have happened as claimed by the US Government and the corporate media; the official explanation is in violation of a number of laws of classical physics. Since the powers-that-be had to go as far as making such absurd/preposterous/impossible claims only demonstrates that their version of events warrants a score of 100 out of 100 on the proverbial bullshit meter.

Wish you had a TV show, bloggulator

Your insightful analysis and way with words is second to none. The evidence for inside involvement is what might bring justice. "They lied" will not.

Couldn't agree more

Thanks, bloggulator, for expressing so well some of the problems I've had as I've read through some of these comments. Sometimes I've had the feeling that I entered a time warp and ended up back in 2002.

In those days, when the drumbeat for conformity in thought and speech was at its most deafening, simply saying something like, 'there are still questions that need answering here' took real courage.

But as time passed and more became known, talk of 'unanswered questions' required less courage than previously, and became a comparatively safe position--a way to pay lip service to the questions being raised by the 9/11 truth movement, but without really putting much of a dent in the official story ideology and all of the outrageous foreign and domestic policies that that entailed (and still entails).

I think that saying 'We were lied to' about 9/11 goes further than simply acknowledging that there are 'unanswered questions,' and it could lead people along the way to looking more deeply into the problems with the official story. But I think it is less likely to do so if we treat 'inside job' talk as something to be embarrassed about. It implies that 'inside job' explanations are, at best, no more valid than the official 'outside job' theory, and possibly have even less validity. And if that's the case, people will feel less need to look into the problems with the official story, since the implication is that the overall picture of the threat that was manifested in the 9/11 attacks is unlikely to change. They will be more likely to interpret 'lied to' as simply referring to things that 'incompetence theory' has long proven itself able to accommodate in the prevailing discourse--warnings that were 'bungled,' air defense 'screw-ups', being unprepared for a 'new type of enemy,' etc. Sure, the administration and NORAD lied to us; we know that--they were simply too red-faced to admit how ill-prepared they were!

We know that there's lots we still don't know--things that we're actively prevented from knowing, plus the difficulties of making sense of the often fragmentary information that is known. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge that the more that has become known, the more the evidence points to involvement (if not direction) from within the US power structure; and at the same time, the less plausible the official 'outside job' theory has become. In view of all that has become known--some in the weeks and months following the attacks, others in the years since--the notion that the 9/11 plot was the work of forces that were WHOLLY EXTERNAL to the US power structure, and WHOLLY AUTONOMOUS of it has about as much validity as the official explanation for why the three WTC skyscrapers came down the way they did.

9/11 Truth LIte???

Evidence not contained by the security apparatus indicates a controlled demolition. Molten iron in the foundations, the complete annihilation of the buildings, and the rate of descent of all three WTC buildings cannot be explained without explosives.

You therefore have an inside job.

You don't even need a new investigation. It's difficult to comprehend a population that betrays its own intellect and abandons the minimal scientific education provided so they can perform a sort of treasonous mental yoga. It's a nauseating aspect of a nation ruled by terrorists.

9/11 Truth Lite - Hear, Hear

I agree with your point, J.T.Waldron.

... and Truth Lite is a very good moniker for what is currently going on at Pierre Omidyar's "First Look" media.

It remains to be seen where Abby Martin goes from here ...

As others have noted, she could do more. Backpedalling is not a good sign. And where has her previous site "Media Roots" disappeared to?

Always a concern when 'truth-tellers' re-appear in new re-incarnations and gate-keep their own previous views.


'And where has her previous site "Media Roots" disappeared to?'

The Media Roots website is still there. What's commented on below is that I was unable to find broadcasts archived there that I was hoping would be.

Abby, Timing is Everything

I would just like to note, that since I've been a "911 Truther", I've had countless discussions on the subject. What I've found while discussing politics, current events, and what we see on TV is that whenever the 911 topic is raised, the "blog section" below the youtube video, blog post, article written, and TV segment aired, begins to come alive with "911 Truthers". Then, of course the "detractors" come out of the woodwork to "oppose" anything Truthers have to say, and that's the way it ends.... endless debating over the "point-counter point" arguments. Inevitably, the detractors ask, "Well, what can you do about it?"...
What can we do about it, indeed...
The only thing I can think of, since we "truthers" do not have unlimited funding/resources, is to take advantage of the resources we do have. And this leads me to someone like Abby Martin in light of recent events involving her. But, lets take a look at something that must be observed first, as it is vitally important that we understand the playing field for which we are throwing the ball back and forth.

RT Host Abby Martin Condemns Russian Incursion Into Crimea – On RT (by Glenn Greenwald via The Intercept) --

This is what started the recent firestorm surrounding Abby Martin, and in fact RT itself making waves in the "National Media". Now because of this, as Abby mentioned, the New York Times (and others) ended up calling her a "911 TRUTHER!!!" in order to "smear her name". And THIS is the very crux of the problem, as the general public does not know what a "911 Truther" really is, but the National Media does, and it knows that drama sells, not facts. Besides, why kill a trend if it provides them with endless justification to side with the Military Industrial Complex (the hand that feeds them)?

"What can you do about it?"

You utilize your resources. In Abby Martins case, her best resource is her TV show on RT, where she says she has "Journalistic Independence" (as Greenwald said as well). Ok, fine... I would suggest Abby use her Show on RT to clear her name, by offering clarification on what it means to be a "911 Truther"..... otherwise, the New York Times wins, because the "general public" thinks the New York Times is MUCH MORE CREDIBLE than that "Russian State Funded Propaganda Channel".

More importantly, let me offer this.
Glenn Greenwald wrote his article about how the British GCHQ documents obtained by Edward Snowden show...

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations --

Now ask yourself which is the bigger threat to the governmental "powers that be"?
Is it the Mainstream TV Networks? The so called "journalists" who work for them? Perhaps, its the Mainstream Newspaper editors? Their websites?
Alas, no. Its the internet. Its the blogosphere. Its where "911 Truthers" hang out, discuss, argue, share evidence, use chat rooms, show each other videos, and documents, and peer reviewed papers. None of which will EVER be mentioned by the "Mainstream Anything" in any meaningful capacity.

And, its this very internet that is under the biggest threat. So, you want to get the word out there? You wish to "educate the masses"?

Abby Martin has a golden opportunity here. She has a chance to start a firestorm on the social networks that so threaten our DEAR LEADERS in the US Government. And all she needs to do, is listen to what the Mainstream Media says about her being a "911 Truther"..... and set the record straight, on air. I'd suggest she do this like she did when she moderated this topic...

RT America Gun Debate: 3D printing and the future of guns ---

That will get the cogs turning on the social networks.... and give the MSM something to talk about, over, and over again.

Rage_Against_Machine (PalTalk chatter) and 911 Truther


for extremely valuable comment. This would be the perfect time for Abby to explain publicly why she is interested in 9/11 and why there is nothing wrong in her seeking the truth about it. Rather, it is ethically wrong not to seek the truth.

Personally, I like what Abby has done. She is in a position now to do much more.

Media Roots links?

I was going to recommend that another source to refer to would be her and her brother's own Media Roots Soundcloud broadcasts dealing with 9/11, such as this one:

But that link doesn't work anymore, nor was I able to find it at the Media Roots or sites. Seems a shame!


While I am disappointed that the older podcasts (re:9/11 issues) have been removed from MediaRoots I think I know why. With all the current controversy there are those who will be looking for the 'gotcha' quotes. Abby and brother Robbie have created some great conversations/podcasts, but the format was largely informal and probably contain remarks that could be misconstrued.

It's an 'information war' after all.

With Abby, like any journalist, we look at the work as we go forward.

Abby has certainly been outspoken and courageous in her work to this point.

2007 Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate

Abby called in to the 2007 Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate featuring Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer (Kevin won hands down). I remember because I created the related blog. She was young, spirited, and totally awesome.

Those were amazing days for 9/11 truth. It was like the apex of our movement, where our numbers were large, our motivation great, with a degree of solidarity we haven't achieved since. Hopefully, in this regard, there are better days yet to come.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the MP3 links no longer work. I'm sure I have a copies of all the missing audio files stored somewhere though.

'07 - '08, Apex, Santa Monica, CA

 photo DSCN1421-1-2.jpg

Just wanted to throw this picture up here. This has been a fascinating conversation. Even some of us old-timers have logged in. We had two equally large marches in Santa Monica in '07 and '08 (911TruthLA & WACLA). Abby attended at least one. There were marches in San Diego, and a very large number of us travelled all the way to San Francisco. Things have certainly died down since Obama came into office, and of course the ten and twelve year anniversaries. "9/11 Was An Inside Job" was a rallying call that brought out the big numbers. It worked at the time, and we all mature, including myself. Heck, I would certainly give Alex Jones, and yes, even David Icke, some credit where credit is due. A lot more I could add, but nice to see you all. As I stated above, I am disappointed in Abby's comments.

Hey Randy...

That was a great day...but, whatever happened to "Johnny Wave"...? Curious.

Hey Cheri ...

I think he got spooked by threats from "vets" on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air blog. He also got into a bit of trouble when a couple of gov't cars pulled up at ABC, when we were supporting Rosie, over the military uniform code. He didn't land in the brig, or anything like that.
Can't find that most iconic pic I took right now.

 photo IMG_1301.jpg


Great commentary, Rage, and a very valuable article from Greenwald here. We have the tools, so lets use them - strategically.

Abby just deleted this and blocked me on facebook

No, really. Just now. Abby wrote a message earlier to her facebook pointing at this blogger post, and I responded with the message linked below, after which she promptly blocked me on facebook and presumably deleted my remark. Note that she and I have been friends for about 10 years, so blocking me on facebook... yeah. Anyways, this is what I wrote:

Bottom line: the fact she deleted my remark says about all you need to know about the "new and improved" abby martin.


You say you and Abby have "been friends for about 10-years"... I'm sorry, but a "friend" would never attack a friend publicly as you did.

I refer you to a post above by member, "President Ford".

real friends tell each other

real friends tell each other the truth. And I did it publicly because I knew she was gonna delete it and I wanted that to be part of the point I was making. And I'm not saying we're close, just that we have a history. Abby and I worked hard to grow San Diego 9/11 truth, and it just sucks to hear her say her views have "evolved" while she essentially turns her back on not only 9/11, but all the related implications. President Ford is suggesting she is being tactical, but my point is that she has compromised her own views, to the point where she has no response when Piers Morgan called her out.

And I think it's telling that she would prefer to delete my remarks (and me) than address them. A glimpse of her own sort of censorship really.

What kind of response did you expect

from such a heavy inflammatory rant?

If you're really Abby's friend, then you'll stop adding fuel to the fire.

I just wanted her to know

I just wanted her to know that she wasn't fooling me with this letter here trying to appease her truther base. And if you're scared of inflaming people thoughts and opinions this type of subject matter probably isn't your bag.

Sounds a lot more like... have a personal grudge ;)

benefit of the doubt versus alienation

The infighting we're doing reminds me of all the people we've alienated, wholly or partly, from 911Blogger. Some of these people are sorely missed. Some of them may have instigated alienation themselves. But there was a lot of brainpower and knowledge in these people.

LeftWright, SnowCrash, Jim3100, loose nuke, Graeme MacQueen... are the first five names that come to mind.

Some of these, such as Graeme MacQueen, might be said to be "less actively involved" than previously, rather than actually finished with 911Blogger.

I do not oppose criticism from within, except especially where it destroys the aim of discovering the facts of 911.

I am not an expert on Abby Martin's viewpoints, but what I have watched of her RT show has seemed valuable to discovering said truth.

If she has back-pedaled under pressure, it seems wisest to give her the benefit of the doubt at present, and see where it goes from here.

Although I do like to see what is redeemable in people, this is not about that. It is more about keeping Abby around and on our side. She has the power to help us.


I left 911Blogger years ago because of stuff like this...I had to request my password the other day just to get in to reply to Abby's statement...that's how long it's been. I know TONS of us that left at different times for different reasons, and some just because they have moved on and/or evolved etc. Infighting anywhere sends me on my way, it is a waste of time and energy that can be better spent actually getting Truth out.

What the truth movement is not understanding here WRT Abby, in part ,is the attack on her in the media is calculated, just not for the obvious and/or journalistic reasons...and the media is far...IMHO...more to come.


Dedicated researcher (via excellent work and tenacity) gets a platform on an international news network.
Millions of people tune in.
Said researcher becomes controversial and breaks into the American MSM.
Gets attacked...
Does not play into the standard smear tactics.


Debating "inside job" is pointless. It's a semantic distraction.

Crimes are committed by people. "The system" is still people.

This is and has always been an information war.

A New Approach

People who are either technically aware enough to see through the holes in the official account of 911, or open minded enough to look at the facts in a balanced way have already done so. In terms of garnering support for the 911 truth cause you could call those people, for want of a better phrase "low hanging fruit", easy picking. Where does that leave our movement as far as attracting the support of those who are yet to see or acknowledge 911 for what it was?
We already have a central figure who is determined to scream "inside job" at the audience in the shape of Mr Jones, and in my opinion, although this serves a purpose, there is no need for another screamer.
As some on here will be aware, in the past few months our research group has been pushing the issue of omissions and errors in the WTC7 report and in doing so we have debated many people on line who are opposed to this evidence being addressed at any level. let alone the level that we are pursuing NIST at. What has become crystal clear to me throughout this process is that these people are scared when we stick to the bare facts, and this tactic is one that those who oppose us cannot find a defense for.
To clarify, when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.
Inside job, freefall, thermite etc have woken up all the people that they are going to in terms of mass. I believe it is now time to change the game plan and to use the numbers that these pertinent and relevant issues have helped gain for our cause. And I am convinced that the way to do this is to ask people to take that first step of entertaining the possibility that the WTC7 report is provably false, and allow them to draw their own conclusions rather than ask them to step straight to the finish line of "911 was an inside job". This approach has to date opened up a dialogue with both NIST and the Office of the Inspector General. I dare say that these people would rather not be talking to us, but the fact that we are focusing on the provable errors and not widening out the issue doe not afford them that option to dismiss and ignore us.
Exactly the same can be said of Abby's audience. There is nothing to be gained from Abby playing to the crowd and appealing to people like ourselves who are already convinced by declaring that "911 was an inside job". Far better for her to simply ask the questions that she has in a calm and rational way and in doing so making the truth of 911 an approachable topic rather than a polarising issue. If this is her intent then I applaud it. We should maybe consider that this could be a scaling back of approach rather than an abandonment of former belief on Abby's part, and allow her to play the game her way without being overly critical.
As an interesting aside, it is also my opinion that if RT had been opposed to what Abby said going out on the airwaves, we would not be discussing the topic now, because it would not have aired. RT are just not that stupid. I do not pretend to know what kind of game RT, or indeed Abby is playing here, but when I consider the attention that both have brought to this issue in the past, I can do little else but applaud that, and hope.

I agree on changing the focus point

I agree with Gerrycan1 that its time to move beyond the polarizing (easily dismissed) talking points we've been using for far too long now. Its highly important to keep up with whats going on now, and pay attention to what works vs what does not. Screaming 9/11 was an inside job does nothing anymore, and every single person on 911blogger knows this. That being said, every single person on 911blogger knows that it IS an "inside job".
The methods that need to be employed next are those that grab the attention of the general reader/observer. And in my humble opinion, this means video/TV, because its far easier to get someone to look at a small video clip, and post it on their facebook page than it is to get them to read some large text document, or even to engage in what they will immediately see as an inevitable potential argument they wish to avoid. The 911 Truth Movement today, needs to approach the psychological aspect of "advertising" (so to speak). So, when Gerrycan1 speaks about avoiding the usual Red Flag talking points, and narrowing the focus on the "mistakes made" by the Official Storytellers, he is correct. Which is why he has taken steps to show his work with video presentations and animation.

In other words use the KISS method.... Keep It Simple Stupid

While the work that engineers, academics, and scholars have done, and continues to do is necessary, its a moot point if nobody ever see's it. And lets be honest, nobody is looking at 9/11 the way us "truthers" are anymore. To those people (the ones we're trying to reach), its a dead issue. Now what "" has done, by putting up billboards, and ads on the sides of buses is a step in the right direction. it simply isn't enough. Yes, I know its about funding, and you can only do so much with what little money you can raise, the simple fact that raised such a small amount compared to what "Corporate Media" has at its disposal is trivial.... and therefore, the results are trivial, lets be honest.

So, the question remains.
What else can we be doing to reach a vastly larger audience?
I still say its taking advantage of social media when opportunities show themselves, like it just did with Abby Martin, and the New York Times (which, because of Snowden, has been up front and personal to the viewing general public).

For 911 Truth to pass up these kinds of opportunities, with all the great minds we have, is quite frankly...... pathetic. We need energy. We need innovation. We need to help ourselves, and believe me.... Pierre Omidyar isn't going to drop $250 million in our laps. Although, now that I think about it, this feud between Sibel Edmonds and Glenn Greenwald is yet another grand opportunity. It seems to me that The Intercept has a blog section below their articles too, and THE WHOLE WORLD IS READING THEM..... get it? is a wonderful thing.... its time for 911 Truth to look into the mirror



Excellent, thoughtful points. The progress you and others are making by challenging the NIST WTC 7 report head-on and in detail are and will yield important results.

I will add though that the 'acceleration profiles' (particularly towers 1 & 7) are hard evidence and very telling.

Thanks again for everything you are doing.

I agree.....

Yes, I agree with the acceleration profiles point. I guess what I am saying is that the issue that we are raising with the OIG is one that people can support without jumping into the deep end. I would quite happily accept for the purposes of a debate with NIST that fire did indeed bring down WTC7, because this tactic puts the ball back in their court and the onus shifts back to them to explain how fire did indeed do it. This removes their ability to compel the public into knee jerk black or white thinking patterns. I see a similar approach in Abby's tactic, it makes us less politically toxic.
Thanks for your support.

A New Gameplan

I mostly agree with you gerrycan. The Building 7 report is a big sore thumb and the best way is most likely sticking to the dry facts regarding the glaring omissions and errors in it. This effort to engage NIST would be so much stronger with a reviewed paper behind us that identifies some of those errors. Since Noam Chomsky made a big stink about lack of papers there is a big juicy opportunity to maximize the efficiency here. Why not get AE911 to sponsor a reviewed paper?

I agree that this the way to gather more attention but let´s not forget Tony Szamboti´s paper on debunking the Bazantian base under NIST´s report for the Twin Towers. And for that matter any published papers that challenge the official 9/11 Commission narrative on less technical matters, such as informed trading, lack of inclusion of important testimonies etc.

The exposure of glaring omissions at all levels eventually leads to questions about why federal investigators would go that way and how it could happen.

Abby, I don't understand why

Abby, I don't understand why you feel you've been "smeared". In my opinion, stating that 9-11 was an inside job shows both intelligence and courage, and is something to proud of. I also do not consider it to be "radical". That conclusion is backed by mountains of compelling, hard evidence as well as the fundamental principles of physics. I've simplified my argument down over the years to this: "WTC7's free fall and symmetric drop is irrefutable proof of controlled demolition, and demolition is irrefutable proof that 9-11 was an inside job." I have yet to see or hear a rational argument against either of those two points.
Also, I have *never* before seen anyone change their position from believing that 9-11 was an inside job to maybe it wasn't. This is due to the fact that the more people learn about 9-11, the more evidence they find proving that the Bush regime had the means, motive, and was complicit.
I saw a discussion of the Minetta testimony on your show. Obviously, a known hijacked commercial jet would not be permitted to enter the most secure and heavily guarded airspace on the planet almost an hour after the first tower was hit without a stand down order. This requires too many security "failures" at too many levels to be attributed to incompetence. There is a mountain of evidence proving beyond any and all doubt that members of the Bush regime were complicit. 9-11 was the "New Pearl Harbor" desired by Bush era PNAC extremists.
My best guess is that you were strongly "encouraged" to back off on 9-11 by people who have a way of being very convincing. I can't say that I would have behaved differently if I found myself in that situation. Self preservation is a powerful instinct...

WRT "smeared"

Abby was not referring to an embarrassment on her part, she is directly addressing the intent of the mainstream to smear her using her involvement with 9/11 Truth as their weapon to discredit her OPINION on foreign policy etc.

Well, yeah, but. my point is

Well yeah, but my point is that Abby's original position on 9-11 should be viewed as something to embrace and be proud of. Smearing someone involves connecting them to something negative. There's nothing negative about the pursuit of truth, justice, and peace.

Yes and No

Abby exposes A LOT on her show and she does it well and she ties the loose ends up for people...she is making some waves in mainstream and getting a wider audience for our "Truths". How can she claim something SHE cannot prove if/when asked and still be taken seriously in the journalistic world? We NEED her voice and we need her voice accepted across the board otherwise the message is just another bull-horn blast to the choir.

To those that say Abby is choosing her "career" over Truth, I can only say not only are you sadly mistaken, you are also being a HUGE disservice to 9/11 Truth. Abby chose her career BEACUSE of her desire to spread Truth.

The dangers of letting 'them' define what position is 'safe'

'Abby still believes what she believes, this I know for a fact…the issue is her presentation of what she believes in order to maintain any journalistic credence so that she CAN continue putting the message of Truth out there and reach beyond the choir.'

That is something quite different from saying, 'I do not think the attacks were an "inside job."'

Does expressing differences with this position constitute going 'nuts'? Does it mean one is 'participating in silencing' her voice? Does it make one part of a 'cult-like force'? You make it sound as though responses can be neatly divided into those of 'Abby's attackers' and those of 'Abby's defenders,' with no room in between.

Manner of presentation is always something to consider. But I think you overstate it when you say that it is, 'only because we are our own worst enemy' that '"They" are still winning' more than twelve years later. There's grounds for plenty of self-criticism within the truth movement (I think you offered some good examples), but being our own worst enemy is far from the only reason 'they' are still winning.

The key matter that the powers that be don't want the public to question is the big one of where the guilt for the attacks ultimately lies. This is to be treated as 100% settled, and no deviation shall be tolerated. When facts raised by the 9/11 truth movement lead people to see that the question is still very much open, and even give reason to think that at least some guilt lies within the US power structure itself (not just 'fault,' but actual, criminal guilt), that is something troubling to many people, and there is no way to sugarcoat it and turn it into something pleasant so that it goes down easier--no matter how much background one might have in public relations. And if people are disturbed by one's message, that does not necessarily mean one is being tactless. It could just be the nature of the message. And even if we were our most impeccably tactful (which we should try to be in any case), the gatekeepers' gates are not about to come crashing down. For the simple reason that our message is a real threat to the interests on which they depend. And it's a threat precisely because of what it reveals about the supposedly-settled question of 'where the guilt lies' for 9/11.

If one thinks it's best to lead people to this realization one fact at a time or one question at a time, fine. But when it becomes about something more than manner of presentation--when it becomes a matter of making an a priori concession on the crucial question of 'where the guilt lies' in exchange for media access--that's when I get worried. And I think here we come to another huge reason why 'they' are still winning more than twelve years later--namely, 'their' continuing ability to bring intense pressure and enforce conformity in the world of opinion, so that even dissenters find themselves practicing self-censorship for reasons that have nothing to do with an analysis of the facts, and participating in drawing boundaries that define which positions are 'safe.' And related to that is a tendency within the truth movement of viewing the problem entirely from the direction of 'not being alienating.' We also need to be mindful of threats from the other direction--making concessions for the sake of acceptability to the point of being self-defeating, so that the official story, and its 'case closed' position on the question of where the guilt lies, is allowed to exercise its malevolent force effectively undisturbed, year in and year out. Yes, it's true that there's no point to speaking the truth if nobody is going to hear you. But we should also ask, what really is gained if those ears aren't hearing what they need to when we get access to them?

You refer to Abby's need 'to maintain any journalistic credence so that she CAN continue putting the message of Truth out there....' I hope she manages to do so--though it will be difficult in a world where 'journalistic credence' seems to have little to do with 'truth.'

I am reminded of similar arguments regarding media figures like Amy Goodman or Keith Olbermann, affirming that it was best that they not risk career suicide by questioning the 9/11 official story, so that they could continue to provide what critical commentary they could. I have never favored (and never would) trying to hound such people into giving attention to 9/11 truth. But I have also continued to believe that what critical commentary they offer (much as I'm often glad to hear it) is guaranteed never to be enough to fundamentally change the political situation so long as it excludes questioning of the 9/11 official story.

These arguments also always bring to my mind a certain phrase--someone referring to a need 'to maintain my political viability within the system.' That was a young Bill Clinton, explaining his decision not to resist the draft. Well, we know how 'viable' he turned out to be for the system. An extreme case, you might say. But, I find it does often spring to mind, and helps bring up the question: At what point does compromise defeat what is supposedly one's purpose?

As I wrote elsewhere, it speaks in Abby's favor that she was attacked by the New York Times.

And yes, she is no Charlie Veitch.

Call 9/11 whatever you want.

Call 9/11 whatever you want.

false flag terror
state crime against democracy (SCAD)
inside job
self-inflicted wound
fraudulent triggering event
psychological operation (psyop)

What will not go away is the central reality of the 9/11 Truth Movement -- controlled demolition. The evidence, as demonstrated by Steven Jones and Niels Harrit through video analysis of the buildings imploding and laboratory dust analysis, is exceedingly strong. It is this evidence that mostly accounts for the majority of those polled questioning the official story. The strength of this movement lies not in the judicious use of language, but the natural tendency of lies to die under scrutiny.

Perplexing.. if the twin towers were blown up, and building 7

destroyed with explosives, and if there was a military stand down via the 9/11 War Games Operations and if the chain of command was abandoned during the crucial hour and a half, then in what way was 9/11 NOT an "inside job" I don't understand..

The question is not "Was 9/11 an Inside Job?"

The question is "How do we best reach the American people?"

My belief, based on dozens or even hundreds of hours tabling on the street and promoting 911truth among activists involved in other issues, is that we best reach people by emphasizing questions over conclusions. Every idiot has an opinion.

"911 Was an Inside Job!" is a slogan well known to the American people. It's not news. It's worked as well as it can work. It's time to try something new. I celebrate gerrycan's effort in pointing out the holes in the NIST report. That's news.

No, I think the main question is how to we get this matter into

A criminal court of law, like the international criminal court.

There's no need to "water down" what's clearly self evident (false flag psy-op) just to make it more palatable to the American people. Physics speaks for itself, and there's no getting around it.

I agree about not making too many conclusions, but "inside job" isn't one of them, given the evidence before us, staring us in the face and pouring forth like a one-way fire hydrant of information that cannot be ignored.


To be honest I think i myself might have been the first to coin the phrase "9/11 was an inside job" back in 2002, and you're right that it's outlived its usefulness, but that doesn't mean for a moment that it wasn't an "inside job" just that the phrase doesn't work anymore as a rallying cry.

But it was, as a false flag psy-op.

So how about 9/11 was a false flag psychological operation? How does that sound?

Same diff, just different phraseology.


...destroyed with explosives, and if there was a military stand down via the 9/11 War Games Operations and if the chain of command was abandoned during the crucial hour and a half, then in what way was 9/11 NOT an "inside job" I don't understand..

Edit to add: Dear Abby,

What DO you think happened Abby if you cannot believe or accept that 9/11 really was an inside job?

Looks like the MSM propaganda war was won as far as you're concerned and that you've been effectively muzzled while at the same time alienating a large part of your supporters.

That's a terrible thing imho that you cannot allow to happen, or to be done to you, and by extension the 9/11 truth movement which it appears that they've forced you to distance yourself from.. so as to retain a certain cred and get to keep your job.

It's understandable of course, but if you really want to make a difference you have to put your back back into it, and continue to stand up for what's right, true and just, without backing down and wimping out on the truth, you know for the sake of the many victims and everything that's right, compared to what's been wrought by the 9/11 psy-op.

You missed the opportunity I think, but perhaps you might still clarify your position right here at 9/11 Blogger were you chose to bring the story..

Please? Say something?

Thanks though in advance for all you do and have done anyway.

Best Regards,

Robert Rice


Abby is NOT "whimping out on the Truth" and her job is not threatened.

She is trying to use her platform to bring Truth (as she has the 2-yrs she has been there) to a wider audience and yes, use of the term "inside Job" is most often off-putting when trying to do outreach. Everyone consumes and comprehends differently.

Are you not tired of preaching to the choir? She is. She wants to preach outside of the choir, why is that so hard to stomach or understand?

As an example, R. Gage travels all over doing presentations...what percentage of his audience at each engagement is just "the choir"? The large majority and I have had no problem telling him this to his face frequently. In fact, it is a bit of an ongoing thing between us.

So seriously, are we lifting him up and being "sustaining members" just to fly him out to shake our hand or do we want to get the message to people that don't already know?

I'd argue the answer to that is the latter and those organizing Gage's events need to do a much better job of putting butts in need of educating in those seats.

It has been many years since Abby has uttered the words "inside job" except in derision for what that message has become by being co-opted into things/people like Alex Jones who she most definitely does not support.

The Daily Banter has run more on just how they feel about Truthers' and claim that Alex Jones is our leader...yet where is the uproar in the Truth movement over that? Where are the activists correcting that lil issue and attacking that messenger? Hmmm?

Sometimes, subtlety is the key.

I agree with you Cheri. It is never a good idea to tell people how or what to think, or what (if anything) they should evangelize". In this arena, "preachiness" almost always generates opposition, and a potential convert is lost, perhaps forever. A far more effective approach is conversational, without being loud or emotional, and only sticking to indisputable facts (on either side of the argument of course). If one is confrontational, especially on such a polarizing issue as 9/11 - thats a surefire way of coming over as being annoying and forever connecting the cause (9/11 Truth in this instance) with "an annoying person". If the person with whom one is communicating is prepared to listen to the facts and the science, then he or she will eventually come to *their own* realization that 9/11 was "an inside job".. and they will have a far stronger conviction in the matter. I would volunteer that almost *all* of us here on this forum have arrived to that (inevitable and unavoidable) conclusion by being curious, open minded, and having enough common sense to distinguish between reality and codswallop, or truth and lies, rather than someone trying to actively cajole us re. where to stand on this issue.

Abby is doing the right thing by not only broadcasting material which has been suppressed by government agencies, politicians and he mainstream/corporate media, but also at the same time, subtly introducing an element of doubt re. the official story to people who would never be brought onto our side by being yelled at that "9/11 was an inside job". She probably came to that conclusion a long time back, and has won over many more converts by her rational measured presentations than she would have gotten by yelling "9/11 was an inside job" over a bullhorn.

Sorry Alex.


She stopped using the term a long time ago.

As for the rest..yes, that is why the, "I Am the Face of Truth" project started:

If 9/11 Wasn't An "Inside Job", Then What Was It?

Perhaps its time for Abby Martin to explain her comment:

"I do not think the attacks were an "inside job."".

Cheri Roberts:

"She (Abby Martin) is trying to use her platform to bring Truth (as she has the 2-yrs she has been there) to a wider audience."

Does Martin making fun of truth-seekers on INTERNATIONAL TV who have reasonable questions about the President's background, about recent major domestic events and who naturally wonder about official complicity in some or all of these events, qualify as bringing truth to a wider audience?

This Popular Mechanics/Gerald Posner style ridicule of people, does seemingly little if anything for the cause of truth.


Cheri Roberts:

"Like Alex Jones who she most definitely does not support."

Before securing her current position and while presumably searching for a good gig, Martin didn't seem to mind at all, riding the coattails of Alex Jones:


With all due respect, it has always seemed that more than anything else, Abby Martin has wanted to be a "star". And now that she has achieved some of that stardom, she seems to be burning bridges to her past that might seemingly undermine her continued rise to the top of the media world.

I hope Abby

does become a star. And I hope she surprises the daylights out of you Aidan. Maybe she will evolve into a force that will get 9/11 truth into the mainstream.


Abby's segment on "ridiculous conspiracy theories" was a DIRECT result of people like you attacking her viciously because she did not buy into the Sandy Hook bullshit.

The Jones video you post is from 2008 and Abby has made it clear to anyone that has been listening for YEARS she is no Jonsie.

I think Abby's attempt to distance herself

from these kinds of theories is really no different from the split up of the CD theorists from the Pentagon No-Jetliner theorists, which happened right here on 911Blogger quite a few years ago.

Jones...what a gentleman...not...

Abby seems to be getting pushed to the background in this video, and she is definitely not caught up in Jones's thang...imo...

Kind regards John

Larger Audience?

Rage_Against_Machine -

Perhaps just idle speculation, but what I thought when I saw your comment & asked "So, the question remains.
What else can we be doing to reach a vastly larger audience?
" my mind turned to ... well, how about Chris Christie. Just musing, but NYNJPA just happened to be supporting a FEMA rescue drill 9/10/2001. R. Gugliani has popped up as a spokesman in the Christie stuff. Where was all the 9/11 scrap hauled under tightly controlled conditions, & why were reputable reserearchers allowed only very limited inspection of selected pieces of scrap (in Hangar 17, JFK International)?

May or may not be connected - but these are some questions that I'd like to see answered. And it conveniently piggy-backs onto R Maddow's Chris Christie crusade.


Agreed. If the attacks had been a genuine case of "Islamic terrorism" as claimed by government and media, then the conduct of official bodies regarding 9/11 and its investigation - or rather, LACK thereof - is completely out of pattern with what one would expect in the real world. In other words, if what they claim is true, then why all the lies, the secrecy, the coverups, the destruction of evidence, the paranoia, the name-calling, the weird promotions and transfers of officials in departments and agencies which "failed" so badly, and more?

If what they say is true, then their story should stand up by itself without all the excess baggage.


Christie did not become New Jersey governor until 2010. The governor of New Jersey on 9/11 was Donald DiFrancesco. He was president of the Senate in the state legislature who moved up to the governorship in January 2001, after Christie Todd Whitman resigned to become Bush's EPA director. His terms in both offices expired in January 2002.

The state's Attorney General under both Whitman and DiFrancesco was John Farmer, who later became Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (co-chair of which was, of course, a former NJ governor, Thomas Kean).

The rational truthers are with you!

It is sad that many of us have suffered for learning to be careful and put reason ahead of ego.

Abby, using her platform carefully is to be applauded and I do so at every opportunity.

Kind regards John


A few years ago, I wrote this article as a "wake up call" for the "9/11 Truth Movement." I wrote it to defend Jason Leopold as well. Here we are today, and the same problem persists. Except, this time, UNBELIEVABLY, the hate is directed towards someone that spent several years doing GOOD activism for the cause of 9/11 Justice. I'm referring to Abby Martin. I have an archive on my site of MANY of the actions Abby took part in because I was so proud of her and her group (unfortunately, many of the videos no longer exist). Today, I glanced at some of the posts she's made at of her show and what I saw were shows DEFENDING the "9/11 Truthers" or the idea of justice for 9/11 overall. To give you an idea of what kind of person Abby is, a few years ago, Abby sent money out of her own pocket to the FealGood Foundation because someone who was supposed to, didn't. To help the 9/11 First Responders. Something the "9/11 Truth Movement" used to be known for. I am infuriated over the fact that members of the so called "9/11 Truth Movement" are attacking Abby because of a responsible statement she, as a journalist, made about 9/11. Everyone doing it should be ashamed of themselves. As far as I'm concerned, everyone that has owes her an apology (but we all know that will never happen). The "cult of 9/11 Truth" is one of the MAIN reasons less people are active for this cause today. You should be ashamed of yourselves for that as well. Abby Martin is a hero, and that's all I have to say about that.

9/11 Facts vs Ambiguity

Not to take anything away from all of the excellent work Abby Martin has done over the years, but her wishy-washy comments above shocked the hell out of me. I know this is a bit old but I was surprised she did not mention some reference to 911 conspiracy fact in her 2nd Empire Files 911 Victims related show, which aired just recently.

Claiming that the use of such language as, '911 was an inside job' is inappropriate because it is 'irresponsible' to assert such an 'unknowable claim,' is the exact opposite of the truth. The claim is, in fact, the inescapable conclusion any objective person will reach because it's based upon a large preponderance of mutually supportive fact-based evidence derived from a broad range of sources. One could hardly imagine a more conclusive and concordant body of evidence. How else does she reckon explosives were placed into the buildings?

Just looking at the videos, along with the forensic analysis done by David Chandler et. al.

Note the words: 'that liquefied the steel' & the quote given to the NY Times by the lead on the paper (*note Apndx C was the only part of the FEMA BPAT that was actually peer-reviewed): " and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” -Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Glanz. New York Times, November 29 2001]

See also Journal of 911 Studies

The Harrit study: *Published in 2009, the paper remains unchallenged in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.

More recently, carbon nanotubes have been found in the lungs of first-responders and again, documented here:
and elsewhere..
And on and on and on,, ALL fact-based. All prove 9/11 was an inside job.
So why can't she say so? One does not need to know the how or the why of a thing to be certain of the what.

Saying it's 'irresponsible' because it is asserting an 'unknowable claim' is no different than arguing it is unknowable that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolitions. When the reality is, if we can be 100% certain of any aspect of the 911 attacks, it is that the Twin Towers & Building 7 were destroyed with explosives. The Towers were shredded top-down (as the videos, debris fields and 1120 missing bodies attest to) and Bldg. 7 was imploded in a more conventional controlled demolition, -albeit, all three made use of nanothermite (bc all 3 sites had pools of molten steel in their basements and at the bottoms of elevator shafts) which is not conventional. However such devices do exist* (see below) and one just happens to be associated with people closely tied to 911.

How can anyone call these and so many other mutually supportive facts 'unknowable'? There is nothing 'discrediting' about calling something what it actually is. Sure, it gets twisted and manipulated that way by the state propaganda media, but so what? To give in to that (and worse. to agree) is not only to ignore reality and betray any semblance of sound journalistic ethos, it is placing oneself on the wrong side of history and tantamount to covering-up for treason and crimes against humanity.

Future historians may well look back upon the 911/anthrax attacks as the start of World War III and there will be no ambiguity in the conclusions they reach because there is none now, -regardless of what the state media 'discredits' and spouts; the truth is incontrovertible.

To state that it cannot be known that the attacks were an inside job is to ignore a mountain of evidence that indicates precisely that. I realize someone in her position must navigate a precarious range of choosing her words carefully and even then, more often than not, they'll get manipulated into something other than what she intended. I would advise the next time she state this simple truth: Despite the potential for complexity surrounding this issue, there is a relatively short list of well-documented, easily verifiable and mutually supportive facts that prove the demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11.

Being able to state this obvious truth is most certainly the litmus test that defines fact from fiction in journalism today. (Its been said the best disinformation is 90% -I think of people like Rachel Maddow or Noam Chomsky, -great on so many issues, yet clearly 911 gatekeepers) And will most certainly be viewed as such in the future by those who look back and make note of those who had the courage to speak the truth. Just as we look back today upon those like Raoul Wallenberg or Sophie Scholl, -and we are not even facing such deadly threats, which just makes this all the more sad and pathetic.

However much I wish this were not the case, to argue otherwise, is to be an accessory after the fact. To be complicit in the most heinous crime on US soil in our history. I dont need to inform her of the cost globally and to future generations, which is why this is so sad and shocking to hear. I was surprised she didnt mention 9/11 Truth in her second episode of Empire Files. There really is no issue of greater significance when it comes to ending the Global War on Terror it has serves as pretext for, than to speak the whole truth. When we see that Syrian child dead in the surf, or talk about a million civilians slaughtered, and whole nations devastated, we should realize the importance of stating, in no uncertain terms that, 911 was and could only have been an inside job.

No, it wasn't done by "the government' or 'Israel' 'the Jews' or 'the Zionists' All of this generalizing is disinformation. It was done by individuals. There is no getting around that fact and shying away from saying it and creating needless ambiguity where none exists, simply helps them cover their tracks and makes us complicit in their crimes.


*Bremer was on the international advisory board for the Japanese mining and machinery company, Komatsu. At the time, Komatsu had been involved in a joint venture agreement with Dresser Industries, the oil-services/intelligence front in which Prescott Bush Sr. and George H. W. Bush got their start with Neil Mallon. The Komatsu-Dresser mining division operated from 1988 to 1997. In July 1996, it patented a thermite demolition device that could "demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like." [25] Residues of thermite, the highly energetic chemical mixture, have been confirmed in samples of the WTC dust, and the use of thermite at the WTC was also revealed by environmental data. [1, 2, 3, 4, 26] Dresser Industries merged with Dick Cheney's Halliburton in 1998.

Suggested Reading:
ANOTHER NINETEEN: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects by Kevin Ryan

THE 2001 ANTHRAX DECEPTION The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy Graeme MacQueen