New Film - "Disinformation in the Information Age" - Release Date Set

I have chosen a release date of February 19, 2007 - Presidents Day - to release my new film "Disinformation in the Information Age."

When I originally started working on this project i viewed it as a somewhat humorous aside to my more important project, which is the 3 hour revision of "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime."

Disinformation - misinformation - crazy theories - wacky websites - etc, etc, have always been a part of the 9/11 Truth movement, and I simply thought it would be fun to explore this topic - show some humor - and demonstrate our ability to laugh at ourselves.

But, like my experience in 2002 when i first started unraveling some of the strange anomalies associated with 9/11 itself, i discovered that i was peeling an onion and uncovering layer upon layer of hidden anomalies and facts that each it turn demanded further digging. I started to lose my sense of humor when I realized the depth of disrespect some of these purveyors of disinformation were showing towards - not only their fellow researchers - but towards the victims and their families themselves.

911 activism comes with a very solemn responsibility. It requires the utmost dignity and respect for those who have fallen, and the families that continue to carry the scars of that day and who continue to demand answers. 911 activism demands that we remain sensitive to the feelings and sensibilities of those we hope to reach. 911 activism demands that we not allow the search for truth to become a circus lies.

The subject of Disinformation is a serious one. And, as I began to receive emails and support (in the form of leads and information) from many of the most high profile members of this movement - drawing my attention to all of the strange relationships and organized influences currently undermining our efforts - i began to realize just how serious this subject really is.

911 Truth begins with credibility and accountability - and towards this end we all have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain the highest possible standards towards this end.

Credibility has always been a problem for this movement. Even the left-leaning media appears reluctant to explore many of the unusual facts, whistleblowers and incriminating evidence associated with 9/11. It is our job to convince them otherwise, and to demonstrate that 911 Truth - and the demand for accountability and 100% transparency - is a legitimate issue with strong demographical support from the public.

And just as surely as the left-leaning media seeks the truth behind electronic voting machines, and the real intelligence of WMDs behind the Iraq war, and the source of the leaks in the Valerie Plame case, and on and on and on, they must also accept their responsibility in addressing the concerns of the increasingly large number of Americans who are asking for accountability and responsibility from our media on the issue of 9/11.

Conspiracy theories, speculation and opinions abound. But, the one essential question that binds us all together remains ostensibly a very simple one. What is the truth?

Towards this end, it now becomes fundamentally necessary that we hold up our end of the bargain. We ourselves become complicit is spreading lies if we remain silent on the issue of disinformation in the 9/11 Truth movement.

It now becomes essential to our survival and credibility that we demonstrate our resolve on this issue.

This raises many philosophical questions about the nature of information and truth - and who in fact gets to decide what is disinformation. I am sure that my film will invite a flurry of accusations, attempting to stand reality on its head and accuse me of being the real disruptor to this movement. I suppose I will be accused of wrongfully accusing people. And, to be honest, I myself have been perplexed over the seemingly contradictory nature of condemning disruption while i myself appear to be fanning the flames. I understand these challenges.

It is not my objective to accuse people of being “agents” or “infiltrators” of this movement. It is not my objective to start a witch hunt.

But - when i received word this weekend of personal threats and intimidation tactics being utilized by several of the people depicted in my film - against those in our community who seek to protect this movement’s reputation and integrity - it became clear to me that we have reached a crossroads of sorts. We are in a fight for our survival - as a movement - and as a society. We must all stand together on this issue, because when even one member of this community is threatened or intimidated or blackmailed into being quiet – we all lose our voice.

No one should ever feel intimidated or afraid to demand answers from the United States government. Regardless of the intentionality and source behind it, disinformation is a threat to our civil liberties and a way of denying us our freedom of speech.

I ask you all to stand with me in supporting this project and disseminating it widely. Our only defense against disinformation and intimidation tactics is to shine as much light on it as possible – and expose these charlatans and bullies for what they really are – enemies of the truth.

Show "My lady doth protest most" by brianv

cant wait for this john. I

cant wait for this john. I hope fetzer makes an appearance ;-)

Starring role I feel !!!!

Good luck and best wishes JA

Should be very interesting and is MUCH needed!!!

Feel free

I know you are right up on the deadline for what I feel is a necessary film, I have some information from his latest gathering I would like to share with you. I think it's important to recognize the effects of Fetzer, and at the same time not spend too much time on him. A bit of a balancing act.

My blog post after the Columbus Event:

Questions for Jim Fetzer

Questions for Jim Fetzer

1. Why does the ST911 truth website expose no alternate theories (aside from the “official” story) as false? Given the fact that there are many theories about 9/11, why is it that the ST911 website fails to reveal any theories as false?

2. Do you think the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis is a falsifiable theory? If so, how can it be tested by scientists? How can it be shown that it is false with experiments? A non-falsifiable theory is non-scientific by definition.

3. A non falsifiable theory can’t be tested—therefore it can’t be proven. How can un-testable theories ever lead to the “truth” about 9/11?

4. If the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis is not a falsifiable theory, why is it being pursued in favor of the concrete physical evidence that Steven Jones has accumulated strongly supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis and more importantly—an inside job?

5. Steven Jones offered the opinion that we don’t need to prove everything that happened on 9/11. He argues that we should focus on the solid (i.e. non-speculative) evidence that supports an inside job so that we can use it to get the public to support an investigation to finally uncover the entire truth about 9/11. Do you agree with this opinion?

6. In an essay written by Wood and Reynolds it is claimed that Steven Jones is maintaining a “thermite hypothesis” []. This is a straw-man fallacy as Jones has never maintained that only thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC buildings. I will quote your own interview:

Q: “are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were used in the Twin Towers?

A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other explosives


Also, this paper ignores all of the 11 features of controlled demolition as well as his position that other explosives could have been used in combination. My question is: do you consider it acceptable behavior that Wood and Reynolds are distorting Steven Jones’ controlled demolition hypothesis by implying his entire theory is a “thermite hypothesis”?

7. Given this stunning straw-man fallacy committed by Wood and Reynolds, when are you planning on removing this essay from “founder’s corner” on Scholars for 9/11 truth? Are they planning on issuing an apology to Steven Jones for their distortions? Read Responses to it here:

8. Judy Wood maintains that a Star Wars Beam Weapon was only used to destroy the towers on 9/11. Recently, Dr. Greg Jenkins said:

“the energy [required] is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc.. This is with no loss. If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.”

My questions is: what would it take for you to be convinced that Directed Energy Weapons were not used on 9/11? You have said repeatedly that you are only promoting Directed Energy Weapons as a “hypothesis”. Given the fact that a hypothesis is rejected when it is contradicted by the evidence, what evidence would convince you that this hypothesis is incorrect and force you to abandon it? If you honestly believe in supporting this theory you should be able to provide a compelling answer.

Thank you for your clarifications and responses to these questions. Your answers will be very revealing about your position on these issues.


83:00 mark and forward

looking forward to it

I am a big fan of your other movie, and look forward to an expanded version of that as well.

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.

I thought EGLS was great

And I look forward to seeing your new film, even though this is dangerous ground you're treading on.

An extended EGLS would really be a boost and I can't wait to see it.



I'm looking forward to it,

I'm looking forward to it, and thanks for the good work.

Very good work

John, I admire what you are doing here. Your blog entry about it is just excellent, IMO. I assume that the film too will be thought-provoking.

I have something to add to what you say. I will state it just after quoting you, below.

Here is the quote from your blog:

"Towards this end, it now becomes fundamentally necessary that we hold up our end of the bargain. We ourselves become complicit is spreading lies if we remain silent on the issue of disinformation in the 9/11 Truth movement.

"It now becomes essential to our survival and credibility that we demonstrate our resolve on this issue."

My comment speaks not of you but of some who post here, and at related sites. Here it is:

You speak of dooming the movement by disrespectful actions. I think we can also doom the movement by how we speak, even to each other and certaintly also 'out there'. But this here is public too and therefore 'out there.'

If we engage in flame-wars and lots of foul speech, in our posts, it harms the movement. People will see it and may quote it, to show how nutty we are.

This isn't to say I will not try to correct people's stuff if I think it looks wrong. I like being clear in such cases. People appreciate good critique.

Continuing my diatribe...

We already face terrible odds, against the truth surfacing as it should -- which is presumably the first phase, or step, toward a goal that each 9-11 truther seeks. Every flame makes this step that much harder.

It strikes me that we in this movement must exercise more control over our speech and actions than has been so for many other protest or truth movements in the past.

Why? We already look wacky. This is partly due to the fact that the movement attracts wacky people. I suppose conspiracy always does that. But I think it is also (and largely) due to some remarkably skilled efforts toward disinformation and intentional obfuscation, engineered intentionally it would seem, by someone in the planning of this gaudy 9-11 event.

BTW, I personally do not think there is any need to attack others if they send flames. My approach, and yours too I have noticed, is to stay calm and careful myself. Humor also helps.

End of sermon...

John, have you ever posted a transript of EGLS? If not, I wish

you would do so, because the video covers tons of information, & it goes very quickly, especially towards the end. It would be nice to be able to read & study your information more slowly too.

I have a transcript that I did myself last year.

I'll email it to you if you'll contact me through the "contact" feature on my user profile.

Show "Edit" by johndoraemi

Ahhhh yes... "Pull it"

It onlt took Silverstein 4 years and one well paid publicist to explain that quote....

after four years.... why even explain at all especially when unprovoked?

We decided just to pull it..... what was "it" again?
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

And if Silverstein's "Pull it" comments weren't so damning...

then why did Popular Mechanics (and so many others) lie for him by saying that "Pull" isn't a demolition term?

More about that here:

Something dodgy in the world of Wikipedia !!!

When this was quoted on 28 April 2006 it said...

The term Building Implosion can be misleading to laymen, although its name includes the word implosion, it is not an implosion phenomenon. Implosion occurs when the difference between internal to external pressure is such that a structure collapses on itself. When external pressure on a structure is greater enough than its internal pressure, the structures implodes. The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull.

Now if you look at the link

both references to PULL have been removed !!!


also, at

Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls.

Best wishes

Nice catch, 911veritas. Thanks for posting that

FYI: It's still posted at:


"This is work of man. This is a hired job. (Silverstein) said it himself. You hear him saying 'Pull it' down."

-Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko

Nice find...

I suppose I'm gunna have to look through the wikipedia change history to try and see if I can work out who's covering up...

Thanks S4

I'll be back !!!

That was a quick trip... but fruitful :)

The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to push the building down, but simply on the effect of Gravitation.

Has replaced "PULL" with "PUSH" and "Gravitational PULL" with "Gravitation".

Tut-tut... naughty naughty


Tom Harrison - "9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime."

Page as of 10-Dec-2006 18:34 --

Page as of 10-Dec-2006 18:38 --

911veritas, you rock!

FYI, i've reposted your findings here:

Popular Mechanics caught in a lie?

If you have time, please create a blog about this cover-up.

and this is how it reads

as of today at 9am 1/29/07

"The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull.
Numerous small '''''ex'''''plosions are used to catalyze the collapse, having been strategically planned within the structure and timed to occur in concert, often detonating within milliseconds of one another. Days or even weeks of preparation frequently precede such an event.
The explosions blow the air out of the building along with the support structures thus leaving a "vacuum" which has the effect of "pulling" the building down at near free fall speeds."


somebody got in there and did some fancy editing...

"Pull It" disinfo from Jim Hoffman

Some people purporting to be 9/11 truth researchers are shilling for Silverstein on something so blatantly obvious as "Pull It!'

See --

A disinfo documentary that doesn't expose Silverstein shills like Jim Hoffman is it itself disinfo.

Jim Hoffman - Boobytrap for 9/11 Truthers

Yet another piece of disinfo from Mr. Hoffman. Somehow I'm not suprised. I've come to expect this from Mr. Hoffman, after his disinfo crap ragarding the Pentagon, etc. Jim Hoffman's background of having previously (and perhaps currently as well) contracted with the NSA is now more relevant than ever.

Well, regardless of whether or not he is currently receiving a paycheck from the NSA, he sure is impersonating someone who is. I think it's time to expose this phony for who he really is. There is good reason he is no longer invited to 9/11 truth conferences. After what he did to disrupt and discredit David Ray Griffin's event in Oakland last year, I became pretty convinced about his true agenda.

this opinion

is from Gerald Holmgren and the webfairy disinformation crew. Hoffman is one of the few credible researchers in this movement.

Oh paleeeze!!!

John, that comment is extremely juvinile. Trying to make false associations between me and the "webfairy disinformation crew", etc., just proves to people that you have no valid arguments to address what an increasing number of people see as very troubling and serious problem with your friend Jim Hoffman.

If you are going to use such an immature tactic as accusing me of being Gerald Holmgren, I can just as easily accuse you of being Jim Hoffman. Two can play at that game, but I really would prefer to have a more mature and substantive discussion.

You are quickly making me lose respect for you. It behooves you to look honestly and objectively at the behavior and tactics of your apparent hero Mr. Hoffman, if you are truely concerned about the issue of disinformation and disruption within the truth movement, as you claim.

I don't deny that Mr. Hoffman has made contributions regarding the WTC demolitions, but no matter what good a person has done for a movement in the past, that can all be cancelled out at any point that that person becomes a disrupter and resorts to destructive and dishonest tactics. You need to understand the history of COINTELPRO and the way in which people infiltrate movements, gain credibility and respect, and then at some point become a boobytrap.

So, please, Show some maturity on this issue.

There's no question

that Hoffman's crew was disruptive and divisive at that event in Oakland - it turned off a lot of people, including myself. But people do make mistakes, you know. That was quite awhile ago and I haven't heard of anything like that happening again. Last I saw Hoffman he was presenting at the all day WTC science conference at UC Berkeley, a very successful event where he shared the stage with Steven Jones, Peter Phillips and others. If you were going to convince me that Hoffman was an agent you'd have to present a much stronger case than you have so far. I met the guy before he started, when he was going around showing people video clips of the demolitions on his laptop. He went on to organize and present the strongest arguments for controlled demoliton that exist to this day, inspiring the work of Steven Jones among many others. Sure, an infiltrator could do that - but you'd have to show a lot more than a few disagreeable actions and arguments if you wanted to make the case.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

That's not the only example

Just take a look at Hoffman's web site: The entire website is devoted to attacking and discrediting most of the other well-meaning 9/11 researchers. His primary target is those who argue that there was no Flight 77 involved in the Pentagon attack. He states that this is "an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement." Have a look for yourself. Here's the URL: It's in the section labeled, "disinfo". Need I say more?

While not mentioning other 9/11 researchers by name in regards to the Pentagon issue, it must be reiterated that he is smearing the overwhelming majority of 9/11 researchers, including Professor Jones, David Griffin, Kevin Barret, James Fetzer and most of the Schollars for 9/11 Truth, Webster Tarpey, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Marrs, Dylan Avery, Jasen Bermes and the folks at Louder than Words, the scientists at, SPINE, Eric Hufschmid, etc., who have rejected the Flight 77 at the Pentagon theory, and most have PUT THEIR EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON THE TABLE WITH PUBLISHED BOOKS, ETC. In contrast, Jim Hoffman has not published anything about the Pentagon attack. Rather, he mainly engages in attacking those who do.

"There's no question that Hoffman's crew was disruptive and divisive at that event in Oakland - it turned off a lot of people, including myself. But people do make mistakes, you know. That was quite awhile ago..."

That was not a mistake. That was a well funded and orchestrated operation that is absolutely inexcuseable. Jim Hoffman is not just some bumbling idiot, fumbling around and inadvertently sabatoging an event by one of the most respected of all 9/11 reserchers - David Ray Griffin. He knows what he is doing, and he has contiinued doing similar things at many other events. His same flyers show up at just about every screening of Loose Change.

It's amazing how many of Hoffman's arguments used to discredit other 9/11 researchers are identical to those used by shills from Popular Mechanics. Way too many of his arguments are identical to standard disinfo type arguments for it to be an honest mistake. Jim knows what he is doing, and its sad how many people are fooled by this.

This is not about disagreement over theories. I dont' have a problem with other 9/11 reserarchers honestly disagreeing over various theories, but the arguments should be over evidence and should not be utilizing ad hominem attacks and propoganda techniques. Jim Hoffman continues to utilize the latter kind way too often and we need to draw a line. He has crossed the line of what is considered acceptable and honest behavior way too many times for him to be given the benefit of the doubt anymore. If someone continues to act like a disrupter and disinfo agent, he needs to be treated like one, and not constantly forgiven just because he contributed something positive in the past.

Hoffman's site and his

Hoffman's site and his statements of opinion are nothing like that of Nico, Siegel, Reynolds, and other real disruptors.

Hoffman disagrees with others based on his personal research, and I happen to agree with him most of the time. Just because it is popular to think no plane hit the Pentagon doesn't mean that it isn't easy as hell to debunk, just ask any of the countless thousands that could have been turned on via better avenues like WTC7 but instead found Snope's quick and easy debunking of the 16-ft Pentagon hole and other types of disinformation. You can believe it all you want, but that doesn't make it provable, and it certainly requires a willingness to believe all eye-witnesses are liars, all plane parts are planted, etc. etc. etc. which most people will not do. Hoffman is welcome to his opinions.

Comparing Hoffman's tactics to those of Nico, Reynolds, Siegel, etc. is like comparing apples to oranges, there really is no comparison.

You need to read his statment again

Here, I'll repeat it:

"an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement."

Do you understand the difference between an argument based on "his personal research" and one based on ad hominem attacks?

It's not a popularity contest. I'm not arguing that the fact that Jim Hoffman is in the minority of opinion automatically makes him wrong. That's not the point. It's about that fact that he smears most of the other well-meaning researchers. The issue is about his tactics, not his theories.

If Jim Hoffman really has valid arguments for his position on the Pentagon issue, why must he engange in ad hominem attacks, propoganda techniques, and turning reality upside down by implying that only a small handfull of hoaxters disagree with him? If he really honestly disagreed with all those other researchers, than these tactics would not be necessary.


Sorry, you need to build a better case before accusing someone of being an agent.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Then, you tell me.

Then, you tell me, YT. What would someone need to do for you to mistrust them? How far does Hoffman have to go over the line before you become suspicious?

Here is a summary of what he's already done:

1) sends crews of truth police to discredit someone else's event
2) smears the majority of other researchers as disinfo agents for disagreeing with part of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory that he himself upholds
3) consistently utilizes arguments that are typical of disinfo techniques

So please, praytell, what is your criteria? I really would like to know.

Let's turn it around. Apparently you like Hoffman's positions and arguments. So, what if another 9/11 researcher sent a crew to Hoffman's event, trying to discredit him and attempting to steer people to certain websites that support this alternate researcher and discredits a theory of Hoffman, accusing him of "orchestrating the most elaborate hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement." Would you find it excuseable?

You tell me. What are some examples of people who you feel could be disinfo agents, and what is your criteria?


I never said I agreed with arguments or his tactics - both can be criticized without accusing him of being an agent. 

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

So, what is your criteria?

I'd still like to know.

And, I don't mean *proving* someone is an agent. That's not what the criteria is, and you can never really *prove* someone is an agent, unless you actually see their paycheck, etc. I didn't say Jim *IS* an agent. I said he ACTS like an agent. The criteria is about who is ACTING like a disinfo agent, who is disrupting and causing division in the movement to the point where that person should not be trusted and should be exposed for what they are doing.

So, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question.


If I saw a more persistent pattern of disruption I would become suspicious. The reports I heard about the Oakland event totally pissed me off - but like I said, that was quite awhile ago and I haven't heard of anything like that happening since. I also think his site would be better if he used the word misinformation more frequently and the word disinfo less so.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

same difference

So, is puttiing this statement:

"[argueing for no AA77 at the Pentagon is] an idea that may be the single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement."

in the MISINFORMATION section any less disrespectful or unacceptable to David Ray Griffin and other 9/11 researchers than putting it in the DISINFORMATION section?

look it up

Disinformation connotes intentionality.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

But you still haven't answered my question

But you still haven't answered my question

That's not an ad-hominem

An ad-hominem is a personal attack. He's attacking the idea not the person.

Quite frankly I agree with that statement by Hoffman that the no plane at the pentagon is a hoax. Jim Fetzer supports it for crying out loud!! Why do you think this disinformation artist has spent so much time on the pentagon? Why do you think he has spent so much energy promoting false arguments about the pentagon? Why did he attack Jim hoffman instead of answering his arguments? I dare you to read his list of 200 detailed and vivid eyewitness statements of a plane hitting the pentagon. For 10 minutes. How can you read them and not believe a plane hit the pentagon? How can you read the eyewitness statements about the plane hitting the lightpoles and not think a plane hit the pentagon? Read the rest of Hoffman's research CAREFULLY and see why the eyewitness testimony is backed up by considerable evidence.

Something hit the pentagon right? Well don't you think it would be too dangerous to fake something like this? There is a highway near by. There are cameras at different locations (evidenced by the FBI taking them) that could see what happened. Wouldn't it be too dangerous to fake something hitting the pentagon?

Think about the WTC complex. How many people said there were explosions? It's the same with the pentagon, if something strange happened, people would have reported it. 200 people said they saw a plane. Think about that carefully. I urge you to read the eyewitness testimony. Do you think they would go through the effort to fake all of that?

It's a huge collection of statements. It would take you hours to read it.

How does a plane hitting the pentagon affect their complicity in 9/11? IT DOESN'T assuming that "NORAD was incompetent." Therefore they have no MOTIVE to fake it.

It's the same for the crash site at 93? What motive would they have to fake that? In my mind the plane was shot down.

The motive for doing that is obvious

1. Letting the plane continue would arouse suspicious that NORAD was sitting on its ass
2. Letting the plane land would be even worse because of the "hijackers"

Let me finish by saying what hit the pentagon is irrelevant. Either way they are guilty of treason! Plane or no plane!

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Pentagon nonsense

Science is not about consensus, so it doesn't matter how many authorities you cite, and you don't help by adding so many questionable ones. (Jason Bermas? The kid whose improvised idea of an excuse for the errors in LC2 is that these were intended as a way of making people think?!)

Please cease the invective, especially if you're not actually going to address anything in the argument Hoffman presents to show that the damage at the Pentagon is consistent with the impact of a 757. I believe his tone is often mistakenly crass, with too much verbiage spent on calling things "disinformation."

But few have provided more necessary service in confronting the many myths and errors obscuring 9/11 research. Science is the process not just of advancing, but even more so of falsifying hypotheses. It's nice that anyone's bothering to do that, and actually doing you a big favor if you're willing to focus and read.

It may be that a number of good researchers and sincere people may still subscribe to the Pentagon missile fallacy, as Hoffman himself once did. If you want to argue that a 757 impact does not explain the pattern of damage and the other information known to us, please go ahead.

Explain this "disinfo" to me please

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Notice that highway?  Notice how close it is to the Pentagon?  Now imagine that highway jampacked with cars.  A "Stand Still" traffic jam, because that's what happened on 9/11.  Now explain to me

how the heck those light poles were knocked down.

everyone reported a plane knocking them down

why literally hundreds of witnesses saw the plane.  If they are ALL lying what about the rest of those drivers in the "stand-still" traffic jam.  The Pentagon doesn't control everyone.  Someone would have spoken out

No one saw a missile.  No one.  Zero.  People "heard" sounds like a missile, but that's not the same thing.

Read the eye-witness testimony for yourself. 

There is more evidence, but I really just want to hear you explain how they knocked down those light poles. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

hold my cock and pullet, while I scratch my ass...

as the farmer said in which pullet refers to a young hen...

but seriously--he obviously did not mean the firefighters, and if he had, he would have had the makers of America Rebuilds release the raw footage of that interview so we could see the statement in context. He should also identify who exactly he spoke with, and that person should be asked to corroborate the story. His words also imply that the act of pulling and the building collapsing were sequential--"they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." But there were no firefighters in building 7 for hours before the collapse, in fact the word from very early on was that it was in danger of collapsing. How did they know that? It is so OBVIOUSLY a controlled demolition that he HAD to explain it somehow. Then, so he could have it both ways, he quietly "clarifies" that he meant nothing of the kind. Except that he didn't--his spokesman did, so that he can always say his spokesman misspoke.

Really, it's more likely that Silverstein was talking about a chicken than about a "contingent of firefighters".


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



That's what I like to see people! Look at how we just tackled that one simple arguable point!

If we focused our efforts here we could be writingf the book on 9/11. We could lay down the facts and explain to people why they are important.

This is a great place to communicate but we need to find a format where we can attack these subjects and develop our arguments.

A site which would allow us to compile evidence and questions for those who will one day see trial for their involvement
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

JJJames, good thought

I have an embryonic blog on my website based on the same platform (Drupal) as this one. While I have no desire to steal traffic from this here blogger, which is a great place for diverse truth folk to get together, I've often thought that grouping ourselves by what we believe is a good way to focus on research that we support.

my idea would be to offer the blog on to people who agree more or less with the following:

1) the towers and building 7 were controlled demolitions, likely involving thermate and explosives like rdx. Hologram, space beams, and video fakery are all BS disinfo crap.

2) Planes hit the towers, though they could well have been planes other than flights 175 and 11.

3) The Pentagon was not struck by AA77.

4) The Israeli connection is more important than the Pakistan Saudi connection because it does not serve to strengthen the unproven assertion that the Arab Muslim patsies hijacked the four flights.

Hell, maybe we COULD "write the book" on 9/11--SOMEone has to do it the right way...

If people are inetrested, email me at better yet, contact me through the messaging thing here on 911blogger, that way I know you by your username here. you can try also just going to the link and setting up an account--like I said it's embryionic and I have yet to play much with it...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


No native speaker of English

would say "it" to refer to "firefighters." Say what you want about the Silverstein quote, but don't give me that.

Exactly, Casseia. Should we

Exactly, Casseia. Should we respond to Mr. Pullerstein: "What you mean?  Please to repeat."

As I've said before, replace the word "pull" with any other real or nonsense word and, within the context of his statement, the meaning is the same. Even if he misspoke and intended to say "them" (referring to the nonexistent firefighters), the statement implies that he took part in a decision which quickly resulted in the building's demise. How so and by what authority?

Is this enough to nail a case? No. Is it enough to slap a subpeona on his ass and sweat him on the stand? You betcha.

well, devil's advocate time...

here's one possibility:

FDC:"Hey there, Mr. S. Fire Department commander here. We've got a team working on the fires in 7, but I don't think we're gonna be able to contain it, but the Team is determined to put it out--what a team!"

"L"LS:"You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it "

FDC:"Yeah, you're so experienced in this collapsing building thing, I think you may be right. I think I know what we're going to decide. Bye!" [into radio: team B, pull out.. repeat pull out]

"L"LS: So, they made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Team B pulls out and building collapses right after ward (phew!)

It's not impossible per se, but doesn't seem to fit what we know happened. The building collapsed at 5:20--was Team B in there until just before that? I don't think so...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


My understanding is that

My understanding is that FEMA did arrive a day early because of an anti-terrorism drill, so while Kenny may have been misquote or misunderstood, that doesn't change the fact that Giulliani set up his emergency response headquarters in a FEMA facility that had already been set up as a part of a bioterrorism drill.

Also, while Silverstein's "pull it" comment is hardly the most compelling bit of evidence for the WTC 7 implosion (whereas just looking at the video is extremely compelling) the story that he meant pull the firefighters from the building is also unconvincing.

The firemen were cleared from the building and the area

by early afternoon. Why would Silverstein tell FDNY to 'pull' the firemen from the building 4-5 hours later?

9-11: Paul Wolfowitz - "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was."

misconception 2

"by early afternoon. Why would Silverstein tell FDNY to 'pull' the firemen from the building 4-5 hours later?"

There's nothing to substantiate that this phone call happened "4-5 hours later." You made this up out of thin air.

Way too much "evidence" is made of thin air.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at--

When Silverstein was interviewed,

he said the Fire Dept Commander (whoever he is), called and said they weren't sure they could contain the fire. Silverstein responded that they should just pull the building, so they 'pulled' it and then they watched the building collapse. To me this implies that the call took place late afternoon, shortly before the collapse. How is this disinformation? Did Silverstein state somewhere else that the call took place earlier in the day?

Everything I've read indicates that the occupants were evacuated by 9:30 AM at the latest. However, trying to figure out what the sequence of events at WTC7 after that, is a bit more difficult since it is harder to pin down exact times for events that happened after the Towers collapsed, which is understandable under the circumstances that day.

Here's an interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden. Maybe you can make heads or tails of it?

By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Here's a statement from another witness who was there...

Retired New York Police Officer Craig Bartmer:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth.


I think we're being lied to, and the only answer to get to the bottom of that lie is a new investigation. I think that the 9/11 Commission Report is a farce... There's not a word in it about Building 7. Why?


I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing 'boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.' I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Show "Predictably," by johndoraemi

Who the FECK do you think you are?

There are witnesses on record saying that members of the FDNY told them that they were going to bring the building down.

So why don't you take your feckin' attitude and website promotion somewhere else until you've done your research arsehole.

thank you stallion

for saying what so many of us were thinking!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "Waiting." by johndoraemi

johndoraemi wrote "Substantiate your claim"

Ok if I do will you put it on the front page of your website?


What's wrong, John? Are you afraid to put it on the front page of your website if I can "substantiate" my claim?

Still "waiting"

Whatsamatta, John? Chicken?

I think Johnny's scurred.

Don't you want me to substantiate my claim that witnesses at ground zero were told, by persons identifying themselves as FDNY, that they were going to bring down WTC7? I will still be able to "substantiate my claim" whether you put it on your website or not, but you seemed so confident that I could not back up what I said. Are you confident enough to put it on your website after I do?

who is this guy?

he just sent me a long winded email attempting (very lamely i might add) to debunk my film. most of the info he had was weak assumptions or spinning. i just love self-appointed experts.

Lies from Albanese

"he just sent me a long winded email attempting (very lamely i might add) to debunk my film. "

It wasn't as you say to "debunk" your film, but to help you with your next edit, as per the title of this thread. If you aren't interested in improving your craft, you're going to remain mediocre. Here is the full email, which I sent to you discretely as a matter of courtesy, until you started lying about it, asshole:

Subject: Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, Critique
To: johnalbanese@XXXXXXXX

The conversion of Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime into a film about Disinformation doesn't seem to make sense. That would be a totally different film. The first is a presentation of 9-11 evidence taken mostly from supposedly reliable information sources.

I don't know how you could do a film on disinformation, without starting from scratch.


Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, Critique

The opening is far too slow. It takes 7 minutes to get started with any evidence.

In the new version, the copyrighted music and movies should be cut. It is illegal to use them, and it opens you up to lawsuits.

Mischaracterization: 10 minutes

"...Able Danger had them under heavy surveillance."

This is not completely accurate. Able Danger was a computer data mining program, not a field surveillance operation.

Some participants of Able Danger claim that they had identified Atta and others, as a
result of scanning data about people entering Mosques around the world. This
may be true. The Pentagon, and now the Senate have of course covered it up.

2 San Diego cell members: "known to CIA and FBI"

The FBI inspector general report claims that CIA didn't inform FBI about the two until 2 weeks before 9-11, after the
information was coming out from a non-cia source. In other words, CIA hid from FBI that the two entered the country, even
after they were under surveillance in Malaysia at a high level "Al Qaeda" meeting. A rookie/lackey at FBI was
assigned to track them down just before the attacks, but he didn't find them for whatever reason.

See article:

FBI inspector general’s report: more evidence of government complicity in 9/11 attacks

This adds some confusion to the two living with an FBI informant. Was this informant also CIA? Was he working for the Saudis?
This is an area that needs intense investigation.


Linking Atta and others to the gambling boats is not the same as linking them to particular persons. You need more evidence to make that leap. The boats were large and
open to the public. Nothing in the presentation links them to specific people on the trips.


Buzzy Krongard - not clear at what time he worked for the bank, and at what time the
CIA. This claim has been attacked because of a level of removal. Krongard was
supposedly out of the bank job for a couple of years, which makes the link not so strong. Better would be to mention
Shadduk, the head of AB Brown resigning immediately when the put options were discovered.

Other insider trading may amount to much more than $2.5 million. Ruppert suggested
over a $billion. That needs research.

Some debunking sites claim that the two airlines were in trouble and losing value over the summer. Much larger put option orders were supposedly on record previous to the ones cited. Investigate.


Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad met with RICHARD ARMITAGE. Not included. Armitage is one of the key players.

In general, you don't footnote or indicate the source in a clear way throughout the film. Many articles, dates, publications
could be indicated that aren't.


Consider the 10-7-02 Washington Times article A Time to Lead, Bill Sammon: Ari
Fleischer held up a sign at the back of the room, trying to avoid reporters. In big block letters on the back of a yellow notepad, it said: "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET."


Dick Cheney's executive order to oversee all the military drills, "preparedness exercises."

Norman Mineta's testimony about "the order still stands."

The Genoa G-8 where Bush was moved from a high rise hotel because of a known Al Qaeda plot to "hijack commercial jets and crash
them into the summit of industrialized nations." LA Times 9-27-01, CNN (7-20-01?)

Ali Mohamed, see Peter Lance, Peter Dale Scott, and Ali Mhomaned was a US special forces soldier while he was setting up US embassy bombings in Africa.
He allegedly "trained the hijackers" how to hijack airplanes, and has been protected by FBI and CIA for decades now.

Document that the war against Afghanistan was already planned and in various stages
of execution before 9-11.

Some reports seem to suggest that Bush himself was a target on 9-11. Perhaps that was to scare him into submission. Webster Tarpley tries to make that case, but I don't know if you want to get into that.


I see you ignored Silverstein's quote, which was good instinct. Getting caught in the controlled demolition arguments distracts from this large body of evidence.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:

Don't feed the trolls

It's obvious what johndoraemi's agenda is here. No matter what the evidence is, or how many times johnjoraemi is proven wrong, he continues to try to engage everyone in endless debate, repeating the same tired arguments over and over and over again. It's become obvious that johndoraemi will not stop, no matter what, because his objective is to bog us down and waste our time, and make us angry. There's a name for this: TROLL.

I don't know if he is receiving a paycheck from some unnamed 3-lettered agency, but if he isn't, he sure impersonates someone who is. So, let's not let him sabatoge this discussion. I say we ignore him from now on. It's easy. whenever we see one of his posts, we dont' see it, it doesn't exist. There is nothing to respond to.

I declare, johndoraemi, go away and disappear. Poof! He's gone. See, isn't that easy? Everyone else try it.

Show "Mental midget circus show." by johndoraemi

Maybe, maybe not...

IMO the "pull it" quote could mean either the building or the firefighters. Given that there was no water in the building to fight the fires and it had been evacuated, I can't figure out why there would be firefighters in the building to pull out. On the face of it it looks to me like he meant "pull" the building, although I don't have any way to prove to you that he definitely did not misspeak.

My hunch would be that it's just a courtesy call telling him that the building is going to be demolished. It's made by a fire commander, who has been informed of this so that his men do not get hit by the falling building. They demolished it because they thought it was unstable (I don't think so btw). I doubt it's insurance fraud - the insurance company was probably saved a lot of money (abatement and demolition costs) by the collapse.

Destruction of evidence, pure and simple

There was no need to demolish a perfectly modern skyscraper. The very minor damage from the small fires (there is still no explanation for who started the fires and why the sprinklers didn't put them out) was certainly not reason enough to demolish the building (and we all know that it was rigged weeks ahead of time).

It seems obvious to me that destruction of evidence was the purpose. Some of the agencies most likely involved in the 9/11 operation, along with certain banks who financed the operation, as well as the probable command center (Juliani's bunker) were located in WTC7. As a bonus, all the files of ongoing SEC investigations of financial fraud were stored in the building and went poof with the cd. Yet another amazing coincidence, as with so many aspects of 9/11 (such as the fact the the auditing office inside the Pentagon that was tracking the 2.3 trillion dollars that the Pentagon "lost" was conveniently blown up on 9/11, along with 17 Pentagon auditors).

Destruction of evidence was such a repetitive theme on that day in so many aspects.

A picture says a thousand words...

Great post Keenan...

Here's a bit of info re SEC losses in WTC7 (report in NY Post on 12-Sep-2001)

SEC Offices and key evidence destroyed in WTC7

Best wishes

you ever

choke on your ignorance?

we can only hope
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

You're doing great work, John

Anyone who thinks that we can afford to ignore this little problem needs to read the letter about the Seattle event.

Keep up the great work.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Which letter is that?

Which letter is that?

This one

Punch and Judy come to Seattle
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood give the Seattle 9/11 Visibility Project a black eye.

[Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Wayne Madsen — October 28th, Trinity United Methodist Church, Seattle, Washington] — I suppose it’s possible. Energy beams from space could have been what really brought the Twin Towers down. Video manipulation and cloaking devices could have made missiles (or whatever) just look like passenger jets as they slammed into the World Trade Center. But featuring this kind of stuff in a 9/11 “public educational forum”? What a mistake.

It all began innocently enough. Brainstorming led to e-mails and phone calls. Reynolds was happy to take a trip to the great Northwest and quickly confirmed, especially if his friend and colleague Judy Wood would be coming too. And Halleluia, both would speak for free. To a cash starved activist group it sounded like a plan.

But little by little the particulars of Reynolds’ research began to concern some of the event organizers. Theories about ‘no-plane’ hitting the Pentagon are common. But Reynolds isn’t referring to the Pentagon. No, Morgan Reynolds is saying that ‘no-planes’ may have hit the World Trade Center. Now that’s a horse of a different (and truly psychedelic) color.

No such worries with Judy Wood though. A mechanical engineer and former Clemson University professor, Wood is best known for her ‘billiard ball’ paradigm, a technical model she created to illustrate the implausibility of the much touted ‘pancake’ theory, a flimsy mainstream account of why the Twin Towers fell the way they did. She also compares the Twin Towers to tree trunks; solid structures unlikely to just disintegrate into clouds of dust under any circumstances. Makes sense.

But shortly after her arrival in Seattle, Wood unveiled her latest theory: energy beams from space, not conventional explosives, really destroyed the WTC. She also talks oft and openly about her suspicions that some of her colleagues in the 9/11 truth movement (especially those who attack her research) are embedded disinformation agents working to sabotage 9/11 activist’s efforts. Although such accusations are not uncommon within the movement, Wood tosses them about like Mardi Gras beads.

But some of her paranoia may not be entirely unfounded. Last spring, Wood’s protégé, a young male student with whom she’d been working closely, was gunned down in a parking lot—two shots in the head execution style. Thinking that she and her student may have been getting a little too close to the truth, Wood then set out on a frantic pilgrimage to the Arkansas home of Morgan Reynolds, a man she hoped would offer her support and intellectual understanding. And that he did.

The least controversial aspect of Morgan Reynolds is that he is a warm, likable man. An avid motorcycle enthusiast, self-proclaimed ‘right winger’ and all around character, the sixty-something Reynolds personifies heartland charm and magnanimity. Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the criminal justice center in Dallas, Reynolds was also chief economist for the Department of Labor during Bush’s first term making him the first Bush appointee to step forward with doubts about the official story of 9/11.

He’s also shown true brilliance in his work on 9/11 issues. His essay 9/11, Texas A&M University, and Heresy is an intriguing account of his falling out with the school where he’d been an active faculty member for 28 years. After Reynolds first went public with his views on 9/11, A&M’s sulfurous president, ex-CIA career bigwig Robert Gates, went after him personally, publicly branding anyone (even a fellow “Aggie”) who might suggest a government conspiracy in the events of 9/11 as being “beyond the pale.” Gates, you’ll recall, was almost indicted for his Iran-Contra connections, a fact that caused him little difficulty in his bid for confirmation as our brand new Secretary of Defense.

Reynolds and Wood defected from mainstream academia to become members of probably the most prestigious of all 9/11 activist groups, Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This impressive movement of rebels have bravely risked their careers and endured the slander of their colleagues by voicing their strong belief that 9/11 may have been a fraud; a “psy-op” or “false-flag” covert operation specifically designed to provoke war. But even within this open-minded fraternity, Reynolds’ and Wood’s ideas were just too hot to handle and soon they took their leave of even this auspicious crew.

Reynolds began his presentation to a full house at Trinity United Methodist Church in Seattle with a fairly standard rundown of basic 9/11 facts and figures. Accompanied by a Powerpoint demonstration, he handled the material well—a good start to a somber evening. It wasn’t until the end of his half hour talk that he detailed his ‘no-planes’ theory, and then it was off to the races.

To be fair, many 9/11 researchers speculate that specially outfitted duplicate aircraft, possibly laced with explosives and high-tech homing devices, may have taken over the flight paths of Flights 11 and 175 before they struck the WTC. But what Reynolds is saying is that anything from duplicate planes to missiles to explosives to who-knows-what apparently did the job. He supports this view in much the same way that Pentagon researchers do: the holes in the Twin Towers just aren’t the right size and shape. He also doubts that aluminum airplanes could have sliced through the exterior steel columns of the Twin Towers (personally, I think that 100 tons of anything moving at 500 mph could slice through steel).

In addition, Reynolds talks frankly about his belief that all the network video we saw of planes smashing into buildings on 9/11 was likely doctored to hide from us what really hit the WTC. As if this weren’t enough, he also speculates that cloaking devices may have been used, presumably for the same purpose. Since its inception, the international 9/11 truth movement has tried hard to avoid hosting events that end up looking like Star Trek conventions. But this particular night in Seattle was coming awfully close.

Judy Wood was up next. She began with a photo of two life-size Disney characters that had apparently been stored in the sub-floors of the WTC. The fact that they were found intact is, for Wood, evidence that conventional explosives (i.e. micro-nukes, thermite, etc.) did not destroy the WTC’s basement as some researchers suggest. She also presented her ‘billiard ball’ model, a technical refutation of the most common mainstream excuse for the inexplicable and total collapses of the Twin Towers.

Wood also compares the Twin Towers to tree trunks in their strength and solidity, and it’s a fair point to make. Anyone who’s ever seen photos of the aftermath of the earthquake in Kobe, Japan knows that toppling buildings retain a tremendous amount of their shape and integrity, even as they lie on their sides. Naturally the question of what made the Twin Towers turn from solid structures into clouds of dust follows.

Wood uses pictures of burnt out cars to support her space-based energy weapons theory, in addition to photos of holes in the roofs of the low-rises, WTC 4, 5 and 6. These beams were apparently what destroyed the Twin Towers too, conventional explosives being, at most, a secondary part of the process. She then slaughtered a sacred cow of 9/11 research by speculating that the horizontal blasts seen shooting out of the sides of the towers as they fell (a phenomenon seen commonly in controlled demolitions) were, in reality, false evidence planted by the conspirators to throw the inevitable crop of post 9/11 conspiracy buffs off the trail and away from the real culprit, the aforementioned energy beams from above.

Batting cleanup was the third and strongest speaker of the night, Wayne Madsen, who just happened to be in the Northwest plugging his book, Jaded Tasks – Brass Plates, Black Ops and Big Oil. Offering a healthy dose of “Bush Family Crime Syndicate” facts and figures, Madsen did what he does best; connect the dots behind the scenes. But he also did much to ground an event that was really beginning to lose its footing.

After a brief intermission, the speakers returned to the stage to face three panelists who had been invited to ask questions. They included Doug Collins, a reporter from the Washington Free Press, Jerry Riley co-founder of Seattle Veterans for 9/11 Truth and the indomitable Dave Ross, a talk radio host based in Seattle. It was hoped that inviting Ross, a defender of the official story, would counter criticism that 9/11 events are often too one-sided. And after several years of building a strong case for insider complicity in the attacks, quality 9/11 researchers shouldn’t have trouble making their case to anyone. But this Halloween in Seattle was different and things were just not going according to plan.

The first round of questioning predictably targeted Reynolds’ and Wood’s more “esoteric” points. Dave Ross pounded away at Reynolds’ theories about the WTC and Reynolds shot back with a dose of “cowboy charm” that backfired badly. Belligerent and vague in his response to tough questioning, Reynolds just wasn’t able to defend his thesis when it mattered most. But the evenings’ most truly macabre moment came when talk radio pit-bull Ross (who was booed by some in the audience when he was introduced earlier) actually got a round of applause for his attack on Reynolds. When a die-hard defender of the official version of the attacks gets more approval from the 9/11 choir than one of the presenters—at a 9/11 skeptics event—it’s a pretty clear indication that your otherwise well-intentioned “forum” is beginning to spin out of control.

Wood—outwardly defiant, but also foundering in the face of tough but fair questions from a generally incredulous panel (and audience)—also ultimately failed to defend her ground. Her poor delivery and loose theorizing soon contributed to the collapse of an otherwise lovely, well attended and extremely well organized event.

Afterward, Reynolds was widely criticized for being, well, punchy; strong on bluster and weak on substance. He even elicited an angry response from the minister of the church—a co-sponsor of the event and avid 9/11 activist—who found Reynolds overbearing, irritating and, like Wood, unpersuasive. In a debriefing session later that night, Reynolds was tactfully but firmly confronted by the organizers of the event and advised to consider dropping the ‘no-planes’ hypothesis, reconsider his on-stage demeanor and concentrate his efforts on more central issues. In response, Reynolds was charming, polite but utterly impenetrable.

Curiously, at one point in his talk, Reynolds himself mentioned that his avant-garde ideas had actually caused some 9/11 truthers to suspect him of being a “cointelpro-style” disinformation agent working from within the movement to discredit it. A recently “disaffected” Bush administration insider, fresh from the Texas side of the beltway (and touting some fairly bizarre points of view), is naturally going to generate suspicion among 9/11 activists. But the problem for theorists like Morgan Reynolds is that even if he isn’t an agent provocateur, he may as well be. Irresponsible researchers or disinformation agents—the end result is identical.

Our Canadian friend, filmmaker and media critic Barrie Zwicker, advises 9/11 activists to carefully consider the important distinction between ‘primary, secondary and tertiary evidence’ when presenting this controversial material to the general public. Unfortunately Reynolds and Wood violate the number one rule for 9/11 public events; do no harm. Stick to priority evidence and leave the more esoteric stuff for brandy and cigars. Theories like those expounded by Reynolds and Wood, especially when they are not successfully defended, only serve to muddle the issue and can often alienate neophytes, fence-sitters, even adherents.

The irony is that even if, by some wild chance, these far out theories are proven to be true, they still aren’t a wise contribution to 9/11 presentations at this point in time and represent a monumental tactical error for 9/11 activists working hard to spread the word. Why bother with such potentially disorienting theories when 9/11 researchers have already amassed a mountain of what lawyers call “best evidence,” the most solid and unimpeachable points available?

It’s sad to think that this well-intentioned event may serve best as a cautionary tale, but if that’s the case then so be it. The Seattle 9/11 Visibility Project, once lauded by such 9/11 experts as David Ray Griffin, Micheal Ruppert, Webster Tarpley and Barrie Zwicker, cannot afford another misstep if it wants to keep working effectively and retain its reputation and dignity. But if this fine group can make a mistake, anyone can.

J. Baker Copyright November, 2006, Darkprints

“The Punch and Judy document is ABSOLUTELY right on!!! It spins the event exactly as I saw it, as did my family and friends. By the time we left my stomach was in knots and my soul/ sixth sense was screaming…Thank you so much for saying PRECISELY what I felt. I honestly could have written the review myself.”
- Cheryl Falk, musician, teacher and contributor to the film 9/11 Mysteries

“I couldn’t agree more…I think Reynolds-Wood really did a number on the Seattle 9/11 movement. They disgraced us to the public and split us apart internally. That's a job done by a pro... Your article was, I think, tame and very tempered…Publish. It’s needed.”

- Reverend Rich Lang, Minister, Trinity United Methodist Church and co-sponsor of the event

“…I saw immediately [that Morgan Reynolds] was a plant not only discrediting others at the table, but discovering the interesting people in the crowd who might have some stuff that the GOV doesn't know about yet.”
- Robin Hordon, former Air Traffic Controller and event attendee

“Thank you SO much for this...I've been saying (and I'm not alone…) that the 9/11truth movement has to be the movement the CIA, FBI et al are most focused on right now… I think [your critique] hits the bull's eye.”

- Barrie Zwicker, media critic, filmmaker and author of Towers of Deception

“Excellent article. I agree that focusing on the possibility of exotic weaponry is not the best way to mainstream 9/11 truth. At the same time I support the right of folks like Morgan and Judy to speak their minds…Bottom line: Organizers should know what to expect when they arrange events like this.”

- Kevin Barrett, professor, University of Wisconsin – Madison, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and MUJCA
[Muslim/Jewish/Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth]

“It is hard not to see these two as potential infiltrators, because the effect of their involvement in 9/11 is so incredibly detrimental to the goals of the movement, IMO…This event was the clearest indication I've seen yet that the 9/11 truth movement is headed for self-destruction . ."

- Nora Lenz, event volunteer


Gee, I wonder who funds Reynold's free appearences (and travel expenses). This is really worrisome. I've been having my doubts about Reynolds after the way he treated Steven Jones last year and then seperated from Schollars for 9/11 Truth, and now this Seattle stunt! Of course, the fact that he is a self-proclaimed ‘right winger’ already makes him suspect in my book.

Regardless of his far out theories he is pushing, his behavior towards other 9/11 researchers is intolerable and he is obviously a force for disruption in the 9/11 truth movement. I would never unleash him on neophytes or fence-sitters to 9/11 truth.

As for Woods, perhaps she is suffering from paranoia from last year's trauma of the murder of her collegue/student, but that does not excuse her for throwing around accusations of embedded disinformation agents in all directions towards anyone who disagrees with her theories or methods.

Wow, this is sad. I think these two need to be seen as working against the interests of the truth movement and great effort needs to be made to not allow them to speak for the 9/11 truth movement in the future.

Good work John

John, your movie "Everybodie's Gotta Learn Sometime" is one of my favorite 9/11 videos. I've given out many copies (I hope you don't mind). I consider it probably the most professionally edited video on the subject and one of the more moving. I'm sure your next one, "Disinformation in the Information Age" will be the same high qualilty.

I totally agree that we cannot afford to ignore the problem of disinformation agents amidst our movement, and that, if nothing is done about it, it could threaten our entire movement. Some people argue that the act of identifying a disinfo agent is itself divisive or disruptive, but this is not necessarily so.

Sure, it is important to keep in mind that one of the most insidious and long-standing tactics of PSYOPS is to unfairly label a well-meaning researcher/activist as an agent, destroying their reputation in the movement. This tactic is known as "badjacketing" and was a well known tactic going back to the COINTELPRO days of the 60's, and 70's (not that COINTELPRO is not still functioning under a different name).

On the other hand, when someone is behaving in an obviously destructive way towards other well-meaning researchers and activists in the movement, and uses obvious dishonest arguments and tactics, we need to intelligently identify and discern these individuals, and call attention to them. It's very important to understand the difference, and to discern this difference.

Did anybody happen to see Barrie Zwicker's talk at last year's Chicago converence entitled "Agents of the State (or something like that)"? I thought it was excellent. The audio is archived at 911blogger, if anyone hasn't heard it. I especially appreciated his mentioning of perhaps the most divisive issue in the movement and the most intense disinformation effort, and that is regarding the Pentagon plane/no plane debate. As Barrie pointed out, there is a small but vocal minority sowing confusion and disruption by accusing anyone (which includes the vast majority of 9/11 researchers and truthers) who argues that the evidence does not support the official story that AA77 hit the Pentagon, of being disinfo agents. Jim Hoffman is probably the most notorious in this regards.

Last March at David Ray Griffin's talk in Oakland, I witnessed Jim Hoffman's incredibly abusive and dispicable behavior. Jim Hoffman sent an army of truth police that descended on the event, all wearing pre-printed teeshirts directing people to go to Hoffman's web sites, and shoving flyers into everybody's hands as people arrived to buy tickets. The flyers, although not mentioning Griffin by name, warned people to beware of disinformation agents who claim that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Since David Ray Griffin, of course, argues that it couldn't have been AA77 that hit the Pentagon, it's no secret who this was directed at. The flyers also attempted to discredit the movie Loose Change which was to be shown after Griffin's talk. Imagine, trying to sabatoge someone else's event like this! Because of this blatent attempt by Jim Hoffman to create controversy and division, Griffin decided not to talk about the Pentagon issue.

It's this example and many others, that convinces me that Jim Hoffman needs to be identified and neutralized. He has torn apart the 9/11 truth group in San Francisco because of his Pentagon disinfo crap, and many people have left the group there and started another one because of him. This disruptive behaviour is probably why he is no longer invited to most of the 9/11 truth conferences.

You cite a second SF Truth group

Do you have any links for it?


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Not sure if there is a

Not sure if there is a formal organization. I've heard from several people last year who were fed up with what Hoffman was doing and left the SF group. They were talking about forming another group, but I don't know if they ever followed through and made it formal.

Jim Hoffman

I do not talk about Jim Hoffman in my film since i view him as a credible researcher. i have no way of verifying the events you described above.

the issue of the Pentagon remains debatable. i know MANY researchers who i consider credible and sincere members of this community who take OPPOSITE positions on this issue. it remains debatable - with credible points and evidence on both sides of the debate.

this is unlike the no-planes and space beams theories, which have been demonstrably proven to be utterly without merit. further, i do not see that Hoffman is linked to a network of disinformation sites like webfairy and 911Blimp and TVFakery that not only spreads disinfo - but also launches personal attacks against, Cooperative Research, David Ray Griffin, etc.

Further, a review of Jim Hoffman's research itself appears to be very legitimate. He at least is able to defend his opinions with substantive facts and calculations.

Please post the evidence

"this is unlike the no-planes and space beams theories, which have been demonstrably proven to be utterly without merit."

I am interested in seeing the proof. Please direct me to it.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"


You should send me a copy on DVD so maybe it can be shown in Arizona.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

will do

in fact - i'm hoping to send you an advance copy before the Feb 19th release - so you can review it and do some fact checking before i release it. i don't want to get caught misrepresenting any facts about these professional liars. (that's ironic - right?)

John, if you can upload a

John, if you can upload a small version of it to a hosting site like I'll be glad to give you some feedback also.


But there are easier ways of doing it. i can just stream it from a secure page on my website.

Please do...

I would like to watch it tonight if that's ok. :)

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


Are you going to let us all have a peak?
Ignorance is NOT Bliss


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


So sorry..................................

*cancels order*

waiting for "LC Final Cut"
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

It's not mine...

To let you have a peak...

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Absolutely, I'm totally down

Absolutely, I'm totally down for helping out. If you need to mail it to me ask Dz or Sbg, or use the contact function through the blogger.

Paranoid, Infantile and Ignorant Responses

I guess I hit the trifecta.

I've already explained your misconceptions about the "pull it" quote. I was quite specific, and you have not disproven anything I said.

Someone keeps going on about the alleged time of the phone call. Where is your proof?

Ever considered proving what you say? Is that an alien concept to the smug and the stupid?

Tell me, exactly what time Silverstein allegedly received that call from the "fire commander."

Another one says that the fire department is allegedly on record telling the world they were going to blow up building 7. Well that's news to me. Where is your source? You don't seem to think it matters to find out the name of the person who made that claim, or what, exactly, they had to say.

This is a monkey house.

When someone says something you don't want to hear, they automatically must be working for the fucking CIA! I explained exactly the problems with the "pull it" quote. I'm someone who backs up what they say, unlike my detractors in this thread. That's who the bleep I think I am. Someone who can account for my claims. E tu?

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at--

This is the 23 second clip...

to me, he made it sound like the decision to pull and the building collapsing are successive events. He certainly does not mention "later on" or similar.


He's a stupid old man... speaking from the cuff... .thinking that the story that they told us would never be in question... so there was no need to consider his words would be analyzed or questioned either.

He's an arogant fool..... he wouldn't be the first one of them to let things slip

Didn't Rummy mention a missile hitting the Pentagon.... on multiple occasions

Didn't Bush say several times that he saw the first plane hit the building before he went into the classroom...when the only film of that turned up the next day.... then he even said it in a mocking joking manner
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

What is the point of debating this?

We need to get away from all the infighting that revolves around OPINIONS.

it is a FACT that Silverstein said that the decision was made to "pull it." It is an OPINION that this meant "demolish the building."

although something may be PROBABLE - and in my OPINION it is PROBABLE that he meant 'demolish' - this is an interpretation of his words - and is still just an opinion. you can not PROVE he meant demolish - unless you climb into his soul.

It is an OPINION that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

On the other hand:

It is a FACT that the 911 commission report is filled with inaccurate information. It is a FACT that the government has lied to us on a number of issues. It is a FACT that there are whistleblowers who have been gagged - whom we can DEMAND be ungagged and compelled to testify.

LIHOP is an opinion. MIHOP is an opinion.

Yes - there is EVIDENCE that may lead one to make an EDUCATED OPINION - but, there is also a sense of arrogance that comes with stating OPINIONS as if they are FACTS - and alienating people who do not agree with you.

Notice that this is the aim and technique of the most hardened disruptors in this movement - accusations based on beliefs. if you do not agree with the no-planes theory you are a shill. if you do not agree with MIHOP you are a "limited hangout shill." If you do not believe in the Pentagon theories you are betraying the movement.

this is disruption - whether intentional or not.

change your approach. become activists for accountability. spend your energies more productively protesting and with activism to confront the people who have lied to us - not to air personal differences of opinion on these boards. It makes us all look like a bunch of childish conspiracy theorists.

difference between facts, unproven facts, and opinions

An example of an opinion is Cookies are yummy.

No plane hit the Pentagon if true is a fact, if not true is a false statement of fact. It is not an opinion.

Someone may be of the opinion that it is not a good subject to raise.

People disagree as to whether No plane hit the Pentagon is a true or false statement of fact.

An opinion is not the same as a mistaken or unproven belief of fact.

People like the above poster who constantly complain about the "disruption" of the movement (basically when anyone disagrees with him) are really only complaining about the disruption of *their* work. The poster above is happy to throw around accusations of people being agents, as exemplified by his constant invocation of Nico Haupt. In the case of Nico, the poster above does not believe that Nico holds a different opinion from others, because what Nico says is so obviously false. To the poster above.

When Jim Hoffman says that it is obvious that AA77 hit the Pentagon, it is my belief that he is not being sincere because from the evdience available it is obvious to me that a boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. The poster above would argue (inaccurately) that everyone is entitled to an opinion on whether AA77 hit the Pentagon. But not as to whether or not space beams were used. Because form the evidence available it is obvious to him that space beams were not used.

Consistency is an indicator of trustworthiness (in my opinion) while invoking a double standard is not.

So that we do not further alienate anyone, I will request that the poster above take his own advice and stop at once from deciding for people what is opinion and what is fact. He should, to avoid making us all look like hypocrites, stop insisting that it is a FACT that important questions have been left unanswered, because really that is just his OPINION. We should all just share our opinions, like "Nico is weird", "Larry Silverstein seems like a man you can trust", "Al Qaeda is scary", etc. and avoid stating what we suspect to be the facts, like "Jim Hoffman supports the government's account of AA77 because he is a disinfo agent" or "People often overcompensate when they are insecure about something."


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


johndoraemi wrote...

"Another one says that the fire department is allegedly on record telling the world they were going to blow up building 7. Well that's news to me. Where is your source? You don't seem to think it matters to find out the name of the person who made that claim, or what, exactly, they had to say."

You willing to put the proof up on your website after I post it here? Because I do have proof of this, so lemme know if you're man enough to post it on the front page of your website, and then I'll be happy to present my source to you, mmm-kay?

Exactly right John

now I will go off sometimes on others, but I tend to humor them mainly. I will rehash over and over what has taken place since 9/11, things that are there for those who can see on their own. FACTS they can see if they are not lazy and set in their ways and just believe what they heard through the MSM and talking heads of the government.
There is enough out there to warrant another investigation and that is all We ask; A fair, bipartisan investigation. If those who challenge us want us to give them answers..Well here it is..
Suspicious, deceptive, covering up, disruptive, spying on its own citizens are procedures being, or have been done, by the government since 9/11. Torture as a policy, a written Patriot Act, a Military Commissions Act, an incessantly forever reminding of a world at war to scare the hell out of people EVERY day. I Want to know why the government does not like to be questioned about 9/11. I want to know why the first investigation took considerable pushing by widows of victims to even happen.
Hell We knew japan attacked Pearl Harbor that very same day..But there was an investigation started 7 days later.
Why did it take OVER A YEAR to investigate 9/11? Why was it restricted? Why was it partisan? Why only a $3 million initial budget? Why were loads of pertinent information left out? These are just a sampling of legitimate questions that would be answered with another TRUE investigation. And lastly, I ask; What the hell is wrong with that?

bipartisan or non-partisan?

it makes a big difference you know... the 9/11 coverup HAS been bipartisan!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "opinion based on misunderstanding" by johndoraemi

Check out the topic of this blog

It has nothing to do with WTC 7.

Why are you doing this?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "Is telling the truth not reason enough?" by johndoraemi

Hey Johnny

Still waiting for your answer. Are you willing to put the proof up on your website that shows persons identifying themselves as FDNY told rescue workers at GZ that they were going to bring building 7 down on purpose? I have proof of this, so lemme know if you're man enough to post it on the front page of your website after I post it here, mmm-kay?

Listen, idiot, if you had any "proof" you would just say it.

Are you gonna agree to lick my hairy balls when I tear your bogus "proof" to shreds?

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at--


Is this movie going to have anything regarding the obvious attempts at painting this movement "Anti-Semitic"?

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

David Ray Griffin - the voice of reason

''Probably even more destructive than actual disinformation agents has been the tendency of some members of the movement to label those who disagree with them as disinformation agents.'' DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, 5 Feb 2007

Take a look at you now, John

You're just an empty space

''Probably even more destructive than actual disinformation agents has been the tendency of some members of the movement to label those who disagree with them as disinformation agents.'' DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, 5 Feb 2007