“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Namecalling, and Threats

Gregg Roberts

Published January 8, 2011

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

        Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

        German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at:


The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

The Art of Debate

After spending September 11, 2008 at Ground Zero and engaging various members of the public on subject of 9/11, I thought to share a few common points of informal debate that frequently ensued on the street.
It is interesting to note that logical hazards can occur on either side of deliberation and that a refined understanding of an issue is traditionally considered to be the prime objective.
Those more educated in polemics, please feel free to correct and inform the thread. Please also note that I’ve marked arguments as [counter and (mutual per 9/11 skepticism.
Finally, although I believe our discussions are of civic and intellectual value, it would seem that that the most effective method of understanding the events of 9/11 is through a trial subject to due process in court.


Definition: formal method of suppositional argument, including rules and appeals to reach agreement on an issue