and it's clear to anyone intimately familiar with this situation (0.01% of the movement?) that you're receiving huge resistance or at least inertia from at least one, maybe more, moderators at blogger with regard to you efforts over here.

I'm gathering that you are trying very hard, and are receiving, in some cases, the same level of 'deafening silence' I've also received.

We are in agreement that we want transparency, yes? One thing that everyone ranging from Gold to myself seems to be united on, is that the comment voting system at 911blogger is the most OPAQUE type of vote system possible. Say ten people voted up and another ten voted down a comment. THIS NEEDS TO BE KNOWN! For it to simply say "0 points" as if no one had ever voted on (or even read) it is unacceptable imo. The current system breeds political based voting, and one reason Reprehensor banned a number of people outside WTCD is because if the said person wrote too many comments that got downvoted, Rep would ban them for being guilty of being too "divisive" or "disruptive."

The best system would of course show how many yays and nays a comment receives. Even more transparent still would be to see WHO voted a comment up or down. This will shine the sunlight on political based voting. For all our differences, Jon Gold and I both have experienced what it's like to write a perfectly logical, rational comment that states a fact and has no opinion in it whatsoever, get voted down, and whoever votes it down most often doesn't respond to say why he didn't like the comment.

You say it will take time to change some biases on blogger. One way of changing things immediately for the better would be to put all Pentagon stuff, both pro and anti AA77 crashing into the building, on the front page which clearly gets the widest reading audience. This was demonstrated recently when Richard Gage's "clarification," of his endorsement of CIT (where he distanced himself from the flyover conclusion) did make the front page. (I'm guessing anti-CIT moderator Erik Larsen was responsible for this.) Dave Nehring, who only reads the front page, was unaware of the existence of "National Security Alert" and unaware of the controversy surrounding CIT. However, after I prompted him to watch the video, he was blown away by it and has become suspicious of the motives of those who always, without fail, keep pro CIT stuff on the back page. Also, this can be seen in the fact that Erik Larsen's recent anti CIT piece re Dawn Vignola, which was NOT front paged, sees my comments heavily downvoted yet my pro CIT comments on the Griffin "Coming Together" thread, which WAS front paged, have been highly upvoted. Clearly the front page has a far larger reading audience. Anybody intimately familiar with this situation understandably feels that the bias against no-757-crash research has been manufactured at blogger by (1) many people in favor of the no-757-crash have already been banned, and (2) the back-paging of the investigation's progress.

And then you've got the people such as Gold, who on the one hand insist (correctly) that "we don't KNOW what happened," yet five minutes later insists as fact that AA77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon. Forget flyover: If you even suggest a plane crash involving a Northwoods type swap, he (and for that matter Hoffman) get upset, and say that this claim "invites accusations of insensitivity to the victims" (Hoffman) and that "Promoting anything other than flight 77 hitting the Pentagon has NEVER helped this cause."