Zionist Damage Control/Containment Playing Out at 911Blogger?
And none other than TrueFaction's own "John Bursill" is involved, and quite the voice of reason I must say. I'd say a good sign that the perps and their apologists have realized that the absence of a plan B doesn't mean they still don't have a job to do! wonder if bruce1337 could tell us anything about the German "Focus Money" magazine...
9/11 TRUTH.
so close
I can TASTE it...
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-18/german-focus-money-8-page-main-sto...
I agree..............this is BIG BIG BIG
When the people who have big money and care about money get onto something, shit happens.
I have felt for a long time that the first breakthroughs in the media will happen overseas.
Europe is ahead of us in many ways. They are no longer followers. They may not care that our big boys are keeping 9/11 censored. They may not care if the NSA and CIA and FBI and the Mossad want to keep it all under wraps. They no longer live and breathe trying to make us happy.
And that is good. Because we are diseased politically. And maybe the truth will seep out from European capitals, right over to our own sorry media.
Submitted by pfgetty on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 11:59am.
»
* Login to post comments
* 3 votes
interesting racehate/thoughtcrime finger pointing on CNN
did anyone else watch the footage where CNN tells us about how racist and hateful we are if we even think Israelis had anything to do with 9/11?
I think they are panicking. This is like yelling "Kids...don't ever look in that room. Don't go there....remember we told you if you did you'd be bad...."
What kid wouldn't look? This is getting ridiculous......it's over for them now....they are just treading water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=963z9DwAyao&feature=player_embedded
Submitted by darkbeforedawn on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 12:13pm.
»
* Login to post comments
* 4 votes
It works for Rock n Roll....
Yes if they say don't look or listen most often people do:)
Regarding Israel we do not know, but I agree suggesting their involvement is not racist although it does give the presstitutes a opportunity to attack us as anti-Semites and it has been an effective strategy over many years.
Regards John
Submitted by John Bursill on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 4:10am.
»
* Login to post comments
* 1 vote
good point
no use giving them the grounds to discredit a huge body of research....much of which does not even mention Israelis....best to stay away from politics. Especially since we have so much solid research backing us on the ground already.
Submitted by darkbeforedawn on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 9:38am.
»
* Login to post comments
* 2 votes
wow.
They really are getting worried about 911 truth.
And so they link the whole thing to racism.
I like it that the one reporter kept saying that if the government allows these holes to remain in the explanations of why we are in the Middle East in wars, the American people will fill the gaps with misinformation. She may be wrong about the misinformation, but she is spot on about nobody telling us the truth about why we are there.
It is a shame they stoop so low to make this a racist, antisemitic issue.
They KNOW they can't look at the real facts.
They all kept saying, how can these truthers make up all this stuff and avoid looking at the facts?? The one fact they show? A quote from bin Laden, given to us by our government.
I guess as long as people think that official government agencies don't lie, they can not be persuaded that there is another way of looking at 9/11.
Submitted by pfgetty on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 5:19am.
»
* Login to post comments
* 3 votes
"And so they link the whole thing to racism."
This is why 911blogger is cautious.
Submitted by Joe on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 6:37am.
»
* Login to post comments
* 0 votes
It is such a fine line we have to tread.................
We want the evidence and information and we need to follow up on leads about who and where and when.
But this often leads to Israel.
And so, what do we do? Do we avoid all topics that are related to Israel or Mossad involvement?
It is tough.
We need to make sure that we are not trying to implicate any ethnic group, but still go after what we find out and look for me leads.
I guess no matter what we do, they will turn it into something distasteful.
But when I heard on CNN that one third of all Americans now believe that 9/11 involved our government, I realized we are doing something right.
On the whole, I agree we must be cautious, and if anything we say relates to Israel, we must be very, very sure of our facts and figures.
Submitted by pfgetty on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 4:36pm
...and...
Part of the plan is to transfer as much of 911B's traffic to http://thesiterunbyveteransofthismovementwhohidetheirrealname.com
Be prepared to warn as many truth n00bz as you can about this last-ditch effort to cover-up the truth! And let's not fall for any manufactured controversies intended to generate buzz for http://thesiterunbyveteransofthismovementwhohidetheirrealname.com...
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
I just had a little chat with Gold on Facebook of all places...
... man is he an ass. He called out the media for calling Truth advocates "anti-semites" and such so I asked him what the differnce was when he did it... course he didn't like that. So he left. Then he came back. Then he left again. Then, of course, he came back.
Quite funny actually.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1703030278&v=wall&story_fbid=1562...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Gold's comments
Can you post the thread here?
Your wish is my command, Syed
I actually mentioned you during the little chat, Adam. I won't put the whole thing up with "hoz", suffice to say, he is a Jon Gold fan who has made several "LIHOP" videos and he joined on JD's thread to undermine anything he said about controlled demolition... you get the picture...
thread as follows once "Hoz" decided to go get his mentor to back him up...
Hoz Turner - It was in my favourites list on youtube - so what? I don't see that guy as a "debunker" in the same idiotic school as screwloosechange et al - albeit I see that his focus on Israel is a bit suspect.
10 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - I don't care if you see him as a sausage... he is a debunker, and not a very good one at that. You have a video of a man calling Richard Gage a liar on your favorites Youtube page. You think THAT is good for the Truth movement?
10 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Hoz Turner Yup.
10 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - I would expect nothing less from a man who believes the entire official story of 9/11
10 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Hoz Turner - LOL
10 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
(then Hoz runs to get Daddy)
Jon Gold - ?"Jon Gold has also suggested not talking about Building 7, controlled demolition, the Pentagon, and questioned people like David Ray Griffin in public forums..."
1) Jon Gold has suggested not leading with Controlled Demolition as our messag...e because it is hard to believe for a lot of people. As I have learned from being on facebook, it is also hard for a lot of 9/11 First Responders to believe. People who were there. I have also mentioned several times the amount of hit pieces that have been written over the years using the "hard to believe" point of Controlled Demolition AGAINST us. I have also mentioned that production companies like the BBC and National Geographic have also focused on the "hard to believe" point of Controlled Demolition in an effort to "debunk" us. I have also pointed out that our job is to reach people, and that as a movement, our message shouldn't be something "hard to believe" or something hard to digest for the masses. It should be easy to understand, and people should WANT to participate. I have also pointed out that people believe what the TV tells them, and that the TV has told them that we are a group of people who think that "explosives were planted in the buildings," that "a missile hit the Pentagon," that we are "anti-semitic holocaust denying murdering psycho terrorist sympathizers who drink kool aid," and that it might be in our best interest to act DIFFERENTLY than what the TV tells people.
Fact #45 of my article discusses specifically NIST, and the investigations.
http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/
I have an archive of Steven Jones related articles on my website.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81880&postcount=4
2) As for David Ray Griffin. He is a public speaker, he is a public figure, 911blogger.com is/was a public forum, I questioned his work publicly. I DARED to question David Ray Griffin. I am not going to speak ill of him because he's sick at the moment, but NO ONE's work/method is above criticism.
I have an archive of him as well.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81881&postcount=5
3) It is important to read what "debunkers" are saying because it improves you're own arguments.
4) The people who act as though you must believe this or that, and accuse you of this or that if you don't, are acting cultish, and should be avoided, or talked to about their behavior.
5) One thing I've noticed is that the people who accuse me of promoting the idea that "Angry Muslims" were responsible for 9/11, are the ONLY people that refer to the alleged hijackers as "Angry Muslims." I try to take the religious, national, and ideological undertones out of the equation and try to blame the individuals for the crime. Simply because we have seen enough people killed that had nothing to do with 9/11.See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....
Willy Loman - ?"Jon Gold has suggested not leading with Controlled Demolition as our messag...e because it is hard to believe for a lot of people."
this is called the Truth movement, not the SPIN movement or the PR movement... unless you BELIEVE in Bazant...'s "crush down crush up" theory, which is idiotic, then you should "lead" with the Truth, otherwise, you just come across as yet another insincere PR guy looking to SELL a position.See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Hoz Turner - There is FAR more to 9/11.. than different scientific theories.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Jon Gold - I forgot to mention that, "I have also pointed out that I am not qualified one way or the other to tell you who is right, and who is wrong." Have a nice life Willy Loman, and stop accusing me of being an agent. Thanks.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - ?"As I have learned from being on facebook, it is also hard for a lot of 9/11 First Responders to believe."
I don't care what they find hard or easy to believe. Those building DID NOT come down by gravity induced collapse. period. it defies ...the laws of PHYSICS, Mr. Gold, and that is true whether or not I "was there".... the laws of physics apply whether or not I am there to see it.
Besides, over a HUNDRED first responders reported hearing and seeing "explosions" and flashes of light like those at controlled demolitions.
funny you don't seem to mention them when you are coming over here to defend your position.See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - ?"I have also pointed out that our job is to reach people, and that as a movement, our message shouldn't be something "hard to believe" or something hard to digest for the masses"
no sir. our job is not to SELL this story... it is to get to ...the Truth, no matter what it is. Do you understand the difference?See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Jon Gold - Key words being, "I don't care."
Good bye Willy Loman.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Hoz Turner - ?"Besides, over a HUNDRED first responders reported hearing and seeing "explosions" and flashes of light like those at controlled demolitions."
Which could be explained in other ways. Also, some of the claims have been miscontextualised by ...CD advocates.
CD advocates also tend to be VERY selective when it comes to oral histories from first-responders. Here's something that I don't see used often: -
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7firesSee More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - ?"... and that the TV has told them that we are a group of people who think that "explosives were planted in the buildings,"
uh, that's because they WERE planted in the buildings, Mr. Gold... or do you also follow the Bazant "crush down crus...h up" theory?See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - ?"... "anti-semitic holocaust denying murdering psycho terrorist sympathizers who drink kool aid,"
actually isn't that what you call certain people in the movement, Jon?
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Jon Gold - Show me.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - ?"The people who act as though you must believe this or that, and accuse you of this or that if you don't, are acting cultish, and should be avoided, or talked to about their behavior."
you mean like you just did and like what Hoz has been d...oing since he started commenting on JD's thread?
You mean like when Hoz here says that he thinks he is doing some good posting debunkers videos on his site that call Richard Gage a liar?
you mean like that?
or do you mean like all those people on Blogger right now who can't let a single thread go by without calling on someone or the other to refute Barret because he had the audacity to wonder who Comos really is?
is that the kind of gatekeeping you are referring to, or something else?See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - ?"Jon Gold Show me."
You never called anyone an anti-semite in this movement, Jon? Have you forgotten about your little spat with WTCDemolition or is this a senior moment?
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - ?"Which could be explained in other ways. Also, some of the claims have been miscontextualised..."
of course Hoz... that is exactly what Rudy Guliani said to. Why didn't I know that.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - ?"I have an archive of Steven Jones related articles on my website"
yeah, why am I not surprised... mysterious super secret military energetic paint... yeah... that's about as close to being anti-controlled demolition as you can get, isn't i...t?See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Jon Gold - WTCDemolition? Hmmm... is that the site run by a guy who was the one to initially introduce what is considered to be Holocaust Denial on 911blogger.com? A VERY "controversial" subject on top of our ALREADY "controversial" subject? Why would... someone do something that could be, and has been used against us countless times beyond imagining?
Ever read this helpful post?
http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/
Below is a list of associations that are damaging and marginalizing to the movement. Some are offensive and baseless, others may simply be speculative or fringe. The common thread is that all of these topics/attitudes/assertions have extremely negative connotations for the general public and they should not be paired with concrete, fact-based research. This is only a partial list:
Holocaust denial/revisionism and Jewish conspiracy theoriesSee More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - ?"Jon Gold Key words being, "I don't care."
I don't care what they find hard or easy to believe, Jon. That doesn't factor into the Truth... get it? Sounds to me like you "don't care" about the hundred or so who claim they CLEARLY heard expl...osions and saw the building come down like a controlled demoltion.
Why don't you care about those First Responders, jon?See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - Jon, you wanted me to tell you of someone you called "anti-semites"... and I did, didn't I? In fact, haven't you said, or implied, the same thing about Kevin Barret, now that we are on the subject?
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Jon Gold - I implied that Kevin Barrett is a bigot.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97772&postcount=1
Nite nite Willy. Have fun now.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - I thought you were leaving a while ago... ?...
"Jon Gold I implied that Kevin Barrett is a bigot."
Yeah, that list gets longer and longer, doesn't it? The WTCdemo guys, Barret, who else? Adam Sayed? How bout him? You know him don't you Jon? E...ver "implied" anything about him?
and for the record, I didn't call you an "agent"... I don't know if you are or you are not.
But like Mr. Hoz here, you damn sure have the right rhetoric of one, don't you? Now whether or not you just got if FROM an agent, or whether you actually KNOW the damage you have been doing to this movement for some time, well that's subjective I suppose. Only you know that.
we all have our theories, though, don't we?
You have fun with that big LIHOP list now...See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - it's kinda like Blogger around here... you make a big deal about leaving... then come back... then make a big deal about leaving... then come back... (rinse and repeat)
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Jon Gold - ?"and for the record, I didn't call you an "agent"... I don't know if you are or you are not."
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/flight-77-cockpit-door-never-...
Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened? UPDATED – Disinfo Agent Jon Go...ld Attacks
Posted on November 28, 2009 by willyloman
Hey Johnathan... sorry to take up your time.See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike.
Willy Loman - I didn't call you an agent here... in public... but, since you force the issue, yeah, you're either an agent or just an arrogant ass who's been given a bit too much attention and come to depend on it.
I thought you were leaving? This really... is like Blogger now ain't it?
for the record, you should go back over to that site and do a little more reading... you might learn something. Add it to your "big list"See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - come on back now Jon. Don't go away mad like Hoz did... this is FUN.. I haven't had this much fun fucking with "crush down crush up" believer in a long time.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - oh wait a minute... how about this... didn't you get behind Jim Hoffman's "1.8 million ceiling tile bombs" theory? I mean, didn't you push that for a while? Victoria hates my guts for what I wrote about that stupid crap... I can't remember where you were on that one.... fill me in.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - oh wait, thanks. I appriciate you putting that link up Jon. This is what I said people and I stand by it 100%...
"Gold is a “LIHOP” supporter meaning they Let It Happen On Purpose. What he won’t tell you is that “LIHOP” is the default fallba...ck position of the globalists who planned 911. You see, with LIHOP they can blame Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Silverstein and others, but the important thing is that the myth of the “islamo fascists” attacking us remains intact. That way they can maintain the all important Global War on Terror.
And that is what Jon Gold brings to the table."
That's right. LIHOP is all about blaming Cheney or Bush (just TRY and convict them though) and KEEPING the "islamofascist" mythology alive and well so that the Global War on Terror (the Global Free Market Wars) going for a hundred years or so. I wrote that. and yes, I believe it.See More
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Willy Loman - oh yeah, I also like this part...
"Gold’s twisted logic is remarkable. “I don’t see any mention of the door”, “I don’t see any mention of the door”, “ok, here’s a mention of the door, but it looks like it is wrong…”" uh... yeah....
8 hours ago · LikeUnlike · .
Johnathan Douglas - Nobody's wasting my time here Jon ... hell keep going ... Although it would be nice if we could go back where I started with the evidence of extreamly high temps and mid air pulverization ... Did those two things happen or not Hoz? ... It's a yes or no question ...
8 hours ago · UnlikeLike · 1 personLoading....
Johnathan Douglas - Or did I miss all the fun? ....
8 hours ago · UnlikeLike · 1 personLoading....
Willy Loman - looks like Hoz called in his mentor for backup then ran away. Those are good questions though. What about that RJ lee report and the evidence of of extremely high temperatures? won't find that in the crush-down official theory, that's for damn sure. I guess they have to go watch some more debunker videos to try and find an answer for that one. Give 'em a little while, JD. If I know Jon Gold, he'll be back. He always is....
7 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading... ·
(and that was that...Jon left... then came back... then left again... then came back... then he left again and you know what he did? He came back...)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"Jon Gold - WTCDemolition?
on 911blogger.com?" And why "controversial" as opposed to controversial?
___
Real Truther,
®™"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed." Nietzsche
®™I think a better question
I think a better question is-what exactly IS "holocaust denial"? I suppose what we do as 9/11 activists/truthers could be considered "9/11 denial" by the same type of people who consider questioning certain aspects of the holocaust as outright "denial". Maybe people will be put in jail someday for "9/11 denial" too. Certain dense(or worse) individuals like Gold fail to see(or deliberately ignore) the obvious parallels. I am not a "holocaust denier", even if I do question certain aspects of that "official narrative" and how its been used politically in the same way I'm not a "9/11 denier" despite questioning many aspects of that and how its been used politically.
Seems simple enough to me but Gold is clearly a fucking idiot.
I read something recently
I read something recently -cant remember by who.
'Anti-Semitic' used to used by people who hate Jews
now it is used for anyone that the (Zionists) hate.
The original quote did not use the word Zionists and reversed the first line,
but I found that a bit anti-Semitic (and in fact inaccurate)to repeat.
well played, willy
Nice to know the truth about Jon Gold is getting out on FB...
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
Good stuff
Good stuff Willy. From their positions within the 9/11 Truth movement, these people use the same tactics as the debunkers and official story apologists.
They say the truth is 'un-believable' so we should avoid it and shy away from it in our research. They say the truth is anti-Semitic so we should down play it. They say we should allow the media, the main stream and the official story to dictate and define the truth because we should be sensitive.
They're rotting the movement from the inside...or trying to. It's not working.
I must be slipping...
When Jon came out and said "show me" as if he never accused anyone of being an antisemite (yeah right) and then I reminded him of just a few people he has done that too, the first thing he did was post a link trying to show the readers that those people... were antisemites.
Its like he's pathological; he can't stop even when he is trying to argue that he doesn't use that accusation as a weapon. He just goes right on using the slur as a weapon, again.
He can't help himself, its become so ingrained in his behavior pattern.
How did I miss that in the chat? I didn't used to miss obvious crap like that... I must be slipping.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I will say this
Jon creeps me out. He's been around for so long using the most divisive behavior against other 911 Truth advocates. And this whole Israel thing is just getting ridiculous. If Pakistani spooks were at the crime scene he'd be all over it.
I remember back in 2007 I wrote an article debunking his "Omar Said Shaikh is the master money man of 9/11" bullshit and my reward for arguing with Jon Gold was that someone posted a blog with my full name and location claiming that I was claiming that the "911 Family Members" were spreading disinformation.
I met Jon at the first meeting of a philly activist group back in 2005 or 2006. It ended with the singling out of Israel as 'off limits' because we don't want people to think we are Jew Haters. Conflating "Jew" and "Israel" is a huge part of their argument...even when they are arguing that the main stream does exactly this. There are countless examples of 911Blogger pushing this idea that we should not address the facts because the facts are hard to believe. Anyway, just preaching here.
I noticed you link to GNN on your blog under 'activism'. You know Anthony Lappe' was a USIA employee? (United States Information Agency). The site is down anyway but he literally worked for the US's foreign propaganda agency and then pops up running a 'alternative news' website that matches the state departments description of how to better utilize the internet in the future. He also wrote the forward to Sander Hick's book "The Big Wedding".
There are several links that I don't support on my site...
... and if anyone ever used them, I would certainly take them out. But, Wordpress allows me to see who clicks on what on my blog, and I think its been years since anyone used that link.
but you're correct, I should take it out. I'm just lazy.
You might be interested to know that Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research wrote an outstanding article on the controlled opposition within dissent groups - specifically the anti-globalization movement, but its very relevant at this point in time to the Truth movement...
I wondered why AE911Truth recently set themselves up as a 501(3)(c) not for profit group... upon reading this article, I now understand why.
I also figure its probably Gregg Roberts who did it.
The basic jist is this: established and effective dissident groups are conned by someone on the inside to set themselves up as a not for profit.
Then foundations like the Ford Foundation or the Rockefeller foundation can contribute to them and get a tax write-off.
The influx of revenues locks the dissident group into conforming to certain behavioral guidelines, of course, set by the foundations that hold the pursestrings.
The group's leaders become accustomed to the new revenue stream and the organization becomes dependant upon it. Thus the money that was supposed to set them free ends up capturing them much like a smaller version of the IMF/World Bank loans do to impovershed nations (and now of course, all nations).
The irony is, all the money these financial and MIC institutions got for committing 9/11 and the economic collapse is then used to "control dissent" from the inside, and they get a nice tax writeoff to boot.
nice scam huh? In short they are making the tax-payers fund their disinformation campaign.
I would be interested to see AE911Truth's books on this current fiscal year and I would also love to get my hands on their articles of incorporation to see what the official structure of the group is now and WHO actually served as their legal council of record when they set it up.
my guess is Gregg Roberts' fingerprints are all over this.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
read it
Yup, I've read the article.
I don't think they have to be non-profit to get funds from foundations. It might make it easier but that's not how GNN got at least $200,000 in foundation funding.
When I was investigating GNN, it's founders and funding, I found funding information that Lappe' claimed to be oblivious to. Not sure how he didn't know he was being financed by FORD FOUNDATION upwards of at least $60,000 for one project.
They had a 'fiscal sponsor' that allowed them to get around $200,000 to fund things like:
Amercian Black Out - foundation money for this 2000 election movie
True Lies - funding for a movie that wasn't made. Instead a short paper back was produced.
Gnn.tv - funding for website updates
You're right...
the foundation (or corporation or individual) can still donate prior to them attaining the status of a 50193)(c), but they can't deduct it as a tax write off. When you get that status, they get far larger donations and the foundations get to pass on the cost of their gatekeeping influence to the taxpayers... the down side of that of course, is they have to file their financial statements and their articles of incorporation as public documents so we can see where they are now getting their money and if it is coming from certain foundations and or corporations.
I didn't know all of that about GNN. I noticed a while ago they were avoiding discussing the crisis in Gaza (Operation Cast Lead) and like I did with Blogger, I called them out for being a fake dissent site and never went back, though I do check in at Blogger from time to time.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
not surprised
Before becoming the money man for GNN, Ian Inaaba worked for Israeli billionaire Gil Schwed managing acquisitions and investments.
Why should the fact that A&E911T became a 501c3 cast suspicion
on them? It seems that it would only make sense to me for them to do that, so that they can maximize their fundraising. What's wrong with that? I guess you're convinced that they are a gatekeeping organization but I'm still not convinced that is the case.
Also, you mentioned that, "down side of that of course, is they have to file their financial statements and their articles of incorporation as public documents so we can see where they are now getting their money and if it is coming from certain foundations and or corporations." So, doesn't that mean that they have to be even more transparent and accountable, which means that they should become more trustworthy rather than less?
Well, let me explain Keenan...
Are you going to donate more now simply because they are a 501(3)(c)? Are you?
No. In fact, most donations from individuals like ourselves will be made with or without that little change.
So why make it? Where does that extra money come from? Well, it seems logical to me that it would come from instituions that CARE about being able to deduct the contribution as a tax write-off.
So see, when AE911Truth tells you that they can make more in donations AFTER the switch, they don't really tell you WHY...
Perhaps this article from Global Research helps to shed some light on the subject.
When I stated that it was an unfortunate side effect that they had to fully disclose their financial statements, I meant that it was unfortunate FOR THEM.. that is, IF they are taking money from the very foundations that you and I KNOW they need not be taking from.
So for us its good. And yes, it should make them more transparent, however, what I expect we might start seeing is a campaign to make it seem as if taking funds from these organizations is for "the greater good"... being able to "spread the word" is the trade off, you know, that kind of hogwash other dissident groups said back when they first starting taking foundation money.
In short, I don't think the entire AE911Truth is a gatekeeping organization... just those few who have come over with Gregg Roberts, the guy who managed Jim Hoffman's "believe the official story of the Pentagon" website since its inception.
Of course it casts suspicion... wasn't it here on this very blog that someone posted an article about Gage going down to that ridiculous meeting of the motivational speakers a couple months ago? Where did they get the money for that?
for that matter, where did they get the money for that 3rd light in New York? You know what it costs to hire union electricians in Manhattan? Had a look at their fundraising donation link on their site recently?
think about it.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
don't trust groups!
just don't. they are invariably compromised (assuming they would be effective enough to need compromising.) I have two eyes for everything these days--on is my normal view and the other my 9/11-tinged view. My normal view tells me there's nothing fishy about these groups--they are made up of remarkable individuals. My 9/11-tinged view tells me to scrutinize every action and statement to the finest nuance to watch for signs of insincerity. Wanna talk post-9/11 mindfucks? Let's start with the realization every truther has come to--you can't trust anyone implicitly. All that said, I would love for this to be legit because I think it's fantastic:
http://buildingwhat.org/
If legit. :-/
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
"Let's start with the
"Let's start with the realization every truther has come to--you can't trust anyone implicitly"
In it's current state it does seem to be the case. The movement encourages this type of distrust and the insistence on anonymity doesn't help.
If you're suggesting it's not possible...I disagree. If people communicated more and became closer...like people who trust each other did before they knew each other...then I could see myself trusting 911 truthers implicitly.
"a campaign to make it seem
"a campaign to make it seem as if taking funds from these organizations is for "the greater good"... being able to "spread the word" is the trade off"
Maybe. I can't imagine the Ford Foundation funding something like AE911Truth.
But this is exactly how "Guerrilla News Network" handled the situation. First they pretended that they were not part of the 'finance team' that handled the money (there were only 4 guys and the site wasn't THAT big of a deal). But it was for the greater good to take tens of thousands of dollars from the Ford Foundation...if not...Shooting War, the war comic, would not have seen the light of day and Sander Hicks wouldn't have had one more outlet to tell the world about Randy Glass and Delmart Vreeland, two guys who knew about the Muslims of 9/11.
We already know that it was Deets who pushed them...
... to apply for the 50193)(c) (from Richard Gage's May 12th newsletter on the subject) and we also know that one of the first things they did was then send Gage down to Jamaca for the Wealth Masters International meeting in that Ritz Carlton down there.
And what did Richard write about the whole thing? That they got pledge money from all those guys "now that they are a 50193)(c)"
I don't think there is any question here at this point. The idea I suppose is to turn 9/11 Truth into a business like the Sierra Club or something.
We have a new 911truthNews group started up (where did that money come from?), the new Building7 website started by Deets, the new BuildingWhat? campaign (where's that money coming from?), and AE911Truth is running around meeting with Wealth Masters International...
looks to me like since they were losing a grip on their disinfo campaigns, someone somewhere decided to step it up a notch and get some serious funding in to drown out the competition.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"And what did Richard write
"And what did Richard write about the whole thing? That they got pledge money from all those guys "now that they are a 50193)(c)"
And...what's wrong with that? Again, if you have any evidence that the information in Gage's presentation was changed or that Gage compromised himself in the process, could you please specify what exactly?
"I don't think there is any question here at this point."
I don't think you have made a convincing case at all at this point.
"We have a new 911truthNews group started up (where did that money come from?)"
Well, it doesn't take that much money to start a web site, but I think we already know that it was started by the group of fakes from TruthAction. But what does this have to do with A&E911T?
"the new Building7 website started by Deets, the new BuildingWhat? campaign (where's that money coming from?)"
Again, isn't that what they are supposed to do? Are you saying that the BuildingWhat campaign is disinfo? I'm not sure what your point is.
"looks to me like since they were losing a grip on their disinfo campaigns, someone somewhere decided to step it up a notch and get some serious funding in to drown out the competition."
Can you be more specific about "their disinfo campaigns"? You make these bald assertions without even explaining yourself, assuming that we are just supposed to take your word for it? What competition are you referring to? You really need to be more specific when you say such things.
You are still working mighty hard to support Gregg Roberts...
... Keenan.
What do you want me to do? Write you a 40 page comment explaining all the disinfo campaigns in the Truth movement before I can mention "disinfo campaigns" and get away with it?
Does anyone here think there have been no attempts to discredit AE911Truth in the recent past coming from WITHIN that organization?
Do I need to go back over Steven Jones and the earthquake weapon or that terribly flawed article (which you reposted here Keenan, then used it in a comment to "prove" I was wrong about det cord - how did that work out for you?) that I got them to fix before it completely embarrassed Richard Gage... how about his trip down to the Ritz Carlton and Weath Masters?
And that is just in the last few months...
Its not a "bald assertion" to say there have been many disinfo campaigns in the Truth movement, is it?
My point here is they are following a tried and true pattern as was laid out by Michel Chossudovsky. They are institutionalizing the Truth movement, turning it into a not-for-profit will, like other readers have mentioned, which will inhibit their behavior and the limits of what they can and cannot talk about.
It was done to the anti-globalization movement, to the green movement, to the animal rights movement, and even back in the day, to the anti-war movement (and to what is left of the anti-war movement now)
It would be foolish of us not to pay attention to these signs and to ignore the history of the co-opting of dissent in modern America.
As someone pointed out on my site, and as Chossudovsky points out, often the leadership of the movements themselves are oblivious to the invisible hand behind their new-found influence until it is too late.
It is not my intention to sit here and tell you all this has and is happening; it is my intention to tell you these things are signs that should be carefully watched.
certainly JPASS sees these developments as something that could be compared to GNN and other organizations.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You know, I might suspect
You know, I might suspect you of being some sort of agent considering you seem to push the notion that Israelis played a back seat role and not the lead role in the attacks and you seem to downplay the roles of suspects like Hauer,Zakheim,Silverstein,Lowy and Suter. :) JK!
we are not all going to agree all the time Justin
but I think I am the only person who has openly and publicly called on Dwain Deets to fully disclose everything he knows (from his time as head of the Dryden Flight Research Center) about Dov Zakheim and SPC's access to remote piloting systems prior to 9/11...
You show me someone else who has gone that far with Deets...
here is the recent line of questioning...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/food-for-thought-dwain-deets-...
and, remarkably, here is Dwain Deets' answer...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/food-for-thought-dwain-deets-...
I have often written about Silverstein and in fact I covered the story from Fox when it broke about him on the phone with his insurance company while his tenents were dying in his buildings on 9/11...
and I have been writing about Zakheim and the zionists at PNAC for years now...
so, no... I don't downplay those roles at all...
and God Knows I work to expose the ethnic cleansing in Palestine...
But there are zionists who are Israelis and those who are not... hell, Joe Biden's statement lays bare that fact, doesn't it?
And by the same token, there are 9/11 traitors who are zionists and some who are not. Argue that fact with me.
I give credit where I find it; Hauer, Zakheim, Silverstein, Wolfowitz, Feith, Clinton, Bush, CDI, the CIA, the FBI, NORAD, MI6, ISI, Saudis, ect. ect. ect.
were I to actually believe it was "Israel" that planned and conducted and forced the rest to carry out 9/11, there would be nothing that stopped me from writing about it.
but the fact is, I see SOME Israelis as being complict in the planning stages and probably in the wiring of the buildings...
but ultimately I think there is a more pervasive ideology at work here that certainly some Israelis and zionists had a hand in...
but not the only hand.
If that makes me "suspect" then so be it.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Are you putting
Are you putting Clinton,Bush,Feith and Wolfowitz on the same level as people who pretty obviously had a direct hand in the attacks like Hauer,Silverstein and Zakheim? What role do you think Clinton played?(beyond failing to actually investigate the 93 WTC fraud) What about Wolfowitz,Feith and Bush for that matter? Its entirely possible they played some role but here is whats clear-Israeli connected companies ran security at the airports and the towers. Dov Zakheim was in a crucial position in the Pentagon to stage that fraud along with his SPC connections tying him to remote flight. Larry Silversteins shady connections(to Netanyahu no less), statements and actions have been well documented. You mention Wolfowitz and Feith, both are examples of Israel firsters who have been under suspicion for spying for Israel. This is not isolated it is just an example of the reach of Israel. Speaking of spies we have the infamous 5 dancing mossad in addition to the "art student" ring in addition to Israeli firster Chertoff being in a position to "help" all of them. I could go on with more circumstantial evidence that points at Israel, and its certainly stronger than that which ties say-Bush,Saudi Arabia or the CIA to the attacks.
I don't know that Israel had to "force" anybody to do anything, their influence and reach is pretty obvious imo. I agree that Israelis/zionists did not act completely alone but to say that it was some joint operation by Bush, CDI, the CIA, the FBI, NORAD, MI6, ISI, Saudis, etc. etc. etc. with zionists/Israelis playing a bit part is just not what the evidence shows. I think the bit parts so to speak were played by those listed. I think that matters as it speaks to an even larger issue than 9/11(the negative influence of zionism and Israel on our politics) but at the same time makes truly understanding 9/11 itself possible. Most people just cannot accept that 9/11 happened for oil or American imperialism, even if some of those involved had that as their primary motivation.
You are making your agenda pretty obvious at this point, Willy
Why would you keep using such blatantly dishonest straw man arguments? I simply asked you to specify what you meant by A&E911T's "disinfo campaigns" and you responded by saying:
"You are still working mighty hard to support Gregg Roberts"
"What do you want me to do? Write you a 40 page comment explaining all the disinfo campaigns in the Truth movement before I can mention "disinfo campaigns" and get away with it?"
No Willy. Nobody asked you to write a 40 page comment explaining all the disinfo campaigns in the Truth movement, blah, blah, blah. I asked you a very simple question that it is pretty clear that you are unable to answer at this point. What I asked was this:
What were you referring to when you accused A&E911T of engaging in "disinfo campaigns"?
So, you can try to divert the attention away from you, you can protest that I am being unreasonable and call me names, you can respond with more questions or bald assertions or straw man arguments. Or you can answer a simple and reasonable question that I've already asked you about 4 times in this thread. It's up to you how much lower you want your credibility level to sink to.
Your behavior at this point should tell people what your really about, Willy. I think it's become pretty obvious without me having to say it.
"blah, blah, blah" Keenan, 9/22/2010
what are you, 12?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Still nothing but non-answers and ad hominems
after asking a simple question 5 times now. Do you really think people are not smart enough to see that you can't answer a simple question and are instead exposing your troll/disrupter agenda even more?
This behavior of yours is remarkably consistent, and confirms for me that I was right about you when I first had you pegged for your dishonest agenda many months ago.
I was trying to give you another chance and give you the benefit of the doubt, since you were playing nice for the last few weeks on this discussion forum. But today, after your behavior reverted right back to your past shill-like behavior, I realize that expecting someone like you to change is being unrealistic. You are who you are, as you have proven to everyone again today on this thread.
The disinfo campaigns I referred to, as you well know Keenan...
... were the well financed disinfo campaigns of the Truth movement in general, which is why I responded to your question with the "40 page" statement...
Specifically, with AE911Truth, right now, as I have repeatedly written about... we have several in the past... but as I have stated CLEARLY... they are NOT Ae911Truth but rather Gregg Roberts doing his best to DISCREDIT AE911Truth...
and again, I can go over them since you seem to have forgotten...
Steven Jones "manmade earthquake weapons" @ Gage's press conference
The Wealth Master International conference (Sanders Hicks involved?) which THIS WEBSITE questioned as well...
Dwain Deets father of modern drones supports CIT flyover theory...
and of course...
CDI's ex-employee and family friend of the family that owns it comes out and makes MULTIPLE misstatements which I finally had them correct on their website...
after you of course called me "disinfo" for writing about those very same mistakes that they ended up correcting...
now that is the list of Gregg Roberts' acomplishments in the disinfo arena since he left Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley's team...
That is HIS disinfo campaign designed to discredit AE911Truth... that is NOT AE's 'disinfo" campaign as you attempt to put words in my mouth.
Now that we have cleared that up, I am done being insulted by you over and over again.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Yet again, just more diversions and straw men
Willy, you act as if people reading this thread can't see for themselves what you wrote in prior posts and who is putting words in whose mouth. Are you really that stupid and don't realize how bad this makes you look?
Since you have shown yourself to be completely incapable of being the least bit honest with how you debate people, I have to conclude that my initial suspicions about you way back when were right on the money and you are not worth my time anymore. Bye now.
Did anyone catch our now self-proclaimed spokesman...
... Dwain Deets, saying that we should "view the videos of the planes hitting the Towers with suspicion"?
That's nice huh? He'll go from supporting an invisible fly-over to ... what?... a rehash of the no-planes hit the towers theory?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"He'll go from supporting an
"He'll go from supporting an invisible fly-over to ... what?... a rehash of the no-planes hit the towers theory?"
It seems that most of the movement's intellectuals including DRG and Peter Dale Scott, and most people who are respected by the mainstream of 9/11 truth feel that CIT has provided some compelling evidence that would seem to support a fly-over and that the 14 witnesses who corroborate that the plane flew north of Citco, which also proves that the SOC flight path damage was staged, is important evidence. It's kind of strange that you are apparently taking the side of the TrueFaction fakes in this case and assuming that the movement's intellectuals are all a bunch of idiots.
Also, are you implying that Deets is pushing the no-planes hit the towers theory? Do you have any evidence? There are certainly some anomalies in some of the videos of the planes hitting the towers, but pointing that out does not necessarily make one a no-plane advocate. For instance, in the NY Good Day Footage, there is the shot of the second plane crashing into the south tower and the nose apparently coming out the opposite side, which would be impossible, as a fragile aluminum nose of a plane cannot crash through the dense steel core of the building and come right out intact on the opposite side without the plane even slowing down, which is what the footage actually shows. Then the footage immediately goes black for 15 frames and the nose disappears. We discussed it here: Is Video Fakery the New Transsexuality? Or the New Alien Abduction?
You have to admit that that shot of the impossible nose out scenario, coupled with the 15 frame fade to black is suspicious as hell. I certainly don't subscribe to a no planes scenario, and I haver have, but I do think it is a valid question about why there were these video anomalies in multiple network news footage. At least 2 or 3 networks faded to black while the second plane hit, and some footage showed what appears to be impossible effects that lasted for a couple of seconds or so. I don't think it is unreasonable for Deets to be suspicious of that.
it happened again
I was logged in, typed up a comment, then when I submitted it, it got sent to the moderation que and I was logged out again. Is there some glitches with the software today?
This was the comment that I submitted:
"He'll go from supporting an invisible fly-over to ... what?... a rehash of the no-planes hit the towers theory?"
It seems that most of the movement's intellectuals including DRG and Peter Dale Scott, and most people who are respected by the mainstream of 9/11 truth feel that CIT has provided some compelling evidence that would seem to support a fly-over and that the 14 witnesses who corroborate that the plane flew north of Citco, which also proves that the SOC flight path damage was staged, is important evidence. It's kind of strange that you are apparently taking the side of the TrueFaction fakes in this case and assuming that the movement's intellectuals are all a bunch of idiots.
Also, are you implying that Deets is pushing the no-planes hit the towers theory? Do you have any evidence? There are certainly some anomalies in some of the videos of the planes hitting the towers, but pointing that out does not necessarily make one a no-plane advocate. For instance, in the NY Good Day Footage, there is the shot of the second plane crashing into the south tower and the nose apparently coming out the opposite side, which would be impossible, as a fragile aluminum nose of a plane cannot crash through the dense steel core of the building and come right out intact on the opposite side without the plane even slowing down, which is what the footage actually shows. Then the footage immediately goes black for 15 frames and the nose disappears. We discussed it here: Is Video Fakery the New Transsexuality? Or the New Alien Abduction?
You have to admit that that shot of the impossible nose out scenario, coupled with the 15 frame fade to black is suspicious as hell. I certainly don't subscribe to a no planes scenario, and I never have, but I do think it is a valid question about why there were these video anomalies in multiple network news footage. At least 2 or 3 networks faded to black while the second plane hit, and some footage showed what appears to be impossible effects that lasted for a couple of seconds or so. I don't think it is unreasonable for Deets to be suspicious of that.
that "nose cone"
is a blob of smoke. If Deets is actually "going there" then people's suspicions of him would be warranted imo.
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
I figure it was sliced by columns, but smoke is also possible
and yes, Deets seems to be "going there" on Blogger...
"Yes, I believe airplanes hit Towers One and Two. Although, I believe the videos should be viewed with a degree of suspicion." Dwain Deets, 9/21/2010
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-20/faith-science-retired-nasa-enginee...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
same thread....
"Aircraft Impact Videos Appear Authentic
There seems to be no scientific basis for questioning the authenticity of videos depicting the impacts of the WTC planes." Aidan Monaghan
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"is a blob of smoke."
Please. It looks nothing like a blob of smoke. It is black just like the plane and well defined and sharp in the exact shape of the nose cone and came out the other side at the same speed that the plane flew in as if it was to continue the same path, after going through the dense steel core of the building, and before any other smoke appeared on that side of the building.
The smoke is white or orange and looks nothing like the nose cone.
I don't know why it is there, but that, combined with the fade to black for 15 frames right at the critical time on at least 3 of the networks seems almost designed to make people suspicious. Then, when CNN showed the same video, and made sure to cover the lower half of the screen with a banner, purposely hiding the plane impact and blocking out one of the most momentous live images in history, how can people not suspect purposeful manipulation?
Was the whole "no-planes/video fakery" row partly created in order to keep people away from looking into some possible video manipulation done for a purpose unrelated to a no-planes scenario? Was it a purposeful distraction? Who knows?
"video fakery-no.. video manipulation-yes" Keenan, 9/22/2010
ah. got it
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
DRG does NOT support flyover theory, Keenan...
... lets make that very clear, shall we Keenan. And the fact that you are trying to imply that bothers me, quite frankly...
"It seems that most..." , "...would seem to support..." seem seem seem...
Just because "most" respected members of the Truth community don't want to fracture the movement even more and come right out and call CIT disinfo (how the fuck can anyone, ANYONE... believe a theory concocted and based on Pentagon and Department of Defense employee "witnesses" is BEYOND my understanding...) DOES NOT mean they "seem" to support it.
(but then again, you were all over Controlled Demolition Inc.'s "no det cord" story also, weren't you Keenan? and you are all behind Dwain Deets who helped create the drone industry and remote control flight systems... go figure)
" which also proves that the SOC flight path damage was staged"
What an amazing leap... a bunch (6? 7?) of Pentagon employees say a Flight 77 was on a flight path and all of a sudden, that's "proof" the damage to the Pentagon was staged?
So if I were to go out and get say, 30 Pentagon "witnesses" to say they saw Santa Claus was smoking crack and he flew his sled into the Pentagon, that's it huh?
Flyover is doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do... make the "debate" about what hit the Pentagon between Jim Hoffman's "believe the official story" line and the Pentagon employee's "North of the Citgo" line... with NOTHING ELSE ALLOWED...
get it?
understand?
or maybe you think we are too stupid to follow current events?
CIT's own videos include shots of their witnesses, THEIR "WITNESSES", stating that Flight 77 HIT the Pentagon...
do you get that?
So our "debate"... Dwain Deets' theory about the Pentagon, is completely designed to bring Truth advocates, the ones who are still smart enough to know that Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, back into the fold... whether they know it or not.
Now... one more little bit of insight for you...
flight 11 and flight 175 hit the north and south towers of the World Trade Centers on Sept. 11th, 2001... there are videos and thousands of eyewitnesses to prove it.
they were probably flown by remote, but that is supposition at this time.
Now, that said...
the "nose out" video is NOT that hard to understand... the nose of the aircraft is a composite material that slammed into vertical columns of A-36 structural steel...
it was SLICED... vertically... as it passed through the building...
the idea that a SECTION or a SLICE of that nose could pass through the building and been seen in SILOETTE coming out the other side.... is not that hard to understand.
remember half of the nose section and cockpit lying on its side in Lockerbie? Its not really that hard to understand...
Now since we all agree, or at least I THINK we all agree, that Flight 11 and Flight 175 (or planes that LOOKED like them) hit the Twin Towers...
I want you to think real carefully.... WHY would they use "video fakery", of ANY KIND, after that fact is established?
No.
DRG does NOT support flyover theory and NO... the videos are not "suspect"...
(you notice how BOTH of those things make us look ridiculous? Kinda like "nanothermite paint" and "earthquake weapons"... and if you want to go back a little... "1.8 million ceiling tile bombs", "ray beams from space", and "tv fakery" (all of which, by the way, coming from current or ex partners of Steven Jones and his BYU sponsored "thermite" distractions...)
now I am sure this is the point where I am accused of being a "paid shill" again, but that's ok.. I don't come here for the fellowshipping, now do I
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Dude,
DRG does NOT support flyover theory, Keenan...
Yes he does. I worked closely with him on Actors and Artists for 911 Truth this past year, and he and I have had countless email exchanges at this point. I can tell you that he most definitely DOES support flyover.
do you have a reference for this?
I would be very interested in seeing that
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"the idea that a SECTION or
"the idea that a SECTION or a SLICE of that nose could pass through the building and been seen in SILOETTE coming out the other side.... is not that hard to understand."
I agree. Planes moving over 450 miles per hour pushing a silhouette created by the pressure.
"now I am sure this is the point where I am accused of being a "paid shill" again, but that's ok.. I don't come here for the fellowshipping, now do I"
You're essentially accusing Keenen of being an agent so, yea, it's probably that point where some one returns the favor.
I did read that comment by D. Deets and thought to myself wtf is this guy talking about? This guy presnted himself on 911Blogger as the 911 Truth spokesperson and in the same blog he hints at TV Fakery? Too much. And this...the 911 Truth spokesperson...also happens to be involved with the drone / remote pilot industry?
I don't have a firm grasp on the facts surrounding Deets connection to those industries. Can you give me a quick approximation of how closely tied to these industries this guy is?
I would be glad to...
... and sorry, I don't mean to imply that Keenan is a shill... I have always of the mindset that one doesn't have to be a shill to repeat a shill's theories or words.
I don't know what Keenan is... he could be a well meaning Truth advocate that just happened to call me a "paid shill" a while back on this site because I didn't support "nanothermite" back when doing so wasn't as popular as it is now.
But again, I don't know what he is, so let that be my position on the matter.
As far as Deets goes...
Deets was a director of the Dryden Flight Research Center from '96 until his retirement, I think right after 9/11. They worked on drone technology at that time, developing the Predator (with General Atomics) and the Global Hawk (with Northup Grumman) but his involvement with drones goes back even further to the Altus program, which was the predecessor of the Predator.
Before that, Deets was also working with what was called the HiMAT program... do you remember the images of the test flight of the jumbo jet they crashed in order to test the fuel additive that was supposed to make the jet fuel not burn on impact? Well, that was an early version of the remote piloting systems that ended up being further developed and marketed by companies like SPC (Dov Zakheim)
well, seems Mr. Deets was also involved with that little project as well... here is a drawing from an early paper co-written by Deets explaining how remote piloting systems worked...
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/deets-19851.jpg
and here is a link to an article I wrote about Deets' background on Sept. 11th, 2009... in fact, if you Google Dwain Deets, it's the first thing that comes up...
Strange Bedfellows: AE911Truth, the Drone Industry, and Dwain Deets
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/strange-bedfellows-ae911truth...
Deets' connection with Gregg Roberts and his professional history gives me a bit of a pause... and like you said, now that he calls himself a spokesman for the movement, his hinting at tv fakery, and now I find out that it was Deets who pushed to get AE911Truth into the not-for-profit game... I have serious questions even more than I did a year ago.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
It would be breaking the laws of physics
For a fragile aluminum/composite nose cone to slam into the exterior steel structure of the building, then crash through the dense steel core section containing 47 steel columns, then crash through the opposite exterior steel structure, and meet no resistance to that steel maintaining its speed, like as if it was going through melted butter like a hot knife, and maintaining it's shape perfectly as it comes through the other side. It would be like...
the magic bullet theory of the JFK assassination, in which the Warren Report wants us to believe that a bullet was found in pristine condition after the same bullet passed through several dense bone structures in both Kennedy's and Connely's body.
Both are equally unbelievable and break the laws of physics.
I don't believe it was a real nose cone of an airplane that came out the other side. To believe it was is to believe in the impossible. The question is, why was it made to LOOK like that's what it was? And, why the fade to black for 15 frames right at the crucial moment? Why should people be crucified for merely pointing out the obvious - that is is at least a little suspicious?
You see Willy, it's these bald assertions you keep making
and your straw man arguments, while refusing to answer my questions that makes me suspicious of you.
I asked you to clarify some assertions you made. I asked you what "disinfo campaign" that A&E911T had engaged in and you completely ignored my question. Instead, you assert a serious of straw man arguments such as:
"but then again, you were all over Controlled Demolition Inc.'s "no det cord" story also, weren't you Keenan?"
No Willy, I simply did not line up behind your det cord theory in lock step like you were demanding and you then accused me of being part of Greg Roberts cognitive infiltration disinfo campaign a couple of months ago along with everybody else who didn't line up behind you. First of all, if Controlled Demolition was saying the no det cord was possible, they are not the only ones, and to imply that I was "all over" CDI's story, as if I don't have my own opinions and need someone else's talking points to follow is ridiculous. Then, to assert that I am part of a dsinfo campaign because I don't line up behind your pet det cord theory is laughable and just makes YOU look suspicious.
Your arguments about the Pentagon debate shows that you are completely ignorant about the evidence and are just making up such absurd straw man arguments and ridiculous false logic.
If you don't understand that the fact that the damage path to the Pentagon clearly iimplies a south of CItco path as the only one possible for WHATEVER hit the building, and the fact that not just the 14 witnesses (and no, Willy, they are mostly NOT Pentagon employees, which you would know if you were at all familiar with the evidence) but other physical evidence as well, proves that the physical evidence for a SOC path was faked, proves that the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon, then you are really just showing how unwilling you are to become informed about the evidence. You sound just like the fakes at True Faction when you are ignorantly trying to discredit and smear CIT with such uninformed assertions that shows you really don't care about understand the evidence.
"DRG does NOT support flyover theory"
You are just showing your ignorance here again. You should re-read DRG's endorsement of CIT.
"the videos are not "suspect"..."
Why the fade to black for 15 frames on multiple network videos during the hit of the second plane? If that is not suspect, then I don't now what is.
"Steven Jones and his BYU sponsored "thermite" distractions..."
Steven Jones is certainly not the only one giving credence to thermite being used. I don't know why you are so violently against the idea of thermite when there is so much that indicates that is probably was used. Is it because you are trying to, again, push your pet det cord theory and demanding that everybody follow lock step behind you or rick being accused of ridiculous nonsense like you've done numerous times?
Again, Willy, when you make bald assertions without any evidence or even explaining yourself, like I've asked you to do numerous times, and instead continue to put out a series of straw man arguments and more baseless assertions, it's the exact kind of behavior that makes people suspicious of your intentions.
I have not accused you of being an agent on this thread, and I was trying to be civil and give you another chance, but your behavior at this point just discredits yourself and would make most people reading this thread at least a little bit suspicious.
wrong again Keenan... here's the quote and link to prove it
DRG "endorsed" their newer version of their film... actually he "recommend" it...
But he did NOT "endorse CIT" as you claim nor the flyover theory as I pointed out...
and unlike you, I post quotes and links to prove my point:
"The film does not establish its related claim—that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon—as clearly, but it does make a good case for it." david ray griffin
http://norcaltruth.org/2010/04/29/cit-conference-in-arlington-va-latest-...
that is NOT an "endorsement" of CIT and CERTAINLY not an endorsement of the ridiculous flyover theory
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You're right... NIST agrees with CDI about det cord as well...
again, remarkable double-speak...
"First of all, if Controlled Demolition was saying the no det cord was possible, they are not the only ones, and to imply that I was "all over" CDI's story, as if I don't have my own opinions and need someone else's talking points to follow is ridiculous."
right... NIST also claims that there was no controlled demolition because miles and miles of det cord would be lying around the demo site. so you are correct, seems like CDI and NIST agree with that one, and with you. Of course, since CDI HELPED NIST create their Building 7 Report and since CDI HELPED clean up Ground Zero after the demolition, I guess they are the experts on that matter, aren't they?
and let's not forget that it was you who posted the AE911Truth/CDI press conference interview on this site and then added the first comment calling me out and trying to use it to discredit the det cord theory. I simply responded to you. So if ANYONE was being assailed for not jumping in "lock step" with the conventional wisedom on this... its me.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Why must you fill your comments with such dishonesty and
blatant diversions? So that you can keep wasting my time trying to keep up with your endless stream of straw man arguments and nonsense? There are so many false statements and misrepresentations crammed into this one comment above, Willy, it really seems like you've had a lot of practice with this type of behavior.
Why do you keep referring to an "AE911Truth/CDI press conference interview"? You must be referring to the joint presentation that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth gave on May 7th, at which Tom Sullivan, a former CDI employee, spoke for 10 minutes. Why would you imply that CDI was in any way participating at or endorsing this presentation, when it is clear that they did not? CDI is on record as saying that they do not support the idea of a controlled demolition at the WTC. There was a blog posted at WTCD about A&E911T's presentation: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
Tom Sullivan is clear that his views do not represent those of CDI: "Sullivan stresses though 'I do not in anyway represent CDI and what I have to say is based on my own experience and training,'” so for you to imply that he is giving an official representation of CDI's positions is blatantly dishonest, and demonstrably false.
"and let's not forget that it was you who posted the AE911Truth/CDI press conference interview on this site"
Nope. Wrong again. Frank Ho posted it.
But so far I haven't even addressed your most underhanded misrepresnetations.
You dishonestly tried to conflate, somehow, Tom Sullivan's statement that det cord was not required for a controlled demolition because remote detonators could have been used, with NIST's statement about det cord, that the fact that miles of det cord were not lying around the demo site proves that there was no controlled demolition. At the time, I was not even noticing that you were dishonestly referring to Tom Sullivan as "CDI", as if they were one and the same.
Why would you even attempt to imply that NIST's statements about det cord were in agreement with my argument or Tom Sullivans's argument, when NIST was saying the opposite? How stupid do you think people are that they can't see through this?
Then, you have the audacity of accusing me of double-speak.
So, you build straw man on top of straw man. incessantly and unrelentingly. What does that say about your agenda, Willy?
I made a simple argument that remote detonators were probably used in the destruction of the WTC, and I cited the statements of Tom Sullivan at an A&E911T presentation as further support for this idea.
You respond by accusing me of being "all over Controlled Demolition Inc.'s "no det cord" story, falsely conflating Tom Sullivan with CDI.
When I made the point that he was not the only one claiming that det cord was not required for a controlled demolition, you then asserted that, "You're right...NIST agrees with CDI about det cord as well", and then cite a statement from NIST that says the opposite of what I was arguing, as it was addressing something having to do with the debunking of the idea of controlled demolition.
How does one become so adept at such unabashed dishonesty? I think it really takes a special type of person to consistently behave in such a manner.
And finally, here's the real clincher: Your accusing me of agreeing with NIST when YOU are the person who is agreeing with NIST. Both NIST and 'willyloman' are in agreement that det cord had to have been used for a controlled demolition at the WTC. Isn't that interesting? Now I understand why willyloman violently defends his pet det cord theory while accusing everybody else who refuses to fall in line behind your det cord theory of being disinfo agents. Because both Willy and NIST insist that det cord would have been used in a controlled demolition. Now, who is the real agent here? Who is the one who accuses A&W911T of engaging in "disinfo campaigns" and then refuses to provide any examples even after being asked to do so 5 times. Who is the one who is attempting to smear and riducule just about anybody of any significance in the truth movement who tries to disseminate awareness about cd at the WTC?
To me, you are made of the same identical cloth as the TrueFaction fakes and deserve no more respect than they do.
yeah, you just called me a "paid shill" on other threads...
... not on this one... well, not yet anyway. You seem to call people that a lot though, if I remember a recent thread you guys had up a couple months ago.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
are you saying "video fakery" Keenan?
"the videos are not "suspect"..."
Why the fade to black for 15 frames on multiple network videos during the hit of the second plane? If that is not suspect, then I don't now what is."
I just want to clarify exactly what you are saying. Don't beat around the bush
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
CIT "witnesses" are from the Pentagon and Department of Army
I made that perfectly clear... most their "witnesses" either worked at the Pentagon or the Department of the Army which is in charge of Arlington National Cem.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
BYU paid for the nanothermite paper and peer reviewed it...
"Steven Jones is certainly not the only one giving credence to thermite being used."
they paid to have it published, peer reviewed it, paid some (maybe all) of the authors to create it, rewarded Jones for writing it (elevated his status to Professor Emeritus), gave them the labs to conduct the research...
so again, you are correct, but the same people who support the thermite distraction just so happen to also have ties to the organization that paid to create it in the first place.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Ok, Willy, if you are going to keep spamming
this thread all day long trying to bury me with your continuous sloppy, unproven assertions and straw man arguments and ignorant statements, I will have assume you are a full time troll. I have better things to do with my time than to try to engage someone who is obviously not interested in honest debate. Since you are not willing to stop misrepresenting my arguments or other's arguments, it is a waste of time trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Besides, unlike you, I have to spend most of my days trying to make a living outside the blogsphere, so I can't compete on your level, nor would I want to.
All of your manipulative methods you are using on this thread and all of your false arguments, your refusal to answer questions, your over the top use of ridicule and gratuitous rhetoric are all identical tactics of disinformation agents and trolls. It's like you are doing everything you can to beg me to accuse you of being an agent. Well, Willy. I don't have to at this point, because you essentially identified yourself as one with your behavior on this thread yet again, as you inevitably do.
I answered your questions and quoted DRG on CIT...
and back you are with more ad hominem attacks. and I am the "troll"? I am "begging you" to call me an agent?
do you really think anyone reading this thread actually buys that shit, Keenan?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You're still not making a convincing case
"In fact, most donations from individuals like ourselves will be made with or without that little change."
Not true. Most non-profits know that they will get more donations if they are tax deductible, not just from foundations, but from individuals as well. Of course people who have to pay income taxes would prefer a tax write-off, especially if they are in a higher tax bracket. It's a no-brainer. I don't understand why you would imply that it would make no difference to individuals when there is so much evidence that it DOES make a difference, not just in the amount of money individuals contribute, but even the likelihood that people will donate at all. Also, if an organization qualifies for non-profit status, people tend to believe that the organization is more worthy of asking for money in general. Again, this seems like a no brainer and I don't understand your logic in claiming the opposite.
"Of course it casts suspicion...wasn't it here on this very blog that someone posted an article about Gage going down to that ridiculous meeting of the motivational speakers a couple months ago? Where did they get the money for that?"
I'm not really sure what this proves. Didn't Richard Gage make it quite clear that his trip was paid for by the Wealth Builders group that he was presenting ? Do you have any indication that the Wealth Builders influenced Richard Gage to change his presentation to insert disinformation or compromised his efforts in any way? What's wrong with accepting money from them? A lot of people in this country are involved with multi-level marketing and motivational speakers and see it as an opportunity to become more independently successful at starting their own business, etc. How do you think that the fact that Richard Gage accepted money or donations from this group to give his presentation about controlled demolition and spread the word about 9/11 truth compromised him or A&E911T in any way?
"for that matter, where did they get the money for that 3rd light in New York? You know what it costs to hire union electricians in Manhattan?"
And you think that the fact that they spent money for a 3rd light proves...what exactly? I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that they should not spend any money to get the word out about the 3rd building blown up? Isn't that what an organization like A&E911T is supposed to do - raise money in order to raise mass awareness about 9/11 truth issues? You've really lost me here.
"Had a look at their fundraising donation link on their site recently?
think about it."
And? What's you point?
yes... there IS evidence that it makes a difference...
... that is my point AND it is the point of the article I make reference to. They get more money from wealthy individuals and foundations when they lock in the not-for-profit incorporated status...
now, we can look back in 5 or 6 years and say "ah yes... the influx of money DID have an effect on them" like what has been done with the green movement, and the anti-globalization movement, and the peace movement...
or...
... we can do as I am trying to suggest and push for full disclosure of the financial statements from AE911Truth as we go and hopefully that kind of ongoing oversight might just help keep them from accepting the very foundation money that we know will produce a toxic influence...
all I am suggesting is that since we know the pattern, we keep an eye on it, rather than just pretending everything is going to be ok.
seems rather rational to me.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
So, if there IS evidence that it makes a difference...
then you should be able to point me to the evidence, right? So, for the 3rd time, I'm asking you to point me to the evidence that Richard Gage changed the information he presented or how A&E911T was compromised specifically. If you again just respond with more baseless assertions and just repeat that there is evidence without specifying it, then that will prove that you are engaging in dishonest debate, which says a lot about your agenda.
"They get more money from wealthy individuals and foundations when they lock in the not-for-profit incorporated status..."
All non profits get more money from wealthy individuals. So, are you saying that non profits should not take any money from wealthy individuals? WHere do you draw the line? Is there an income level at which people should be considered legitimate donors below that line, and illegitimate above that line? Or is is the amount of assets people have?
So, where would you draw those lines, Willy? At what income/asset levels should there be a cut off?
Perhaps, since most non profits rely on the good will of wealthy individuals to sustain themselves, should we just eliminate non profits?
When you makes these bald assertions without backing them up and without providing any specifics or evidence, its hard for people to take you seriously.
I thought I was being pretty obvious
"Had a look at their fundraising donation link on their site recently?
think about it."
"And? What's you point?"
My point is that back in the day it would take AE911Truth weeks and weeks to raise $1,300 to send Gage to a speaking engagement. and you knew this because that little donations graphic was up on their site...
these days it seems Gage has all the money he needs to go where ever he needs to go (Jamaca, New York, Penn... ect..) PLUS they have enough money to run the 3rd light thing.
Now I happen to have a little experience in New York events world (7th on 6th, various trade shows, display shops (Lincoln Scenic, New York Displays, Showman Fabricators, Kadan Productions...)so let me give you an idea of what that 3rd light might have cost...
The rental on the light itself probably cost around $4,000-$6,000 for the night. A couple of union electricians to run it and set it up at time and a half to start with... then you got security and set-up for the press conference, then you got hotel and per deum for the AE911Truth group that came over from Cali, god knows what that cost, ...
so what are we talking here? 20k? 30? a year ago they had to scrape together enough money to send Gage to New Mexico and now, out of the blue, they seem to have plenty of money... now that they are a not-for-profit that is.
and then, lets not forget that you can't just walk up to those two lights and shine a flashlight up in the sky without PERMISSION to do so.
How do you think they got that? Ever think about that? The story goes that the p.t.b are doing EVERYTHING they can to keep Americans from thinking about Building 7 AND YET... out of nowhere... they approve a third light on the anniversary of Sept. 11th run by AE911Truth to call attention to Building 7...
You think Mayor Bloomburg let that happen out of the goodness of his heart?
No. The extra money came from someplace and the permission to do that also came from someplace. Given the history of foundational interference with dissent groups, I think it is only wise to maintain a healthy interest in these recent developments.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
that was my coomment above
For some reason the site logged me out while I was typing my comment.
sorry, no glitches...
that I'm aware of...
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
After watching John Bursill
After watching John Bursill comment for at least the past few months I can safely say he is a fucking shill, and a really dumb one at that.
Well, so much for John Bursill being a voice of reason...
On the same day as he is quoted above saying that suggesting Israel's involvement is not racist, John Bursill starts a thread equating "the Jews did 9/11" with "Israel did 9/11", and then taking a page right out of Jon Gold's playbook, asserts that we should let the mainstream media tell us what should be ok to talk about and what should be off limits. Like Jon Gold, Bursill dictates that people must never speak in public the theory that Israel did 9/11:
"WE MUST if we are to prevail over these presstitutes in the MSM be resistant to speaking in public for these two theories in any way shape or form"
The second of the two theories that Bursill is referring to as off limits is the idea of a Northwoods style plane swap, which Bursill equates to the "no-planes" theory.
Someone asked on this site recently, "Who is John Bursill?" I guess you have your answer now. John Bursill is someone who, like Jon Gold, cares more about PR than the truth, and believes that the mainstream media should dictate to the truth movement what theories are acceptable. So yea, I agree with the above commenter that John Bursill is a fucking shill.
but...
...he sounds so reasonable!! :(
John Bursill - not a man of his word
If he's not a paid shill, he might as well be. He's clearly a member of the PR movement rather than the truth movement.
For those who don't remember (and John is obviously hoping we'll all forget), Bursill debated
Craig Ranke last winter, in what ended up being 2.5 hours. Bursill
clearly "lost" the debate and even conceded this himself. Here are his most important concessions.
I'll refrain from pasting all that onto this post but you can go to the link. Bursill clearly states that he will stop attacking CIT and their evidence. Has he done that? No. To the contrary, he's taking every opportunity to question the credibility of anyone who supports them, like Dwain Deets and Barrie Zwicker, whose endorsement he called "disappointing and alarming." He refers to the evidence as a "fringe theory" and that "CIT are gone for good reason."
I can only conclude that his similar attacks on the Pilots organization is just as unwarranted.
So Bursill either has a very short memory, has some serious ego problems, or is a textbook example of Cointelpro Down Under.
Bursill only appears to have
Bursill only appears to have been on board with 9/11 truth for only the last few years. In a similar vein to the protaganists in his clique, he has become a self styled Guru on what is & isn't disinformation.
This way you become a prominent leader in the movement, without having to do any research, you just slag off the work of other researchers who are not part of your own disinfo program.
IMHO he was set up as the down under leader, to herd 9/11 truthers away from the research of Aussie 9/11 research genius Gerard Holmgren.
http://www.911closeup.com/
One of Bursill's claim to fame is that 9/11 victim Albert Dominguez killed on AA11, was a former work colleague of his.
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=15248&postcount=20
This then debunks Holmgren's brilliant early ground breaking 9/11 research, of discovering that AA11 never took off that day.
Holmgren? Wasn't he a no planer?
"Aussie 9/11 research genius Gerard Holmgren"
If Holmgren subscribed to no planes at the WTC, I certainly wouldn't classify him as a "genius".
"IMHO he was set up as the down under leader, to herd 9/11 truthers away from the research of Aussie 9/11 research genius Gerard Holmgren."
I would say that it is more likely that Holmgren served the purpose of making John Bursill look reasonable in comparison to Holmgren's blatant no-plane disinfo, so that people would be drawn into Bursill's eventual subtle disinfo trap in which the full truth about 9/11 would be covered up, such as the fact that Israel was a primary culprit, and that the 4 flights were most likely plane-swapped - Northwoods style - which means that it is highly dubious that there were any genuine passenger plane victims - and of course totally demolishes the idea of any hijackings by "Muslim extremists". These aspects of the OCT are the ones that Bursill seems so desperate to prop up right now.
"One of Bursill's claim to fame is that 9/11 victim Albert Dominguez killed on AA11, was a former work colleague of his."
It's interesting that both Cosmos and Bursill, who are both fake truthers in my book, claim to be related/friends with the category of 9/11 victims who are the most likely to be non-existent - those of the alleged 4 passenger planes, none of which likely crashed into any of the buildings that day, nor the 10 foot hole in the ground in PA.
"This then debunks Holmgren's brilliant early ground breaking 9/11 research, of discovering that AA11 never took off that day."
Good point. What was the evidence for that claim? I sort of remember that the FAA database showed that AA77 and AA11 were not listed as having taken off that day. Is there any more info on this?
It's similar to how Cosmos claiming to know UA93 alleged victim "Mickey" supposedly debunks the research that points to the fact that the UA93 hero story was a fairy tale made out of whole cloth and that if UA93 even existed at all, it was plane-swapped.
Holmgren was the first to
Holmgren was the first to research the NBTS database, & discover that AA11 & AA77 were never scheduled to fly that day.
I've just revisited Holmgren's site, & discovered that he did a hit piece on Hoffman, this could explain the emergence of Bursill.
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=74
Eventually you are going to have to conclude that the 2nd hit videos are out & out fakes.
There are at least 43 catalogued videos of the 2nd hit...
making it extremely unlikely imo that all the videos could be fakes. I just can't fathom that it would be possible to have such control over all those videos, particularly the ones recorded by non MSM individuals. There is a youtube video containing all the catalogued clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk
Full Quality Video: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8SUE9579
I'm willing to consider that *some* MSM videos could have been manipulated, primarily for the purpose of hiding evidence of a different plane that was swapped in for the original commercial 767 aircraft.
Both PFT and Dwain Deets - former NASA aeronautical engineer - discuss the fact that the official reported speed of the 2nd plane was about 100 Knots over its "dive speed red line". Dwain Deets said a couple of days ago on 911B:
If the plane that actually hit the tower was not the original 767-200 and was either was a modified 767 to fly faster, or a different plane altogether than a 767, then that could possibly be a reason for manipulating some of the higher-res MSM video.
Aidan Monaghan had some interesting comments about the issue today on 911B:
I'm still trying to decipher what Aidan meant exactly by that last statement.
What happened to the planes
What happened to the planes then ? They just don't disappear inside buildings.
The Michael Hezakhani footage used by the MSM to bombard our screens with, shows UA175 entering WTC2 without any deceleration.
kthxbai
thanks for playing.
ATTENTION SHILLS!
The whole "enemy of my enemy *must* be my friend" bit is getting really old. The fake truth movement is made up of the "good guys" and the "bad guys". The former push LIHOP and "don't mention Israel" and the latter act like idiots in the process of criticizing them. This has become rather painfully obvious at this point, which is very helpful as we compile our evidence for posterity.
I looked at the Michael
I looked at the Michael Hezakhani footage again just for the sake of it, and I cant see anything fishy in it myself.
Tried a couple of sites trying to prove fakery but I dont buy it on what I have seen (yet).
It is worrying that Dwain Deets seems to be suggesting fake videos, tho 911 blogger comments seem to be on top of it.
I wonder if this is the new CIT, creating a huge noise for ages deflecting attention from the less contentious evidence.
(Not that I am saying CIT are wrong, just that a prolonged voluminous disagreement will impregnate every thread as a distraction), tho maybe Ahmadinejad credibility and holocaust discussions have taken the place instead. I noticed he linked to 911truth org from Al Jazeera. (Blogger seem to be put out}
Havent spent much time there myself, are they any more credible than blogger?
nope
they are not. it's all one big happy ostensibly diverse family. i woulda pegged him for more of a Prothink type tho... :)
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
Interesting that 911B
Interesting that 911B doesn't see fit (until further notice) to disseminate big 911 developments like these,
USrael walks out as Ahmadinejad speaks 9/11 Truth at UN,
link
Dr. Alan Sabrosky on Iranian TV: Mossad was behind 9/11
link
Countdown to the banning of LV911TRUTH...
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-23/ahmadinejad-tells-un-most-blame-us...
Indeed, there is not a single event in human history that doesn't deserve to be analyzed and questioned.
Lesbians and Vampires...
...for 9/11 Truth? What is this movement I BUILT coming to? You know what? I QUIT. And if anyone ASKS who they can BLAME for the loss of our cause you can tell THEM it was Nosferatruth and the other retardos [AT] le911vamp.com!!
It's "lesbian vampires"
Not lesbians AND vampires. A minority within a minority, to be sure -- but we must celebrate ALL voices for truth.
oh shit
my bad, yeah, you know i'm like totally inclusive and shit... family guy posted that using my account by mistake...worst fucking roommate...
Spot-on comment by Robby B
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-23/ahmadinejad-tells-un-most-blame-us...
If you go through the litany of Ahmadinejad speeches,the man loves to talk,you will find no reference to him denying that Jews were killed en masse by the Nazi's.He has accepted this,as a fact,many many times.As for the conference it was no more than a publicity stunt to emphasize that,in Iran,you can discuss anything,including views casting doubt on the Holocaust,something that cannot be done in Europe.There were, in fact, many Jews at the conference.What Ahmadinejad's three points of issue,regarding the Holocaust, are,indeed, valid points..
1, 98% of those killed during WW2 were civilians,why do the Jews get their very own word for their suffering when so many people all over Europe also suffered,from all religions and creeds.
2,Why is this issue closed to debate when no issue should ever be closed to scrutiny.Why is it criminal to do your own research,reach your own conclusions and voice those conclusions openly and freely.
3,What does the Holocaust have to do with Palestinians?.The Holocaust happened over 60 years ago,yet Palestinians are suffering right now,TODAY!.
Do you know something that nobody else knows,that Ahmadinejad thinks the Jews did 9/11,from where did you pull this statement,other than out of thin air.
I have read every word Ahmadinejad has ever spoken and cannot help agreeing with him on many issues.He uses words in their purest of forms and not the bastardized versions of those words,for example,MYTH! does not have to mean something that did not happen.The use of the word myth,in the context he used it,is that the justification for the creation of Israel,based on the Holocaust is,in fact, the myth,because there is no justification for usurping other peoples land.The "Wipe off the map" quote,bandied about by lying, Zionist propagandist,s was never even said.yet not a day goes by without this canard being repeated by some lackey.
The last,ad the most ridiculous point you raised is that Ahmadinejad,who has no control over Iran's military,nuclear programme or even police force is a dictator.How you can reach that conclusion when he has only token jurasdiction over Irans policies, this is simply an absurd assumption.
That you are allowed to post propaganda on this site is the real shame and the real reason 9/11 truth has been stymied for 9 years.To be honest I am sick of Jews throwing the holocaust card around and stifling the life out of any debate,including 9/11,and I am sick of the tactics used to achieve that feat,your post shows exactly what I mean.
Ahmadinejad does not hate Jews but he despises colonialist usurpers,war mongers and Imperialists,he hates double standards and liars,he hates capitalism and globalization and he stands up and actually says it out loud.Good on him and shame on you for parroting MSM nonsense and not doing your own research.Don,t think it has not been noted how you and John Parulis,with your 16 posts,tried to drive this debate into the gutter,how very predictable.
Submitted by ROBBY B on Sat, 09/25/2010 - 5:06am
...
Gret, feel free to shrink my pic down to 120x120.
140
is more or less the standard, sorry. :)
there is a surprisingly balanced discussion going on
in that thread--glad to see it. I really do believe that since real truthers increasingly outnumber fake ones, the truth really will out.