CIT Redux on the Amazon Forums

gretavo's picture

RT says:
Absolutely, peer review means less and less--see here: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3318

The problems I have with the nanothermite paper are that while the red/grey chips found in some dust samples may well be nanothermite, one must trust the person who collected the samples, Steven Jones, to not have spiked them. Jones is problematic (despite having been right about most things in his 2005 paper) for various reasons that I won't go into here but in addition, it doesn't seem that anything more than ordinary thermite or thermate and conventional military grade explosives need have been used. More here: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3076

As for Jon Gold and his book, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is not a real 9/11 truther but someone who pretends to be one so as to sow dissent in the truth movement by raising ill-conceived objections to proper lines of research like the explosive demolition of the WTC and evidence of Zionist authorship of the plot and promoting groundless theories such as that which says that Bush allowed al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11. His motto could be "9/11: Blame Bush and al Qaeda, not Zionists"

More on the phenomenon of "fake truthers" here: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1199

The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

In reply to your post on Apr 6, 2012 8:01:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 8:04:58 PM PDT
Bodhi Gaia says:
RT, doubtless you are correct about the "fake truthers." The problem is, for years now, many Truthers have all-too-readily accused anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of events as a spy, an agent, a fake, etc. This tendency to immediately condemn as inauthentic anyone who disagrees with you is most unfortunate. It essentially does the plotters' work for them: the movement becomes divided and ineffectual due to internecine squabbling.

Personally I have been very reluctant to call anyone such names. I made an exception with Judy Wood and Fetzer, who broke up Scholars for 9/11 Truth with their stupid hijinks and baseless theories. Fetzer I'm still not sure about--Kevin Barrett is still friends with him, and Barrett has in my view unimpeachable integrity on 911, although I'm sure *some* Truthers are convinced he is an "agent." But Barrett admits he has differences of opinion with Fetzer on 911.

As I recall Jim Hoffman was the first to condemn those who said no plane hit the Pentagon. Not sure he condemned anyone personally but he said it was disinformation, implying that anyone believing it is a dupe or an agent. I thought that was very unfortunate. Then the folks at 911blogger did the same, and even kicked a bunch of people off the site for pursuing the no plane hit the Pentagon line of inquiry.

So I don't think trying to identify and catalog "fake truthers" is such a good idea. It is just more divisiveness and there is no way you, me, or anyone else can tell who is a govt. agent and who is not. This tendency to accuse those who disagree with us of being agents is one of the most immature, foolish, and downright idiotic penchants within the movement. To newcomers to 911 truth information, it makes us look like a bunch of juvenile misfits. Scholars for 911 Truth had the right idea: you base your theories on evidence, and you don't promote speculative stuff without evidence to back it up. You don't waste time criticizing people like Wood, you just show why their theories are not credible and why yours are. David Ray Griffin exemplifies this. He consistently stays out of these moronic epithet-hurling contests and just methodically lays out the evidence again and again and again.

You've got to hand it to the spooks, the govt. disinfo specialists. They know what they're doing. They've sidelined this movement, with a lot of help from ego-driven people who are determined to have the One Right and True interpretation of the events of 911 and damn as heretics all who disagree.

PS. - The focus should always remain on the EVIDENCE, and not on the people presenting information. The more the focus shifts to the people and away from the evidence, the more discussions become ad hominem-based and therefore fallacious.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 4:06:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2012 6:33:20 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
Hi Bodhi Gaia,

That was a very level-headed and well thought out comment. Thank you.

It is, of course, a no-brainer that "fake truthers" will be sent in by the PTB in order to sow division and "cognitive diversity." Not only were the peace groups of the '60's heavily infiltrated, but an Obama official in 2008 wrote a paper openly calling for "cognitive infiltration" of the 9/11 truth movement. Of course, it's not as if the movement wasn't infiltrated until 2008; clearly it was from the get go.

However, shy of seeing a pay stub from a govt agency (or PR firm) to a particular individual, we can never know for sure who is and who isn't an infiltrator, and focusing way too much energy on such things only distracts from getting our evidence out to the public. The media isn't helping, so we have to do it ourselves which means we have a lot of work left to do.

I used to post at the site owned by "RT" or "gretavo." For awhile, I really appreciated when he called others out on BS. For awhile, I agreed with him on his assessments on who's legit and who's fake. Over time though, he seemed to get increasingly paranoid, to the point where he started labeling myself and even Kevin Barrett as "fake truthers." Indeed, by declaring himself a "real truther" and then pointing the finger at so many people as being fakes, he only raises suspicions about himself in the eyes of others. When a person does that much finger pointing, maybe it's time to look at the person pointing the finger.

With regard to your "PS. - The focus should always remain on the EVIDENCE, and not on the people presenting information." I generally tend to agree with this, BUT... in the case of 911blogger, the issue was not merely disagreements of opinion. If someone says to me: "I've looked at all sides and I think a plane may well have hit the Pentagon." That's fine with me. Let's focus on what we can agree on. However, as you acknowledge yourself, the real issue was the fact that 911blogger was the most heavily trafficked 9/11 truth specific site (in that it did not, with rare exceptions, veer off into other conspiracies), and that the people controlling it were using Gestapo-like tactics to silence the excellent and admirable voices of many hard working activists, simply because those activists did not tow the editorial line on one specific issue. When editors of a 9/11 truth site start behaving very much like anti-truthers, they should be spotlighted and denounced. The following two links do this:

http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/10/911bloggercom-accused-is-leadin...

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/largest-911-site-condemn...

Regarding Jim Hoffman: Yes, he most definitely has condemned several well meaning activists personally. I used to fall for his schtick of being a "responsible truther" who sees it as his duty to take extra care to weed out the bad information before the anti-truthers do it for us and embarrass/discredit us in the process. However, I started getting an uneasy feeling about him when I saw him trying to steer people away from some of the most viral 9/11 documentaries. For example, Dave VonKleist's first film "In Plane Site" was, in many sections, sloppily done. However, I never for one second have believed VonKleist to be a con artist. But here is what Jim Hoffman says:

"In Plane Site, a production of The Power Hour, features Dave Von Kleist sitting in front of a wall of computer monitors and pretending to expose shocking anomalies in footage from the day of the attack." 911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#ips

No, Mr. Hoffman, VonKleist is not "pretending" to do anything. I think, like many of us, he was less discerning during the early years of 9/11 truth and made an imperfect film (though it was the film that tipped me over the edge and made me an activist).

But the above is nothing compared to the way he slimes anyone who subscribes to to conclusion that a large airplane approached the Pentagon but did not hit. He says that anyone who could believe that theory MUST be high on crack.

"Critiquing PentaCon, Smoking Crack Version." (The second edition of PentaCon had the subtitle "Smoking gun version.") There is an asterisk which, when clicked on, takes us to the following footnote:

"The level of disconnection from the reality of the situation needed to take the flyover seriously is such that, perhaps a more fitting title for a detailed defense of the flyover theory would be: 'PentaCon (Smoking Wack Version)' -- a reference to the dissociative drug PCP (Phencyclidine)." - by Jim Hoffman.

911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html#foot

Another thing to note about Hoffman in particular is his timing: he puts out his attack pieces almost immediately after a documentary like PentaCon gets released to critical acclaim. Hoffman's actions represent a desperate effort to steer people away from looking at our most damning evidence under the guise of "You don't need to waste your time watching this. We've done it for you, and debunked it all." He did this when "In Plane Site" came out, he did it when "Loose Change" came out, he did it when "PentaCon" came out, and he did it when "National Security Alert" came out. IMO, this is the role of a disinformant, and I am at a point in my truthing evolution where I regard Hoffman and his wife Victoria Ashley to be as "obvious" disinfo agents as Wood, Fetzer and Reynolds. I have observed their actions closely through the years and feel secure enough in this position to voice it publicly. Wood promotes a clearly absurd theory which challenges the official story, while Hoffman props up clearly absurd aspects of the official story. Just opposite sides of the spectrum, that's all, and they serve to function together, hand in hand.

I've gotta hand it to Hoffman; he had me fooled for years with his "responsible truther" mask. (Between 2005 and 2009 I promoted his site many times.) Eventually though, the mask didn't just slip, it downright fell off.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 8:57:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 8:58:54 AM PDT
Pierre Adler says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]
I am withdrawing my favorable vote for Kameelyun' review, as I no longer want to be associated with his relentless nonsense -- particularly, his fanatical and irrational defense of the no-Boeing-757-hit-the-Pentagon thesis and his attitude towards the nanothermite paper. See, for example, his remarks about Dr. Frank Legge in the exchanges above, which are appalling.

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2012 2:44:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 3, 2012 2:44:57 AM PDT
Adam Ruff says:
Perhaps rather than being concerned about how Kameelyun said what he did you should be more concerned about if his words are true or not.

In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2012 4:01:47 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
LOL Pierre Adler. It is Frank Legge's "fanatical and irrational defense" of the official plane crash claim that is appalling, along with his disinformation buddy Warren Stutt.

Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=fin...

Vertical and Lateral Acceleration do not shows signs of "impact", proving Longitudinal Deceleration was not due to "impact" as speculated by Legge/Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=fin...

Warren Stutt's admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21131&view=fin...

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s&showtopic=20999&view=find...

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s&showtopic=20960&view=find...

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=fin...

More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18239&view=fin...

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=fin...

Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=fin...

A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

Warren Stutt Refuses to Address the tough questions
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21025&view=fin...

Legge/Stutt Admit to Leaving Erroneous References in their paper as a "Honey Pot" trap for readers
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21569&view=fin...

CIT Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21054

Posted on May 15, 2012 10:29:13 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
Hi Jon!

Re Cosmos, you said:

"And it was pointed out to you that many people have "Aunts" and "Uncles" in their lives that aren't really blood related, but are considered family members. Everyone who knows Cosmos knows how Mickey was "related" to him. Why anyone would try and slander someone that lost someone on 9/11, I'll never know. You made an issue out of a non-issue in an effort to discredit one of the best activists for this cause."

Guess what Jon? I did a little following up and it turns out that Cosmos wasn't even a family friend! The widow of "Uncle Mickey," Meredith Rothenberg, has never heard of him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE8oPaqaQ78

"Cosmos" is as fraudulent as "Tania Head, 9/11 survivor." Google her if you're not familiar. She claimed to have been a survivor of the South Tower, had a fiance/husband (story fluctuated) who died in the North Tower, and she became chairwoman of a survivors' network. The man who she claimed to be her fiance/husband ***really did exist,*** but after his family was contacted, they said they'd never heard of "Tania Head." Obviously, if they were as close as fiancees, they would have heard of her, just like Meredith Rothenberg would have heard of "family friend" Cosmos.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 8:15:53 PM PDT
RT says:
Thanks for the thoughtful response, BG. I have to say first that the problem I have with the nanothermite evidence has to do with the provenance of the samples. We simply cannot stake the credibility of the movement on the credibility of one man, Steven Jones, who has credibility issues to begin with (chief among them I would say is his published work purporting to find evidence in pre-Columbian art of Jesus visiting the Americas, titled "behold my hands".) The question isn't so much whether Jones *did* spike the samples that he collected from four different sources, it is whether he *could* have. And the answer is of course yes.

In contrast, we have the indisputable analyses of David Chandler that prove beyond question that planes and fires did not cause a "gravitational progressive collapse." While the self-styled movement leader Jon Gold truly doesn't seem to have the requisite intelligence or education to understand why Chandler's evidence is indisputable (why he insists on referring to demolition "theories") it seems apparent that even if he did understand, he would still be encouraging people not to focus on it in favor of leading them through convoluted theories of collusion between Bush and al Qaeda that preserve the centrality of Arab/Muslim terrorists in the 9/11 narrative (which is more than anything else the 'tell' that he is despite his denials, acting in the interests of Zionism.

After as many years of involvement with the truth movement as Jon Gold, but having begun the journey not as a flag-waving, Fox News watching oaf but as a liberal who found the national response to 9/11 sickening, I have come to the conclusion that by the time most honest people realized we'd been lied to, the fake truth movement had been going strong for some time given that it had to have been planned for in advance by the perpetrators. Over time, however, honest people did find their way into the movement, and as David Griffin, David Chandler, Peter Dale Scott, Jonathan Cole, and others with whom I may not always agree but consider beyond suspicion have proven, have done the most to advance the cause despite their having to contend with the BS and duplicitous personalities that at times seem to outnumber the honest folks. David Chandler, for example, has stated that it was CIT and its supporters that pushed him firmly into the camp of those who believe a large jetliner caused the damage to the Pentagon. While I disagree, I should note that I had long before dismissed CIT myself as likely saboteurs, one of the reasons that Kameelyun ceased to post at my site WTCdemolition.com (if I remember correctly he took issue with my saying that I did not trust anyone, who like him, defended CIT's heavy-handed approach.)

Incidentally, I did publish a blog post on how to deal with the fact that we know the truth movement must be infiltrated: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2884 An excerpt:

In the spirit of brainstorming, here are some thoughts off the top of my head, which I hope might encourage discussion and creative thinking on the problem.

1) accept that infiltration is a reality and that we will not eliminate all traces of it, ever.

2) strive to provide to the interested researcher as complete an account as possible of the various positions on each subject. We need not hide the fact that some people claim to believe that no planes hit the twin towers. It is a fact that some people do. We need not hide the fact that there are people who act like genuine bigots and advocate certain positions like ZIHOP. It is a fact. Instead of pretending these things don't exist, or misrepresenting them, we should welcome and encourage interested parties to consider the arguments and decide for themselves what to think. For example, I will gladly provide links to anyone who wonders why we don't welcome "no planes at the WTC" advocates on WTCD. I will direct them to Killtown, Nico Haupt, whomever. Let their arguments convince or fail to convince on their genuine merits (if any.) As a counterpoint, consider how truthaction and 911blogger (one and the same controllers) treat WTCD. If its existence is even acknowledged, our positions are distorted, our characters assassinated, and our quotes carefully cherry picked to bias people against us right off the bat. Why wouldn't they just say that "we strongly disagree with these people and their approach to 9/11 truth. Here is a link to their site--judge for yourself."

In reply to your post on May 30, 2012 2:27:58 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
I was one of many people (another being Adam Ruff who is also participating in this thread) who was less than impressed by the way RT treated the NoC* evidence at WTCDemolition.com. And yes, back when RT and I were buddy buddy on facebook, he said to me: "Adam to be perfectly frank I assume everyone's an agent." If that is not a verbatim quote it is extremely close.

In this sense, RT is at the polar end of the spectrum. But I prefer this end to the far opposite end. By this I mean that RT is the polar opposite of 911blogger moderator "LeftWright," one person on the blogger team who I don't think is an agent but I think was recruited to the team by the infiltrators (loose nuke and justin keogh in my estimation) because he's so street naive, like the golden retriever who wants more than anything to be friends with every person in the room. LeftWright, along with ivory tower figures like Gage, DRG and his literary assistant Elizabeth Woodworth (with whom I've exchanged many an email), seems to have fallen into this trap that because someone claims to be a "truther" and "proves" it by promoting controlled demolition re the WTC, and particularly if they've met the individual and evaluate the individual as being a "nice person," that this means that there's no way they could be infiltrators. Gage is particularly prone to this, which is why I'm positive that AE911Truth was infiltrated from the get go by volunteers pretending to be his "friend." Adam Ruff reports that for quite awhile, Brian Good actually shared an office and had a desk on the opposite side of the room from Gage. (Imagine having that guy in your ear day in, day out!) And of course, when the Rock Creek Free Press accused 911blogger of working for the other side, it was LeftWright, and only LeftWright, who in the comments section at blogger, spoke in defense of 911blogger, and he could surely dismiss in his own mind the possibility that blogger could be controlled by operatives, because he was invited to be a moderator and knows that he himself is not an op. The other moderators responded with silence, but there was LeftWright, discrediting himself in the eyes of observant truthers, when he defended the others and expressed with absolute certainty that his fellow moderators were genuine activists with nothing but the best of intentions for the movement.

However, I believe that RT's default position of "everyone" being suspect is also extremely counterproductive. Myself and a number of others left his WTCDemolition.com blog because we felt that RT was adding to the fog of propaganda and confusion re the Pentagon issue. While RT's blog doesn't have a comment vote function, and while he didn't ban CIT supporters who were posting there, he actually fed right into the 911blogger/truthaction playbook by focusing on the personalities of the investigators within CIT, and their aggressive approach at promoting their evidence (which includes staunchy promoting the conclusion to where that evidence leads), rather than the evidence itself. RT fostered the hypothetical notion that the CIT guys might be plants purely because of personality related issues (as opposed to the quality of evidence being promoted), and also flirted with the notion that the eyewitnesses to the flight path might be all mistaken/fake/lying/in collusion with CIT as part of a massive "disinfo op." This is little different than what the shills at 911blogger were suggesting.

RT advertised his blog as a place to serve as an antidote to the disinformation being spread by fake truthers based at 911blogger and truthaction. Therefore, a number of us found it both perplexing and disappointing -- dare I say unacceptable -- for RT to do exactly what the fake truthers do to CIT, and what MSM shills will do to truthers in general: focusing on the messenger rather than the message. (Like when an MSM shill spotlights two obnoxious WeAreChange people heckling someone's speech.) As much as RT claims to be a "real truther" (hence his Amazon ID), he could never bring himself to say: "Yes, I agree, this NoC* testimony is extremely highly corroborated, and I agree that yes, given the damage path to the light poles and the building, it seems clear that the damage was staged and that the plane continued on past the building. Congratulations, Craig and Aldo, for solving the mystery as to what really happened there and uncovering such a clear cut smoking gun that proves a MIHOP level staged deception every bit as much as the WTC! The movement is forever in your debt!"

Many of us do see the NoC testimonies to be as compelling as the admitted 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall of WTC7. While there were people like Jim Hoffman who were advocating for a plane crash at the Pentagon long before CIT came onto the scene, it was with the NoC evidence that the shills really went into hyperdrive, flooding the email inboxes of all the individuals who endorsed the National Security Alert presentation, pressuring them to retract and insisting that such an endorsement hurts the movement. I think that the perpetrators of this event were more than happy to see the movement settle for the notion that while it doesn't appear a plane hit, we nonetheless don't *know* what happened there, a mystery wrapped in an enigma. The perps were more than happy to watch the truthers chase the non-existent bread crumbs in favor of a missile, or a global hawk or an A3 skywarrior. Then, the perps got caught off guard: two ordinary citizen detectives came out of nowhere, and uncovered the NoC testimonies, and these testimonies could not be refuted. Therefore, the MO was to focus on any indiscretions of civility on the part of CIT.

The fake truthers have now closed in on WTC controlled demolition more recently. The people who used to attack CIT are now at it with Mr. Gage:

"But I just wanted to point out that this is not occurring in a vacuum. The Charlatan Gage is making a living off of BS. Speaking engagements for the functionally insane pays the bills.

"And we're supposed to *thank him* for his selfless duty to the cause."

-Pentagon planecrash-hugger Zombie Bill Hicks, http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50186#50186

Here is Pentagon planecrash-hugger "SnowCrash," who other anti-CIT buddies Frank Legge, Jon Cole and David Chandler cite as a legitimate authority on the issue of what really happened at the Pentagon:

"Wait, last I checked, weren't you still defending Richard Gage?

Like I said, you're one miserable troll, Brian."

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50213#50213

More from Snowcrack:

"Correct, you're still letting Richard Gage BS you.

"Besides, you were vociferously defending CD, making a laundry list of embarrassing logical and scientific mistakes (adding the Pentagon very recently, and now you're antagonizing even more people who can think straight and appreciate honesty) for which you were called out repeatedly and you persisted... because you're a miserable troll and a lying POS.

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50215#50215

And finally, here is our friend Jon Gold:

"Here's a little something for Richard and his friends (and feel free to post this on 911blogger.com). When the September Eleventh Advocates endorsed your organization, that wasn't a means for you to bring in income to your organization. It was an honor, and one that should NEVER have been taken lightly. Your actions over the years have been insulting and an embarrassment. Shame on you. Keep on dragging them through the mud."

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48303#48303

I could provide many more similar examples from this crew; after going after the NoC* evidence, the same cast of characters is going after Gage and AE in particular, and notion of controlled demolition in general. The JREFers and the fake truthers are coming together like the humans and the pigs in Animal Farm.

*NoC = North of the Citgo gas station

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 6:52:49 PM PDT
Last edited by you 8 hours ago
RT says:
For the record, no one was ever blocked from my site for having a difference of opinion with me. The only times I have blocked people is when they proceeded, after fair warning, to post material that I considered damaging to the credibility of the truth movement. CIT and their "North of Citgo" evidence were discussed at WTCdemolition some time ago, yes. As I recall, my position was then and still is that all we can say with certainty about the Pentagon is that something exploded there. As soon as we begin examining the testimony of eyewitnesses we find that their accounts vary wildly. This includes the witnesses interviewed by CIT. I am not a mind reader nor do I possess any special powers of divination that would give me a clue as to who in all of this is lying about what they saw. Neither, should I say, does Kameelyun, Frank Legge, the Davids (Ray Griffin and Chandler) or the truth movement's undisputed king of BS Jon Gold. I am of the mind that it is not up to us to prove that a plane was or was not involved in the explosion at the Pentagon, it's up to those (the government) who claim that AA77 flew into it to prove their case and they most certainly have not. Those who genuinely care about exposing the 9/11 cover-up can do nothing better than, in their public outreach, stick to iron-clad facts such as those exposed by David Chandler's analysis. Buildings do not lie, but people do. People's memories about traumatic events, moreover, can be flawed, but the laws of physics can be counted on without reservation or qualification (anyone who brings up quantum uncertainty at this point will be awarded Pedant of the Year, btw!) My position, to be clear, is not that I have hard evidence that anyone is or is not an infiltrator or agent, but that we should not at this point in the game be surprised that many individuals involved in the 9/11 truth movement most definitely are. As such, we cannot accept as definitive proof *anyone's* testimony, no matter how many people corroborate it with their own matching version, or take anyone who claims to be sincere in their quest to learn and expose the truth about 9/11 at their word. For this some regard me as paranoid, but I really can't see that I am using anything but common sense. I am committed to open and honest discussion about everything related to 9/11, including our perception of who is a genuine truthseeker and who isn't. What seems to bother people the most about my approach is that I refuse steadfastly to fall in with any camp or clique (I have alienated everyone from Jon Gold to Christopher Bollyn to Killtown to CIT.) Is this, I wonder, because by refusing to accept that if one person is wrong everyone who disagrees with them is right I throw a small wrench into the mechanism that would divide us up into mutually destructive factions? Because I don't buy into the logic that says if David Chandler decides, after witnessing the appalling rhetorical tactics of CIT supporters firsthand, that a plane probably did hit the Pentagon, I and others should dismiss him as a plant, or a dupe? Because, in other words, I am intelligent and self-assured enough to come to my own conclusions and defend them even if it makes me unpopular? What I see is that many of us disagree on an important and arguably marginal issue, and I as an honest truthseeker can and must promote the work that I find to be logically and factually sound and argue my case when I find something not to be so. It's a shame, and not, I think, accidental that so much energy is wasted and fruitful cooperation made impossible by endless debate about that which is, at the moment, unprovable.

In reply to your post on May 30, 2012 7:58:50 PM PDT
Adam Ruff says:
Sounds like a flimsy argument against CIT's North of Citgo evidence RT. You must be looking at a whole different set of witness statements then I am because they are ALL in agreement that the plane flew north of the Citgo station. If you don't want to face the implications of that fact that is your issue to deal with.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 3:12:28 AM PDT
Last edited by you 2 minutes ago
RT says:
My point about the eyewitnesses having wildly different accounts was not arguing that the CIT witnesses contradicted each other but that at least as many witnesses' claims contradict theirs and another few dozen contradict all the rest. You ascribe to CIT and their witnesses ultimate credibility--I don't. I have many other reasons for being skeptical of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon for me to worry about whether CIT witnesses are more honest or reliable than any of the rest. Your line about me not wanting to "face the implications" of an unprovable fact is what I remember best about the whole CIT debate--it's the one talking point you (CIT promoters) all use most consistently, and probably the main reason you have alienated so many people. I did and still do believe that it's useful testimony, especially since it was so thoroughly documented, because such testimony will be useful in a real investigation and trial. What I do not accept as you insist everyone must is that it is indisputable, irrefutable, and 100% accurate and conclusive. This is the take home message here--honest people do not berate others (especially those in a movement comprised of skeptics) for not falling in line behind a proposition that is not in fact indisputable. If you had videos from various sources that all showed a plane on the path the CIT witnesses describe it would be a whole other ballgame. Trying to deny the flight path then would be like trying to deny that building 7 was in freefall for 2.25 seconds. People acting as if the two propositions are equally sound instantly diminishes their credibility in my view. As much as insisting that because the 4 dust samples that went through Steven Jones' hands contained nanothermite chips, all the WTC dust necessarily contains such chips and therefore nanothermite was used to destroy the towers. It seems that the quickest way to make enemies among a certain class of truther is to question people's honesty. No no, that sows division and mistrust, we're told! You're too paranoid they say! I can't speak for anyone else but the one thing that 9/11 taught me is that coordinated lying about important subjects is much more common than I could ever have dreamed. In such a climate we must seek out TRULY indisputable facts and cling to them for dear life--use them as our guiding lights, if you will, and judge things and people accordingly. CIT and their supporters fail that litmus test miserably.
Edit this post | Permalink

In reply to your post on May 31, 2012 4:09:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 12 hours ago
Adam Ruff says: I would be very interested to see these witnesses who contradict the north of Citgo approach RT. Very interested indeed. In fact show me one witness in a position to see the Citgo station who says it was on the south side. Just one RT. You claimed (falsely I might add) above that "at least as many witnesses' claims contradict theirs". If that is true you should be able to produce at least 13 witnesses who claim they saw the plane on the south side. I will settle for one. Until you produce such a South of Citgo witness I will continue to think of you as dishonest. In other words you are not a real truther. P.S. Don't think all the other subtle distortions and deceptions in your statement above escaped my attention. I just don't need to go into those because with this one single point I have shown you are dishonest. One cannot be dishonest AND a real truther at the same time.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 4:35:42 AM PDT
RT says: As your own claims make clear, any witnesses who say they saw the plane hit the light poles contradict the North of Citgo flight path witnesses. I'm guessing readers have more than enough here to decide for themselves who is honest and who isn't. For you to suggest that those accounts do not contradict the CIT witnesses' is by your own logic absurd. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about your efforts is how successful you were in pushing an honest and valuable researcher like David Chandler into a relationship (of sorts) with the obvious disinformation artist Jeffrey "Shure" Hill. I withhold my congratulations however because I have faith in good people eventually coming to the correct conclusions despite the best efforts of the 9/11 cover-up BS artists such as yourself.

In reply to your post on May 31, 2012 3:01:35 PM PDT
Adam Ruff says: So no south of citgo witnesses then RT? not even one out of the 13+ you claim exist? So your current dodge is to say that light pole downing witnesses contradict the NOC witnesses. OK I'll bite. I agree with you that light pole downing witnesses do contradict the NOC witnesses. So let's see these light pole downing witnesses you are talking about. I find it interesting that since you cannot come up with a single witness who saw the plane SOC that your claim has now morphed to "light pole downing witnesses". That aside, let's see these witnesses RT. Links please. As for Chandler embracing Jeff Hill, that was all his own doing RT. Your whole meme here about how CIT supporters pushed Chandler into a relationship with disinformationists is laughable and pathetic. Chandler laid down with dogs and came up with flees and he did it all by himself. CIT's refutation of his sloppy, illogical, misinformation filled, paper on the pentagon was so complete and so potent that Chandler lost any credibility capitol he still had. BTW Chandler's contribution to the truth movement was not as significant as you think. He basically did a frame by frame analysis of WTC 7's demolition and proved it fell at free fall speed. Commendable yes, I am glad he took the time to do that however ALL truthers knew and were saying WTC 7 came down at free fall speed for years prior to Chandler even becoming interested in the subject. WTC 7 came down at free fall speed, DUH, we all knew that, so it wasn't some big revelation when he backed up the obvious with his analysis. Far too much credit has been given to him for essentially proving the obvious. Chandler refuses to debate CIT by the way so that in itself speaks volumes. Don't forget to show us all those light pole downing witnesses RT.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 4:45:52 PM PDT
RT says: First things first, Adam--please learn to write, and especially spell, properly. It is particularly painful to watch you mangle a term I actually coined, "credibility capital". Fleas has an A in it. Laid is the past tense of the verb to lay as in to lay the cards on the table. Lay, believe it or not, is the past tense of lie, as in "to lie in bed". Don't get confused by the homonym though--the CIT witnesses LIED on camera, it would not be correct to say they "lay" on camera. English is a tricky language, but with some practice you'll get the hang of it. Now on to your lack of understanding of Mr. Chandler's work. He not only performed the measurements demonstrating the free fall of WTC7, he also submitted the measurements to the NIST at their public comment session, making Shyam Sunder and John Gross look like the liars they are and prompting them to actually include a fact in their report that negates their hypothesis entirely. He did not stop there, however. He also measured the downward acceleration of the north tower and showed by applying Newton's third law of motion that the "crush down" hypothesis could not be correct. He therefore proved that explosives were involved so that we need not rely on dubious evidence such as Steven Jones' nanothermite chips. While David Griffin has conducted the most exhaustive research into the problems with the official story overall, no one has done more to expose the fallacies inherent in the official explanations of the WTC's destruction than David Chandler. Regardless of whether his work (really his and Frank Legge's work) on the Pentagon is equally solid (I don't believe it is,) his contributions to the 9/11 truth movement simply cannot be overstated. You, CIT, Jon Gold and so many others on the other hand have contributed nothing--that's right, nothing--to the movement. Your sole effect has been to hamper its efforts while posing as victims of a conspiracy to deny you your deserved recognition. Believe me, Adam, that I would actually try to sugarcoat this for you somehow if I had any doubt as to what your game is. I don't, so I won't. You appear to be yet another individual from among the dregs of society whom the 9/11 perpetrators have seen fit to employ in their service, so many of whom I have already mentioned and need not dignify with a shout out here.

Adam Ruff says:
So then you are not going to post any light pole downing witnesses then RT?

No SOC witnesses either?

Hmm interesting.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 12:10:59 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
Here, Adam, I'll do it for you. I'll name a light pole downing witness: Lee Evey, who was coincidentally the Pentagon renovation manager (i.e. the Silverstein of the Pentagon).

His quotes are cited by the sacred, sacrosanct, infallible, undebunkable guru of Penta-knowledge named Jim Hoffman, the self styled "responsible truther" who has debunked the "no PentaCrash" so firmly in the eyes of David Chandler and others.

'The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building,' said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation. 'The plane penetrated three of the Pentagon's five rings, but was probably stopped from going farther by hundreds of concrete columns. The plane peeled back as it entered, leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther inside,' Evey said. 'The floors just above the impact remained intact for about 35 minutes after the crash, allowing many people in those offices to escape,' Evey said."

911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

There ya go. A witness that contradicts the NoC witnesses.

ONE SMALL PROBLEM: Lee Evey was in North Carolina at the time of the event, arrived in Arlington in the evening, and saw the poles on the ground.
***
"Lee Evey, manager of the Pentagon Renovation Program since November 1997, had planned to retire in January 2002. His plans, like his nation, changed Sept. 11. Because of a death in his family, Evey was driving to Tennessee that morning. When he stopped for lunch in North Carolina, the waitress apologized for the slow service. The kitchen staff, she said, was watching television, gripped by the terror in New York and Washington, D.C.

Evey jumped in his car and headed north. By cell phone, he directed his staff to give rescue teams whatever they needed, from heavy equipment to shoring materials. He arrived at the scene by seven that evening, his backseat filled with bags of fast food for staff and rescuers.

Source: "A Defiant Recovery", The Retired Officer Magazine, Jan 2002"
***

For more on the other alleged light pole witnesses, have a look at this link:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51

Until you've studied that link, you're simply being a sloppy researcher by repeating the Jim Hoffman talking point that lots of people saw the light poles get hit, therefore they contradict the NoC witnesses.

In a nutshell, the other most commonly cited "accounts" of a plane clipping light poles have been subjected to intensive scrutiny and it turns out that NONE of these people actually saw such a thing. An excerpt from the above thread:
***
Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, Vin Narayanan, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road. Penny Elgas confirmed that she did NOT see the poles hit in an audio recorded interview with Jeff hill.

JEFF HILL: And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?

PENNY ELGAS: No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail -- that was actually the tail that a turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.
[/QUOTE]
***
Now, here is the thing. People like Erik Larson have cited these people as being "light pole witnesses" and hence witnesses to the official path. Indeed, Larson himself published a blog entry at 911blogger entitled, in all caps no less, "THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED."

(Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the timing of Larson publishing this blog entry was suspicious: Only days before, a marathon debate occurred between Craig Ranke and John Bursill. To this day it is the ONLY debate that has openly occurred in a free and level playing field between CIT and a staunch detractor. Bursill conceded the debate, and the most striking thing about this debate is that he went into it believing that there were "lots" of South of Citgo witnesses. When pressed, he was unable to name one. He tried to offer up Albert Hemphill, but Ranke decisively debunked the notion that Hemphill was an official path witness. Bursill did not contest this. This debate was devastating for the anti CIT clique. Therefore, the timing of the Larson blog only days later was to propagandistically give the impression to the 911blogger community that Bursill simply didn't know his stuff well enough when he debated, and that "of course" there are LOTS of SoC witnesses, and the artfulness of his propagandistic ways couldn't have been clearer by the way he used ALL CAPS in the title of the blog.)

Essentially, here's how it has worked in the past at 911blogger and similar controlled truth sites (before the full-on mass purges occurred): Larson would cite, for example, Lee Evey as a light pole downing witness. "Hahahaha, suckers, CIT debunked. There ARE witnesses who contradict NoC! Case closed, CIT was deceptive and engaged in cherrypicking." Comment gets heavily voted up.

Then myself or another colleague would patiently point out that Evey was in North Carolina during the event, and is hence not a witness. My post could not be refuted, but it would inevitably get buried in an avalanche of negative votes, so that it would be below the viewing threshold.

While I was never given an explanation (from Justin Keogh) as to why I was banned, the previous owner of that site, Alan Giles aka Reprehensor, was at least somewhat more transparent, often publicly announcing that he was putting someone in moderation and the exact reason why. He actually told Chicago activist Ed Rynearson (webmaster of davidraygriffin.com) that he was suspending Ed's account purely because a whole bunch of his comments in recent days had been heavily downvoted. (I believe the comments were to do with Israeli involvement.) This was proof, in Rep's mind, that Ed's presence at the site was "divisive," and that we can't have division in the 9/11 truth movement, thank you very much. Only if all your comments receive lots of positive votes are you welcome here!

People, ranging from Jim Hoffman to RT, who claim that lots of witnesses contradict the NoC flight path, are simply under-informed. They have not done the many layers of investigating that CIT has done, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Chandler claims that CIT has been thoroughly debunked by Jim Hoffman and Arabesque, and this is every bit as sloppy as when a non-truther sees the Popular Mechanics book on the shelf at Barnes and Noble, and it confirms his existing biases against 9/11 truth: the book's mere existence on the shelf is proof that the truthers have it all wrong! Just as David Ray Griffin thoroughly eviscerated Popular Mechanics in his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking," Craig Ranke thoroughly eviscerated Chandler and Cole in his in depth response to their 'joint statement.' And in the above link I pasted, he thoroughly eviscerates the "witnesses saw the light poles get hit" claim that was cited by RT in this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 3:24:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 2 hours ago
Adam Ruff says:
Kameelyun I was aware of those facts but I am also aware that RT is NOT aware of them thus I was trying to get him to actually look at the evidence which supposedly supports his side of the CIT argument. Hopefully after reading your response RT will realize what a monumental mistake he is making by not supporting the truth and instead relying upon smoke and mirrors. Many have fallen for the same bull because they haven't done their homework on CIT but rather have relied upon the "credibility" of people like Jim Hoffman. Once you do follow up on the evidence yourself you find that Hoffman and several others are putting out disinformation. A REAL TRUTHER such as RT will admit when he has made a mistake and correct it. A disinformationist will not. We will see which one RT really is based on his response or lack of one here.

I hope I spelled everything right here because unlike RT my parents were not wealthy enough to send me to Harvard or Yale or wherever he went. They did teach me to stand up for the truth though no matter the cost.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 4:37:17 PM PDT
Last edited by you 1 hour ago
RT says:
Ha, the fact that I'm almost 40 and am still paying back student loans (just for four years of college) should be all you need to know about my family's finances. I'll also volunteer that I graduated from public school, not a fancy prep school. But I take your point, it was a cheap shot to nitpick about grammar and spelling, and for that lapse in civility I apologize. Partly also because I now see that I should review the witness statements to see if any actually claim to have seen the light poles knocked down or anything else that would be inconsistent with the north of citgo flight path. For the record though, I don't actually believe a plane knocked down the light poles, nor do I disbelieve it very strongly. Since I tend to believe that a large Boeing was not the cause of the damage, I've always assumed that the lightpoles were faked somehow, and yes, I think a flyover+explosion is a credible possibility. My issue with CIT and their supporters has never been that they presented an implausible scenario, just that they acted as if they had an airtight case that they don't actually have. And yes, that is based on my extreme suspicion of anything and anyone related to 9/11. This suspicion on my part has an analog in the general public's extreme reluctance to suspect any serious deception with regard to anything having to do with 9/11. What I have said consistently and will continue to say is that IT IS NOT WORTH compromising a united front on the evidence regarding the demolition of the WTC where we have rock solid evidence of malfeasance. The fixation on getting people to accept the accuracy of any given account of what happened to the Pentagon is simply unhelpful and has been raised to suspiciously divisive levels. This is not to say it isn't important, just that mature and reasonable people should see that since it will be much easier to expose the lies about the Pentagon once people's eyes are opened with regard to the WTC this may well be a good item on which to agree to disagree as suggested by myself, DRG, and others, with the notable exception of the fake truther brigade that is as dogmatic in insisting a boeing hit as CIT is in insisting that it did not. Now yes, many of us have stated that it was both building 7 and the Pentagon that first opened our eyes, but that was before the "debunkers" and fake truthers muddled it to the point that honest intelligent people like David Chandler are swayed by their arguments. With the WTC their efforts have been much less successful, which I have no doubt is why the Jon Golds and Jeff Hills poo poo it and why I am suspicious of Jones and his nanothermite chips. I am arguing tactics here. Take the strongest evidence and repeat repeat repeat. Do not let less convincing evidence, however intuitively and logically sound it seems, blind you to the big picture. If in the process of making these points I offend people like CIT so be it. If they want to accuse me of being a fake truther for it so be it. That's about as clear as I can make it, so I hope that the one or two non Adams that might read this understand my points and why they are key to the success of this movement.

Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
re your statement that: "The only times I have blocked people is when they proceeded,after fair warning, to post material that I considered damaging to the credibility of the truth movement." you never gave me any warning, nerermind a "fair warning," before banning me from your site for revealing my spirituality bent. or did you? if the latter, please provide the url with the fair warning.
nor did you give "fair warning" to the allegedly anti-semitic poster who triggered this response, http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3361, which accompa nied your banning. or did you? if you did, please provide the url where that fair warning was given.
thanks,
--dennis

You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
In reply to your post on Jun 4, 2012 8:25:13 PM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
re your statement that: "I now see that I should review the witness statements to see if any actually claim to have seen the light poles knocked down or anything else that would be inconsistent with the north of citgo flight path." good idea!
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 12:34:07 AM PDT
Kameelyun says:
Thanks for weighing in here Dennis. For the record, I think his comment at Craig McKee's Truth and Shadows blog should be reproduced here, since it is relevant to the direction this discussion is going:

***

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/consensus-911-panel-resi...

dennis p mcmahon says:
June 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm

adam,

as a member of drg's consensus 911 panel, i find this thread especially intriguing. i've been tuned in to 9/11 truth since the summer of 2008, but until i read zwicker and lankford's very impressive resignation emails, i don't think i had ever heard of "national security alert." it was after reading those emails that i made it a point to see the movie.

i found "national security alert" to be excellent, and very persuasive. previously, i had been dismissive of CIT because, in hindsight, i was taken in by the anti-CIT propaganda, which was (and is) so prevalent. as you say, "Never underestimate the sheer power of propaganda; it can con even the brightest of brains sometimes..." not that i consider myself to be among the brightest, but i grew up on the streets of brooklyn and do credit myself with having some street smarts. which is why, in part, "national security alert" appealed to me so much-it has a real and honest street feel-two guys taking it to the street in the best of ways, searching for 9/11 truth and tracking down real witnesses. now, as a result of my having seen the movie, the militant anti-CIT crowd has lost a ton of credibility retroactively.

drg (of whom i am a huge fan) may indeed be a master of "staying above the fray," as you say. at times, however, i find myself wanting to see him enter the fray, and apply his brilliance to finding out who is what. as i wrote in my dec. 8, 2011 amazon review of drg's "9/11 ten years later" re his call for "a consensus approach" among 9/11 truth activists who have long debated over what actually struck the pentagon: "I would like to have seen Professor Griffin address whether this debate is being fueled by cognitive infiltrators posing as 9/11 truthers."

fyi, i somehow found this ("truth and shadows") website when (unsuccessfully) trying to track down the amazon discussion mentioned on "rt's" website here http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3394 wherein you were quoted. can you advise where that amazon discussion is? i want to go there and add that, contrary to rt's "fairness" claims, he has thrown people off his site without any advance warning, and i am one. still, i'm thankful to rt and his wtcd site for (unintentionally, it seems), leading me here. from what i've gathered so far, "truth and shadows" is an excellent site-and pretty much what the heavily-infiltrated 911blogger pretends to be. i plan to return here soon, read more articles and comments, and participate when i can.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 9:04:25 PM PDT
RT says:
Not all warnings are given publicly, Dennis, though something tells me "Jameson" will be appearing here shortly to claim he never received any emails from me explaining what was OK and what was not. As for you, you appeared on the site first to take issue with my negative opinion of the NYCCAN petition you worked on--the one based on the Family Steering Committee's utterly craptacular LIHOP questions--and shortly after that revealed to us that you got into 9/11 truth because of an encounter with spirits, which is totally cool since you're into Shamanism. Now to be clear, I don't actually believe you are truly into Shamanism OR 9/11 truth, but if you are, I will tell you that I consider Shamanism to be just as much a scam as every other religious tradition claiming contact with spirits and/or gods and that you should try other methods of dealing with your existential angst. If you want to believe kooky things and do great work for the cause of 9/11 truth that's your business and I will judge you on the quality of your work, not my opinion of your beliefs. However if your main claim to fame in 9/11 activism is (apparently poor) legal work on a sham petition, then I am not inclined to allow you unlimited posting privileges as a registered user on my site. Sorry you didn't get a fair warning back then--next time I'll say "I have never banned anyone from my site without fair warning unless I strongly suspected them to be charlatans."
Edit this post | Permalink
In reply to your post on Jun 6, 2012 7:36:04 AM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
thanks for the reply and admission that i was given no warning whatsoever. i accept your apology.

re: "you appeared on the site first to take issue with my negative opinion of the NYCCAN petition you worked on..." i never worked on the petition. the petition (which had never been properly vetted with an election law attorney) was a done deal before i arrived on the scene in the late summer/early fall of 2008. a year later i was asked to help out with the lawsuit being brought (pro se, at the time) vs nyc to advance the petition to the ballot, and have nyc voters decide if they wanted a new investigation into 9/11. for me, this was a worthy goal. i knew nothing about election law but long story short, became the attorney of record and helped the lawsuit progress. as i think i may have explained to you on your site, the plan was to hire an election lawyer to litigate the case. i was to shepherd things along until that day. as it turned out, the election lawyer nyccan found said that the case was not winnable. nyccan would have had to pay him $20k to go into court and lose. we decided it would be better all around if i handled the matter pro bono, and say in open court what had to be said re 9/11.

re: "shortly after that [you] revealed to us that you got into 9/11 truth because of an encounter with spirits, which is totally cool since you're into Shamanism." is that you saying it's "totally cool" or me? i don't think i said it. fyi, you don't have to be into shamanism to have encounters with spirits, even 9/11 spirits, see for example Messages: Signs, Visits, and Premonitions from Loved Ones Lost on 9/11 .

re: "Now to be clear, I don't actually believe you are truly into Shamanism..." really? well i have written a book about it, see here Into the Mystic: (From the Streets of Brooklyn) which has been endorsed by two shamanic practitioners and two world-class mediums, and others. you might also want to check me out with the new york shamanic circle (http://nyshamaniccircle.org/ ), where i've been a regular member since march 2001.

re: "Now to be clear, I don't actually believe you are truly into...9/11 truth." i guess then, with you, my having represented nyccan vs the city of new york doesn't count for anything. nor the fact that, at drg's request, i became a member of his 9/11 consensus panel (http://www.consensus911.org/panel-members/) nor the fact that i am a (new) member of the a&e911truth writing team (see e.g., my article on barry jennings here http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/633-barry-jennings...) ...oh well.

re: "I consider Shamanism to be just as much a scam as every other religious tradition claiming contact with spirits and/or gods..." fyi, shamanism is not a "religious tradition," but a spiritual practice dating back 35,000 years. there are no "gods" involved. for believers, obviously, shamanism is not a scam. i am a believer.

re: "If you want to believe kooky things..." LOL! funny language!

re: "...and do great work for the cause of 9/11 truth that's your business." yes, it is. i do what i can.

re: "I will judge you on the quality of your work, not my opinion of your beliefs." judge away! here's a link to the memorandum of law i did (with the assistance of two others, one of whom is an attorney): http://nyccan.org/NYC_CAN_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW.pdf

re: "However if your main claim to fame in 9/11 activism is (apparently poor) legal work on a sham petition..." after the nyccan hearing in front of judge lehner, i asked the executive director of nyccan how he thought i did. he gave me a B. the lead plaintiff gave me an A because, he felt, i did the best i could with an unwinnable situation. in my view, the petition was fatally flawed from the outset, but not a sham. it should have been vetted properly; it was not. nevertheless, good things came out of the lawsuit, including the "buildingwhat?" campaign which got geraldo rivera to openly change his mind about 9/11 truth on mainstream tv, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP0Hs-v-uJ0 . i thought that was very big of geraldo. (you need to give him credit for that on your site, where you have him listed on your "profiles in infamy." i had suggested this to you a year or so ago. i think you said you would.)

re: "I am not inclined to allow you unlimited posting privileges as a registered user on my site." that's ok. my desire to participate on your site with the other four people who go there, has been quelled.

re: "Sorry you didn't get a fair warning back then..." apology accepted, thanks!

re: "...next time I'll say `I have never banned anyone from my site without fair warning unless I strongly suspected them to be charlatans.'" that's pretty funny coming from the self-proclaimed Grand High Exalted REAL TRUTHER.

i look forward to hearing the results of your research into the pentagon witness statements to see if any actually claim to have seen the light poles knocked down or anything else that would be inconsistent with the north of citgo flight path.

You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 9:02:34 AM PDT
RT says:
I wonder Dennis, did you ever read the Family Steering Committee's list of questions they wanted answered, the ones on which the NYCCAN petition based its need for a new investigation? Here's a small and fairly representative sampling:

from: http://911independentcommission.org/cia3182004.html

13. How did Promis software end up in the hands of bin Laden? In what ways could Promis be useful to al Qaeda?
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/foxnews101601.html

14. Given that the attack was apparently known in the Muslim community, (based on the following information) how is it that our intelligence agents did not know of the impending attack?

A Palestinian youth pointed to the Towers and indicated that they wouldn't be standing week
http://www.msnbc.com/news/642164.asp#BODY
http://propagandamatrix.com/Trade_Center_warning_baffles_police.htm

members of a Brooklyn mosque were warned
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/NEW%20YORK%20DAILY%20 NEWS_Some%20Got%20Warning%20Don%27t%20Go%20Downtown%20on%20Sept%2011.htm

15. Please explain the role of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency, in aiding bin Laden and/or the al Qaeda from 1998 through the present.

Between 1980 and the end of the Afghan/Soviet war in 1989, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence] recruited some 35,000 Muslim radicals join Afghanistan's fight. The US and Saudi Arabia gave up to $40 billion total to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency. At the same time, Osama bin Laden begins providing financial, organizational, and engineering aid for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, with the advice and support of the Saudi royal family. The CIA, the ISI and Osama continued to work together against the Soviets until the end of the war."
http://pages.infinit.net/fmgoyeau/911pak02.html

16. Has the CIA uncovered any evidence that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a Pakistani, is linked to the Pakistani ISI?
http://pages.infinit.net/fmgoyeau/911pak02.html

17. Please describe the historical and current relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI, including the significance of Musharraf’s visit to Saudi Arabia 20 days after the coup and the Saudi pledge of “massive ” financial aid.
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/99oct29/news.htm

18. Please comment on Saudi Arabia's involvement in the 1999 coup in Pakistan which installed Musharraf as leader, and coincidentally occurred on the eve of a planned US effort to capture bin Laden. Musharraf scuttled U.S. plans to capture bin Laden.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/03/ret.bin.laden/

Now, if you don't see why these questions make the Family Steering Committee, NYCCAN, and the lawsuit you worked on a sham, then you have no business trying to convince people that you are a sincere truthseeker. Unfortunately for you, David Griffin's personal credibility does not extend to those with whom he chooses to associate and whom he chooses to involve in his projects. I do not for one minute doubt *his* sincerity, or David Chandler's. They don't register at all on my BS detector. You on the other hand have a healthy ping. But hey, prove me wrong--consult your spirits and let me know what they say about using 9/11 truth to further demonize and frame Arabs and Muslims.

In reply to your post on Jun 6, 2012 10:13:10 AM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
no, i had never seen the 2004 document to which you link. what is the authority for your claim that the nyccan petition was based on the family steering committee's list of questions in that document? the petition itself had none of the language from the family steering committee's list of questions you provided. if what you say is true, it would be news to me.

i have very little knowledge of the family steering committee and so consulted wikipedia, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Family_Steering_Committee they include a list of family steering committee members-none of whom were among the plaintiffs in the nyccan action.

re: David Chandler's sincerity. i think some CIT folks would disagree with you. is that why CIT is a banned discussion on your site?

for the record, i agree 100% that "using 9/11 truth to further demonize and frame Arabs and Muslims" is racist and despicable.

You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 12:57:06 PM PDT
RT says:
CIT is not a banned subject on my site--Kameelyun had to ask me to ban him in protest of my characterization of CIT as shills, but I did not because he never did anything wrong. To this day people are welcome to waste their time arguing about CIT at WTCD.

Here is the authority for claim about the FSC questions being the basis (road map, they say) for the NYCCAN petition: http://web.archive.org/web/20090628054425/http://nyccan.org/questions.ph...

But wait, there's more! This was posted on the NYC CAN website:

NYC CAN Statement on Saudi US Supreme Court Decision

The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) stands in support of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in expressing our deep disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court's June 29 decision to prevent the victims of the September 11 attacks from pursuing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes, for their alleged material support of the September 11 attacks.

The Supreme Court's decision is a step backwards on the journey toward accountability that every 9/11 family member and every American deserves. With the increased urgency that this travesty of justice brings, NYC CAN grows in its determination to establish an independent New York City commission to conduct an impartial investigation into the events of September 11, a new investigation driven not by partisan politics and foreign alliances, but by evidence and fact.

http://nyccan.org/saudidecision.php

And here's some more questions from the FSC report. I guess you didn't know you were working for people who blame the absence of racial profiling for 9/11?

Questions for Robert Muller. FBI Director. September 4. 2001-present (cont.)

In 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said that he suspected that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the Oklahoma City attacks and the September 11th attacks.

What conclusions has the FBI drawn regarding the possibility of a connection between Iraq and the terrorist attacks on the WTC '93, on the Murrah Building in OKC and on
September 11th?

Please comment on the following information, which appears to show a connection between Ramzi Yousef and the Oklahoma City bombers.

In the Oklahoma City bombing, reporter Jayna Davis interviewed witnesses who reported a Middle Eastern men speeding away from the Murrah building just before the Oklahoma City bombing. She also found credible witnesses who saw one of the Middle Eastern men in the company of Timothy McVeigh in the days before the bombing.
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18no02_oke.htm

Abdul Hakim Murrad, convicted of plotting to blow up airliners, allegedly told the FBI that his former roommate, Ramzi Yousef, had orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombings.
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18no02_oke.htm

Nichols attended a meeting in the early 1990s in the Mindanoa. Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad were also at that meeting.
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18no02_oke.htm

Terry Nichols' phone records indicate that in 1995, he place 13 calls from his home phoneto someone in the Philippines.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_IO~27290

Is there any evidence that Ramzi Yousef was an agent for Saddam Hussein?
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/v018no02_oke.htm

and some more:

During the second presidential debate on Oct. 11,2000, as a Presidential candidate you responded to a question about racial discrimination and said that" ... there is
other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab Americans are racially profiled in what is called 'secret evidence".

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/2ndebate3.html

On Feb 28, 2001, you issued a memorandum on racial profiling to Attorney General Ashcroft, stating; "I hereby direct you to review the use by Federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches, and other investigative procedures."

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010228-1.html

To your knowledge, were directives or communications issued, through Attorney General Ashcroft or anyone else, to any federal agencies, or to any individuals or offices of
any agencies, that concerned the racial profiling Arabs or Muslims?

Could prohibition of racial profiling have been a factor in the FBI Headquarters personnel continually and "inexplicably" throwing up "roadblocks" and even undermining the field agents' "desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant in the Moussaoui investigation."

www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Dennis, I have been among the most active members of the truth movement since 2004 or so--I've been around the block several times. I have a long memory of who the various characters in the movement are, and have watched the fakes among them and their strategies evolve over time. It is all documented on my site, which as you said, only 4 or 5 people post to. What I do is not to sell ad space or become famous, so I don't care if my site isn't acknowledged by the "greater truth movement". It has and still does serve to document and archive the real truth movement, not the one that changes its stripes as easily as NYCCAN removed all traces of the "FSC Road Map" from its website.

If I've misjudged you, which is possible, then I apologize for treating you as if you were a fake truther. Please understand that the anger I sometimes bring to these debates is a direct result of knowing that "among the truthers" are a high proportion of individuals who lie without shame in a murderous effort of historic proportions. I have had the displeasure of interacting with a number of them, and once in a while being fooled by them. If you're sincere, then you will find your own way to overcome the same circumstances we all face to be able to not just say you tried, but to succeed in bringing the real perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.

Kameelyun says:
Well, I would like to weigh in here, re the subject of the Pentagon.

RT, regardless of what you say about how the waters are not so clear now, now that Chandler (among others) has firmly allied himself with the Jim Hoffman camp who insists a plane crash at the Pentagon happened:

The simple truth is, the vast majority of rank and file 9/11 truthers still to this day do NOT believe a large plane crashed into the Pentagon. The statements condemning CIT that have been put out by Ryan, Legge, Hoffman, Chandler and Cole have done almost nothing to change the fact that probably 95-99% of the real truth movement reject the thesis that a 757 crashed there. This is apparent every time someone does a facebook poll.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10011

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the screenshots posted at the above link, many truthers are still stuck in the 2006 Loose Change era, believing that a missile hit the Pentagon. CIT's "National Security Alert" has only received 452,408 views since being uploaded in June 2009, whereas Loose Change received millions of views within weeks. (2865 likes, only 178 dislikes. In other words, a "convince" rate on a par with Blueprint for Truth.) I don't know if this is because CIT has been less than savvy in advertising themselves, or whether the propaganda campaign against them has convinced lots of people that they don't need to bother watching the video, or what. But it seems that many rank and file truthers are not even aware of the NoC evidence, let alone the "controversy" (of the synthetic variety imho) surrounding CIT.

I still submit that WTC7 AND the Pentagon is what wakes most people up. I regularly show the Pentagon photos to non believers of 9/11 truth, and they immediately see the lack of debris and question the official story. The North of Citgo flight path evidence was just the cherry on top.

You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 4:45:46 AM PDT
RT says:
Kam, I don't dispute most of what you say, as I hope you know by now. I do think CIT has been "less than savvy" in advertising themselves and that they thereby prejudiced many people against the evidence they collected, which as I will say again (and again and again) is valuable evidence in the greater scheme of things, i.e. if and when a serious investigation with the world watching is conducted. At that point everyone who has ever testified to what they saw at the Pentagon should be called to testify under oath in court and we will then have a better idea of who has been truthful and who has been... less so.

My problem with the truth movement generally is how game people seem to be to take part in "sideshow" arguments while ignoring or glossing over much bigger issues like, for example, the abhorrent focus of the "Family Steering Committee's" questions on attempting to prove that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and either let them proceed or actively assisted in their success. Sure, NYCCAN no longer claims that they use the FSC questions as a "road map for the new investigation" and has morphed into the Building What campaign, but to me that just shows that they understand that if their goal is to influence and control REAL truthers, then they have to keep up with the times. Thanks to David Chandler's work, building 7 went from being simply obvious to anyone with an open mind to having NIST admit into its final report information that invalidates their purported explanation. The significance of this development was clearly not lost on the would be controllers of the movement, and if they had been able to stop Mr. Chandler from submitting his question to NIST they would have--preferring, no doubt, that the absurdly irrelevant question submitted by Steven Jones get all the attention. I agree with DC that the fact that his question was accepted and that NIST admitted freefall in their report is a sign of dissent within NIST. Finding such soft spots and providing opportunities for such dissent should be a major focus of the truth movement--this battle will be won behind the scenes before the public becomes aware of it--that's what a media blackout is all about--never say anything you don't have to until you have to in order to retain credibility.

If real truthers would see what was truly important without being distracted by the drama generated by CIT and others, we would be a lot more effective, just as we would if real truthers were more vocal in rejecting nonsense like the Family Steering Committee's questions and held the people responsible for them to account for their actions. There would be far less confusion about who believes what and with whom one would be advised not to associate.

Kameelyun, you are obviously a very intelligent person, so it has been disappointing to me to find that you are so seemingly blind to the bigger picture and the crucial importance of having an airtight strategy for the success of the movement--your characterization of Jon Gold as a sincere activist moreover is, I hope, a lie intended to get people to read your critique of his work and not something you truly believe.
Edit this post | Permalink
In reply to your post on Jun 7, 2012 11:16:17 AM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
your purported authority for the FSC questions "being the basis" for the NYCCAN petition is unpersuasive. the road map seems to have been more a road map of what would happen IF an investigation came about-and thus not "a basis for" the petition. but obviously, it is more nyccan's position at the time that you object to, so let me go into that a bit.

there was a time when i, other 9/11 truthers, and perhaps even you, thought "the arabs did it." understandably so, given that this is the mantra that was continually fed into us by the complicit mass media. a developmental step above that brain-washed position (i.e., "the arabs did it.") is lihop (i.e., for any newbies here, lihip = the u.s. gov't "Let It Happen On Purpose"). maybe in 2004, the fsc was stuck in a lihop view. i know i was stuck there for a while as i did not (1) equate the "i" in lihop to be the official conspiracy theory (oct), as you do; nor (2) see lihop as a tool to actively frame arabs and muslims, and keep the mideast wars going. you and willyloman helped advance my thinking on that issue, and i thank you both for that. however, i still maintain that if lihop was the m.o. (the "it" here being whatever really happened on 9/11, not the oct which is preposterous), those who let it happen on purpose should (in a just world) be tried for treason and mass murder.

as for the story of mulsims at OK city, i'm not at all up on that and have not yet seen "a noble lie." but if there are valid reasons to expect that xyz might have been involved in the OK city bombings, is it your position that we should not bother investigating xyz if he happens to be muslim? i hope not-such a position would be patently absurd. further, if xyz is a patsy, looking into his behavior might lead us to whoever it was that was using him as a patsy.

also, the fsc had what, 250 unanswered questions? and you object to how many? 10-25 maybe (4%-10%)? is that any reason to totally disregard the rest (90% - 96%) of the questions? i think not. each question should be evaluated in its own right, in my view. maybe that's what nyccan meant by using the questions as a roadmap. it wouldn't have been up to them anyway. the investigative body would have had to decide what investigative course(s) to follow.

as for the Saudi US Supreme Court Decision-i don't, as you do, take issue with NYC CAN's using the event to put out a p.r. piece announcing "its determination to establish an independent New York City commission to conduct an impartial investigation into the events of September 11." on this point again, i am not at all up on what the evidence is re the bush and saudi ties, and so cannot fairly evaluate. if there ever were to be an investigation (more on this below), focusing on the physical evidence would be where to start. still, stories like the one linked to at the end of this paragraph make me wonder: is someone applying pressure to make absolutely sure that the saudis are never sued over 9/11? if yes, who? and why? it gets my suspicions up, is all. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2011/09/20/216580.htm

re: "I guess you didn't know you were working for people who blame the absence of racial profiling for 9/11?" here your leap in illogic leading you to assume that i was, is ridiculous. i never heard anyone at nyccan utter any such racial profiling nonsense.

re: your site not being one "that changes its stripes as easily as NYCCAN removed all traces of the `FSC Road Map' from its website." i don't see anything nefarious in that, as you do. i know you don't update your site very much, so maybe you can't relate. with no investigation possible as a result of the petition being rejected, what would be the point of nyccan continuing to say what they would do if there were an investigation?

re: "If I've misjudged you, which is possible, then I apologize for treating you as if you were a fake truther." fair enough.

i understand and can relate to your anger re the infiltrators. i very much agree that among the truthers is a high proportion of individuals who "lie without shame in a murderous effort of historic proportions," as you say. witness 9/11blogger. my real concern about them tho is how close are they positioned to the key leaders of the movement, and what impact are they having?

as for "bringing the real perpetrators of 9/11 to justice," quite frankly, i no longer see any hope in that. who would bring about 9/11 justice? and in what forum? could there ever be a special prosecutor, ala watergate? appointed by whom? eric holder? the corrupt war mongering congress? i just don't see it happening. the disinterested manhattan d.a.? forget it. still, even if our goal of bringing about a real investigation into 9/11 (or at least some aspect of it, e.g., why did building 7 come down?) is an unreachable goal, it's still very important to seek and speak the truth about 9/11, and i feel compelled to do so. the pursuit of truth for truth's sake, if nothing else.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
In reply to your post on Jun 7, 2012 12:26:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 12:59:55 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
Well, my characterization of Gold as being NOT on someone's payroll is simply based on gut intuition. I've spoken to people who I believe to be totally honest truth seekers -- like Jon's (ex?) friend Betsy Metz. Betsy is a MIHOPper to the core, and she supports CIT's work strongly. When I asked her what Jon's like to work with in person, she basically said: He's a big baby, the ultimate stubborn individual, and he definitely cuts off his nose to spite his face. But, she said, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, he's got a weally weally big heeaaarrrttt. (I agree that he also has a massive ego, and this has been confirmed by everyone I've spoken with who's met him at conferences.) Betsy has been to his apartment, seen his place of work, and knows that Jon does not work for an intel agency. She shares many peoples' reservations concerning Jon, but dismisses as absurd the idea that Jon is Cointelpro or the like. I don't know, I guess for me, if Betsy dismisses the notion that he's an agent, that's good enough for me, lol. However, whether he's paid to do so or not, Jon is a "disinformation agent" in the sense that he pushes disinfo, even if well meaning. Recommending Hoffman and Arabesque as Pentagon research experts, for example, is a clear example of where he is misguided and totally taken in by the wrong crowd.

Incidentally, it was the CIT issue that caused Jon and Betsy to break up as friends. Jon unfriended her on FB the day that she posted Barrie Zwicker's endorsement video on her wall. These days, Betsy's main passion is chemtrails, which angers Jon even further.

I, like you, have often called Jon out on some of his BS. There are OTHER people in the movement who I AM convinced are definitely on the Cass Sunstein payroll, people like Justin Keogh. I think Jon has confirmation biases in favor of certain aspects of the official story that make him blind -- dare I say an idiot -- to the nature of the evidence against those positions. For him to believe Lloyde England's story is true while the 15+ NoC witnesses are, in Jon's words, "probably mistaken" about the flight path (I remember this from a facebook exchange a long time ago), is a perfect manifestation of this.

And yes, he makes equally dumb arguments against controlled demolition.

And yes, he creates flame wars and is a divisive force on just about any forum he posts.

Most especially, and insultingly, he blames the truth movement itself for having not won this battle. He believes that if every single activist took his exact approach, promoted the exact information that he promotes, that we would have achieved justice. This, of course, is arrogance, wrapped in ignorance and bundled in ego. I'm with Dennis; I've given up hope on reaching that "tipping point" whereby the country rises up en masse and demands a new investigation. Even if the popular uprising occurred, I have zero hope for an impartial investigation.

You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 1:29:10 PM PDT
Last edited by you on Jun 7, 2012 1:38:27 PM PDT
RT says:
Going to reply to both you and Dennis here, K...

Kameelyun says:
Well, my characterization of Gold ...

Frankly I don't think the character reference of someone into "chemtrails" is worth all that much. "Seeing someone's place of employment" is also no kind of evidence of not being in the truth movement for the wrong reasons and possibly being compensated for it.

And yes, he makes equally dumb arguments against controlled demolition...

Jon Gold is definitely not the brightest bulb in the attic (note the number of times he uses "I" instead of "me" and vice versa in his book, and his own self-description as being a former Fox News watcher) but neither is he a complete idiot who can't tell that controlled demolition is not, as he claims, still an unproven theory. It's my belief that he gets his talking points from somewhere and does his best to stick to them.

He believes that if every single activist took his exact approach, promoted the exact information that he promotes, that we would have achieved justice....

I don't think he really believes that, or really wants justice. And yes, he poo poos scientific evidence like Chandler's as conspiracy theory while alleging all kinds of LIHOP conspiracies as if they were scientific evidence.

Dennis wrote:
rt,
your purported authority for the FSC questions "being the basis" for the NYCCAN petition is unpersuasive. the road map seems to have been more a road map of what would happen IF an investigation came about-and thus not "a basis for" the petition...

If you're collecting signatures for a petition to have a new investigation, and say that the investigation's roadmap will be the FSC's questions, a total of which I think 5 maybe had anything to do with the WTC and 265 that tried to insinuate LIHOP, then you are a LIHOP scam aimed at derailing the real truth movement, period. Sorry if you don't/can't see that.

there was a time when i, other 9/11 truthers, and perhaps even you, thought "the arabs did it." ...

Yes, and we saw the error of our ways. Not so some prominent alleged truthers like Jon Gold, who seem to think the goal of 9/11 truth should be to prove their predetermined conclusion that a) we were attacked by Arab Muslims including the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and b) it was with the active assistance of the Bush administration. There is too high a correlation between people who promote this garbage still and people who deny the persuasiveness of the evidence for controlled/explosive demolition of the WTC for me to believe it's a coincidence. Check out the Facebook group Jeffrey "no planes hit the towers" Hill created, to which Jon Gold belongs: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2540075712/

AE9/11 and other controlled demo promoters are routinely dismissed as charlatans by the members of that group, who also persist in promoting anything and everything suggesting Pakistani and Saudi complicity.

as for the story of mulsims at OK city, i'm not at all up on that and have not yet seen "a noble lie."...

There are not valid reasons for concluding that Arabs were involved, but plenty of reason to suspect that Israel wanted us to believe that Arabs were involved. Read more about it here: http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/574

also, the fsc had what, 250 unanswered questions? ...

I have only posted the most offensive. If you had read through the questions yourself you'd know exactly how many of them I object to--all the ones that suggest LIHOP. All but about 5 of them that mention the WTC.

as for the Saudi US Supreme Court Decision-i don't, as you do, take issue with NYC CAN's using the event to put out a p.r. piece... is someone applying pressure to make absolutely sure that the saudis are never sued over 9/11? if yes, who? and why? ...

Oh please--combine their use of the FSC questions as a road map and their taking seriously a lawsuit against the Saudi government for funding terrorists and you have "look" and "quack"... guess what it is? That's right, a duck. The reason the lawsuit is being blocked is because Saudi Arabia most likely didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and would be forced by such an action to defend itself, which means information might come out shedding light on the real perps. So the real perps are likely the ones blocking such a lawsuit.

i never heard anyone at nyccan utter any such racial profiling nonsense...

And yet the road map for their investigation was determined to find out if not racially profiling Arabs, something Bush had spoken out against pre-9/11, had been partly to blame for allowing the attacks to happen. Before 9/11 the Bushes were all considered (through their oil connections) to be far too cozy with the Arab world for Zionists' comfort. Before 9/11, Dubya became the first president to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state--a no-no in Zionists' eyes. On 9/11 Bush was given the same offer as the Taliban were before 9/11: accept our terms and get a carpet of gold, reject them and you will get a carpet of bombs. The carpet of gold he took was by "accepting" that 9/11 was the work of Arab/Muslims, preferably Palestinians, but at the very least Arab/Muslims--the carpet of bombs would have been launching a real investigation into his own administration and proceeding to have his reputation ruined (with the media paying more attention to his coke and AWOL problems) or worse.

what would be the point of nyccan continuing to say what they would do if there were an investigation...

Sure, conveniently when they switch their focus to WTC7, all mention of the LIHOP questions are shelved, with no explanation that they had a change of heart. Who are NYCCAN anyway? I can only know them by their fruit, which was putrid before and now *looks* tasty. Will I bite? Ehhhh...

my real concern about them tho is how close are they positioned to the key leaders of the movement, and what impact are they having?...

Ask yourself why David Chandler is a member of a group (see Facebook link above) that calls controlled demolition advocates like Chandler charlatans. He is too trusting, that's why, and so they have gotten close enough to him to push him into the Pentagon fray that he would have done well to stay out of.

as for "bringing the real perpetrators of 9/11 to justice," quite frankly, i no longer see any hope in that...

Sorry to hear it, but I think you're wrong. Stranger things have happened in history than a long-believed lie being exposed. What form justice takes at that point is up to the aggrieved populace, that is, the entire world. Larry Silverstein will probably be dead by then, but there are many consequences the perps will have to contend with besides jail time for those directly involved. The world will change and the perps and their fellow-minded will not like the changes is all I'm going to say.
Edit this post | Permalink
In reply to your post on Jun 7, 2012 2:08:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 2:09:41 PM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
i collected signatures on a couple of occasions in 2008 and there was never any directive (or even mention of) the investigation's roadmap being the FSC's questions. thus, you adopt a false premise and jump from there to the "LIHOP scam" allegation. later, after condemning nyccan for having a lihop bent, you jump on them for dropping their alleged lihop bent. see anything wrong with your approach?

re: "Sure, conveniently when they switch their focus to WTC7, all mention of the LIHOP questions are shelved, with no explanation that they had a change of heart." if it was a change of heart, i would think you'd welcome that, whether it was announced or not. in any case, it was certainly a change of direction, which definitely was announced, and why not welcome that?

re: "Ask yourself why David Chandler is a member of a group. . . that calls controlled demolition advocates like Chandler charlatans. He is too trusting, that's why..." that explanation doesn't really cut it for me. i think he'd be much smarter than that. still...it could be. others have voiced that same ("too trusting") concern re drg and rg.

re: "The reason the lawsuit is being blocked is because Saudi Arabia most likely didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and would be forced by such an action to defend itself, which means information might come out shedding light on the real perps. So the real perps are likely the ones blocking such a lawsuit." i tend to agree. if so, then the lawsuit would be beneficial to 9/11 truth.

as for your thinking i'm wrong about there not being any hope for bringing the real perps to justice, i hope you're right.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 6:50:15 AM PDT
RT says:
re:"i collected signatures on a couple of occasions in 2008 and there was never any directive (or even mention of) the investigation's roadmap being the FSC's questions."

Regardless of what they told the signature gatherers (and my impression was that they relied heavily on hired help for that, but glad to see that you now acknowledge being involved before the lawsuit as you claimed earlier) the simple fact is that they said on their website, in prominent fashion, that the FSC's questions, a copy of which they had on their server, was to be the "road map" for the new investigation. Therefore, at the time that you and others were collecting signatures, it was, or should have been, clear that those behind the effort were strongly biased towards LIHOP and had very little interest in the destruction of the WTC.

"after condemning nyccan for having a lihop bent, you jump on them for dropping their alleged lihop bent. see anything wrong with your approach?"

No I do not. If someone, or an organization, has such a radical change of heart, then I fully expect, as would most reasonable people, that they would acknowledge the change as publicly as possible. Failure to do so suggests a desire to whitewash their history (and perhaps a lack of awareness of the existence of archive.org!)

re: "that explanation doesn't really cut it for me. i think he'd be much smarter than that. still...it could be. others have voiced that same ("too trusting") concern re drg and rg."

I think Mr. Chandler is plenty smart, but smart people are not immune from poor decision making or character judgment. I don't for one second believe that Mr. Chandler is deliberately trying to cause divisions in the movement, or conceal the truth about the Pentagon--do you? Aside from any personal traits that might influence his decisions (he does come off as a bit crabby, esp. towards people he doesn't believe are making an honest effort--not surprising from a high school teacher) getting involved in the truth movement is itself asking to become the target of false friends, greeks bearing gifts, etc. Unfortunately the antidote to this phenomenon is to become even more cynical than the mere realization of the 9/11 lie makes one. Some people are more resistant than others to this change--we all want to trust those with whom we work or feel in solidarity with, and deciding that someone in the truth movement is dishonest amounts to accepting that one has been in close contact with an evil or at least amoral person--not pleasant, believe me.

re: " i tend to agree. if so, then the lawsuit would be beneficial to 9/11 truth."

Yes, and why it would never be allowed to go to trial--that's a sign of a cover-up, but not a cover-up of Saudi crimes as those whining loudest about it would have us believe.

re: "as for your thinking i'm wrong about there not being any hope for bringing the real perps to justice, i hope you're right."

There's always hope, and there's always time. Those of us who truly care should try as quickly as possible to get over the fact that we may not live to see the day when our work bears fruit. If we expect such a reward we probably don't belong in any kind of social justice movement. The reward is simply knowing that you did the right thing despite it being a difficult and often painful path. As MLK said, unearned suffering is redemptive, and since none of us is perfect, we should all be striving for redemption if we wish to think of ourselves as moral beings.

In reply to your post on Jun 8, 2012 7:57:51 AM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
re: "glad to see that you now acknowledge being involved before the lawsuit as you claimed earlier." what i said (above, check it) was "i never worked on the petition. the petition (which had never been properly vetted with an election law attorney) was a done deal before i arrived on the scene in the late summer/early fall of 2008. a year later i was asked to help out with the lawsuit..." to clarify, i never worked on the petition language.

re: "Failure to do so suggests a desire to whitewash their history." to you, not to me.

You replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? Yes No

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 9:30:43 AM PDT
RT says:
Parsed like a true lawyer. You didn't work on the petition because you worked on the petition signature gathering, gotcha. And while I said that not being open about their change in emphasis SUGGESTS a desire to whitewash, not PROVES, you won't even acknowledge the possibility that a reasonable person might draw that conclusion. I rest my case. :)

In reply to your post on Jun 8, 2012 10:04:53 AM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,
earlier you noted: "Unfortunately the antidote to this phenomenon is to become even more cynical than the mere realization of the 9/11 lie makes one." i submit that your over-the-top cynicism may be clouding your judgment. in the original context of what i wrote, it should be clear to any reasonable person that i was referring to the petition language, which had not been vetted. apparently you deny that possibility. so be it.

re: "And while I said that not being open about their change in emphasis SUGGESTS a desire to whitewash, not PROVES, you won't even acknowledge the possibility that a reasonable person might draw that conclusion." what you said: "Failure to do so suggests a desire to whitewash their history." what i added: "to you, not to me." "PROVES" was not mentioned by either of us.

of course there may be a possibility that a reasonable person would draw that conclusion. however, there is a much greater likelihood that a cynical person will.

i'll rest my case as well, but will skip adding the smiley face-the jurors may not like that.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 8:07:40 PM PDT
RT says:
The original context of what you wrote is this: I said you first appeared on my site to take issue with my criticism of the petition you worked on. I did not say "of the petition you helped write." Reasonable people would probably agree that collecting signatures for a petition and later defending it in court counts as working on the petition. Never mind the distraction of what these words mean--my point was that because your sole contribution on my site was a defense of a terrible petition you collected signatures for and defended in court but apparently did not work on and sharing your tale of spirits leading you to 9/11 truth, I was not inclined to believe that you were sincere and so I blocked your account. In our discussion on this forum you haven't really convinced me that what I did was so unfair. I made a judgment call based on my long experience dealing with internet personae feigning sincere interest in 9/11 truth and in my site only to find that they are either genuinely disturbed, or more likely deliberately behaving as if they were to make the site look bad. Have you by now read the entire FSC's list of questions and if so, can you share your thoughts on them with us, or are you happy to continue pretending that I'm being unreasonable when I call it a LIHOP farce?

Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 5:56:43 AM PDT
Dennis P. McMahon says:
rt,

i thought we had rested our cases, and were done. that might have been a better way to exit here than this encore exchange.

your style of continually misrepresenting what i say, twisting things out of context, claiming faux "gotcha's!" and the launching of personal attacks -- all of which reminds me very much of the JREFers -- has destroyed what was left of your credibility. i had been giving you the benefit of the doubt re your bogus claim that you never ban anyone from your site without warning. now, there is no doubt. i view you as dishonest.

re: "sharing your tale of spirits leading you to 9/11 truth." as you should know, i shared my experience in response to AA's questioning me about how i got into 9/11 truth. i had been very public about my spirituality before i became active, and wanted to be straight about it with AA, as i have been straight about it with nyccan, drg and a&e. i take this approach with the people i work with on 9/11 truth to warn them in advance, because many 9/11 anti-truthers will use ridicule--another tactic you and the JREFers employ freely and with gusto--in an attempt to undermine my 9/11 truth efforts. AA's response was to mock me. your reaction was to ban me from your site without warning. that's cool, it's your site. just don't go around dishonestly claiming that you never ban anyone without warning.

we have discussed the FSC's list of questions previously in this exchange which for me is now coming to an end. there are what you consider to be lihop elements, and for you that makes the steering committee's work "a lihop farce." suffice it to say that i strongly disagree with your approach, characterizations, and conclusion.

you may have the last word. take your best shot.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 7:38:15 AM PDT
RT says:
You clearly still haven't actually read the FSC's questions. Anyone who does and who understands what LIHOP means would agree that that whoever wrote them is primarily interested in establishing the premise that the Bush administration was aware of the al Qaeda threat and deliberately facilitated the success of their attack on America. Anyone who understands 9/11 truth knows that LIHOP is an untenable position, that it serves to preserve the Islamofascist myth, and that it deflects blame from many of the real perps to individuals like Bush and Condi Rice who while far from blameless, were most likely not the primary architects of the plot. Anyone who understands the truth movement also knows that far from being a mere outdated and discredited approach, LIHOP is still being heavily promoted by so-called truthers who simultaneously deride folks like Griffin, Gage, and Chandler for allegedly trying to scam the movement with "unfounded demolition theories." That you feel you must end the discussion here is not at all surprising--what could you say, after all, that would vindicate your accusing ME of being dishonest? That I lied about giving everyone fair warning before blocking them, because in actuality I failed to show one person, you, that courtesy? So be it. Congratulations on what will most likely be your greatest contribution to the cause of 9/11 truth.