Welcome to 911blogger.com's LeftWright, and a Civil Discussion on Differences Within the Truth Movement
I hope LW doesn't mind that I've decided to promote his visit here in this way, but given the amount of bad blood between some of us here and some of the users at 911blogger.com, I felt it was important to have this discussion "in public" as it were. This will be an open thread and everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussion, including anyone not registered at WTCD, whose comments I promise will be approved as long as they are not abusive, deliberately provocative, and on-topic. Registered users are asked to keep their comments similarly civil, subject to removal. I have been familiar with LeftWright's posts for a long time at 911blogger and Alternet and think he deserves at least that much. We may not end up signing a peace treaty, but at the very least we can make clear in the least histrionic terms possible what our differences are.
-gReTavo (real truther, etc.)
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Unite behind what ?
We need to know exactly what it is that we are uniting for/with. If the proposal of unity could be expressed in an article or statement, then we could discuss it.
At the moment, the proposal on the table I am aware of is the comments that Jon Gold made in his Cheri Roberts interview http://www.911blogger.com/node/22370
and suggestions that people put aside their evidential preferences to unite behind a list of "irrefutable facts" which I mainly refute and I believe to be diversionary and unrepresentative of the majority of the movement's main concerns.
Is the proposal that we unite behind a statement that we do not know what happened and we need a new inquiry to tell us?
Or is the proposal to unite behind Ae911truth, or some other leadership who the majority can have faith in and defer to, to represent our concerns.
Is the proposal to stop (Sometimes bad tempered)evidential discussions on 911 related evidence?.I would suggest that such discussions are valuable, but should be accompanied by polls and promotion of the best evidence (democratically decided) or else an impression is given of a movement in disarray with no consensus.
Since the forum for 911 truth is predominantly on the internet, what particular address can be trusted to host
inclusive democratic discussion, and will dissent be censored by some arbitrary panel (leading to division)?
Regarding "unity"
I think it is reasonable to try and unify behind the goal of ending corruption and restoring (some would argue "establishing") the rule of law.
It is not reasonable to demand that everyone unify behind a particular approach or person in pursuit of this goal, nor is it desirable, imo.
We are all unique individuals and one of the great beauties and enduring strengths of humanity is its fantastic diversity.
That said, we should respect each other as individuals and our right to each do things as we see fit.
Finally, since we are collectively seeking truth, we should all endeavor to unify around a shared approach to critical thinking. However, considering the inherently irrational nature of human beings, this is no simple task.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Thank you, RT, you are most kind
I hope that you and yours are all well.
Let me make it very clear that I speak for myself as an individual only, and not for 911blogger or the other moderators at 911blogger. (Although I did mention I was going to do this and no one said "are you out of your freaking mind!?! which I very well may be - joke)
I am one of the moderators at 911blogger. Due to an illness and death in my family I have not been as active at the site as I would have preferred for the past several months, but I am now as fully as engaged as a father of two teenagers can be. I have assigned myself the task of mediating disputes at blogger with the intention of keeping the site as open, civil and dynamic as possible, while trying to maintain consistent standards. I’m sure that you’ll agree that this is no easy task.
We are all individuals and, as individuals, we all have a unique approach to life, including how we each engage in 9/11 research and/or activism. Thus, I hope that we can agree that there is no “one right way” to engage in 9/11 research and activism. Although certain approaches can be argued to be more effective than others, we should all be free to choose what we do and how we do it. We are also all human beings, and thus inherently irrational (some more than others) and imperfect.
911blogger is intended to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible while maintaining certain standards of decorum and credibility. I am also striving to make it as transparent as possible. I want everyone from experienced researchers and activists to those just beginning their 9/11 truth journey to feel they can participate and be treated with respect and civility. Unfortunately, sometimes what should remain a purely intellectual debate becomes personalized and slips into the increasingly muddy waters of irrationality and/or emotionalism. This serves no one except those interested in maintaining the status quo.
I really think that most of the disagreements that I have observed at 911blogger and elsewhere come down to three things:
1) Differing standards of civility (decorum),
2) Differing standards for facts and logic (reasoning), and
3) Basic personality conflicts
I will also concede that there has been some inconsistency when it comes to how rules have been applied, but moderators are human and sometimes overburdened moderators make "quick and dirty" decisions for the sake of expediency. These are all judgment calls and many factors come into play. There has also been less transparency than we all would ideally like, but I think most of this can also be laid at the feet of overworked volunteers choosing expediency over too often cumbersome dialogue.
I hope you will all agree that site moderators should be able to set standards at the site they moderate, as long as these standards are clear and enforced as consistently and as equitably as possible (see "judgment calls" above).
I hope you will also all agree that there is very little moderators can do about basic personality conflicts, except to say "take it elsewhere" and shut down threads that devolve into pointless flame wars. It follows then that moderators are well within their rights to slow down (moderate) or stop (ban) users who seem to be primarily interested in engaging in personal attacks.
I hope that you will all reflect on these points as we undertake this conversation, and consider how they may apply to your particular point of view or grievance.
Finally, I hope that we can all agree that 9/11 truth will not succeed or fail with any one individual, event, site or issue; and that the 9/11 truth movement is stronger because it is as diverse as it is.
I am grateful to this forum for hosting this discussion and look forward to hearing from all of you.
Your brother in truth,
John W. Wright
Agree.
Agree with everything you say here and in your reply to me, and I am very encouraged by what you have to say, as I have felt recently that this movement is so divided and disorganized that it has little chance to effect change which is the only thing I am interested in.
I would like to bring up one point though, which is that you put some disagreements into the category of personality, and suggest that constant personal attacks are not allowed. The trouble is that if a person dominates discussions,or lets say a particular website, and his theories are the embodiment of everything you disagree with, and they then place themself in the public eye as a leader of the cause you believe in. If they make grandiose undemocratic statements that your movement has to change direction, and promote a new agenda which you disagree with, then you might take the time to focus your efforts on challenging that person's ideas in discussions.
Though you may feel you have 'won' those discussions and shown that the majority of people do not agree with what the person is still saying, if they still continue to dominate the movement and represent their minority view publicly as a leader of the movement , at what point do further comments aimed at that unrepresentative dominance become personal attacks?
Sorry this reply took so long, here goes:
AA: Agree with everything you say here and in your reply to me, and I am very encouraged by what you have to say, as I have felt recently that this movement is so divided and disorganized that it has little chance to effect change which is the only thing I am interested in.
LW: While I agree that the truth movement it is more disorganized than I would like I don’t think it is as nearly as divided as some people portray it to be. The single most divisive issue within the movement stems from all the unfortunate speculation about what happened at the Pentagon. However, I think that most people who have studied the evidence will admit that they don’t have enough credible information regarding the events at the Pentagon to have sufficient certainty about what actually happened, and will agree that this is one of the many reasons we need a real investigation into the events of 9/11/01. There is, however, a very small minority of people who are so certain of their position (on both sides of this issue, I hasten to add) and/or who have an ego investment in their particular theory, that they unnecessarily polarize the issue. I share the opinion of many that the event at the Pentagon was, quite likely, designed to be divisive.
Most human beings do not like not knowing, as it can be very frustrating. We like a narrative that makes sense and fits our basic world view. This is why the Zelikow narrative has been so effective to date. The longer we don’t know the more frustrated we become and the more some of us take that frustration out on each other, or withdraw from that which frustrates us. This is an irrational reaction to not knowing. This is why I always remind myself that humans are inherently irrational/emotional beings, and allow for this. An objective critical thinker sets the issue aside until additional information becomes available, revisits it when new data appears and may or may not revise their working hypothesis based on this new information.
AA: I would like to bring up one point though, which is that you put some disagreements into the category of personality, and suggest that constant personal attacks are not allowed. The trouble is that if a person dominates discussions,or lets say a particular website, and his theories are the embodiment of everything you disagree with, and they then place themself in the public eye as a leader of the cause you believe in. If they make grandiose undemocratic statements that your movement has to change direction, and promote a new agenda which you disagree with, then you might take the time to focus your efforts on challenging that person's ideas in discussions.
Though you may feel you have 'won' those discussions and shown that the majority of people do not agree with what the person is still saying, if they still continue to dominate the movement and represent their minority view publicly as a leader of the movement , at what point do further comments aimed at that unrepresentative dominance become personal attacks?
LW: Ok, now I think we are getting into the heart of much of the disagreements that I have witnessed on 911blogger and elsewhere. Language is very important here, so we need to be very clear about what we mean or we will only end up talking past each other and this will only create greater misunderstanding and further frustration. Let’s take your points one by one, seek greater clarity where needed and see if we can come to an understanding of what the real issues are and, if they need to be addressed, how to best address them.
AA: I would like to bring up one point though, which is that you put some disagreements into the category of personality, and suggest that constant personal attacks are not allowed.
LW: Yes, I ascribe a great many disagreements to simple personality clashes and yes, I hope that most people would agree that personal attacks, especially those based on simple personality clashes, are not useful and are detrimental to a site like 911blogger.
AA: The trouble is that if a person dominates discussions,or lets say a particular website, and his theories are the embodiment of everything you disagree with, and they then place themself in the public eye as a leader of the cause you believe in.
LW: Ask yourself how is this person dominating discussions on a particular website? Then ask yourself what should be the response of the moderators? We can’t really do anything about how often someone posts, that is their right and we aren’t going to put some kind of artificial limit on the number of posts any one person can make on a thread. Thus, if you truly feel you need to counter someone’s argument you simply make the best counter argument you can (within the site rules) as often as you feel you need to and trust that intelligent readers will make up their own minds. To my mind the key here is trusting the other readers to see the flaws and rhetorical techniques that said person may be using to make their arguments. If you feel that someone is using spurious arguments to make their case or side-step the issue at hand, point this out. Just do so in a civil, non-personal manner.
Somehow I don’t think you really mean “theories”, I really think your disagreement is with the approach to activism that others may be taking, yes? Once again, isn’t everyone entitled to take the approach to activism that they think is best? While it is reasonable, and even a good idea, to debate the relative merits of different approaches to activism (and research), in the end people are going to take the approach to activism that makes the most sense for them and that they feel comfortable with. All you can really do is to put your ideas out in the marketplace as best you can and let everyone choose what they think is best.
How do leaders emerge in grassroots movements? Can anyone really “place themselves” as a leader in a truly grassroots movement? Some may try, but once again, the movement at large will organically decide who its leaders are over time. The truth movement is based on critical thinking. I think you need to trust the critical thinking skills of your fellow brothers and sisters in the movement to see who the real leaders are and not be overly concerned with people who try to frame themselves as leaders. One of the strengths of the truth movement is that we are all leaders in our own way at some level.
AA: If they make grandiose undemocratic statements that your movement has to change direction, and promote a new agenda which you disagree with, then you might take the time to focus your efforts on challenging that person's ideas in discussions.
LW: Once again, I think you need to trust the intelligence of your brothers and sisters within the movement. Most of us will spot anything that even remotely smells of tyranny from ten miles away. If someone espouses ideas or an agenda that you disagree with, of course you should critique it as best you can and offer alternatives. Just keep it civil, to the point and let everyone make up their own mind. Isn’t that what democracy is?
AA: Though you may feel you have 'won' those discussions and shown that the majority of people do not agree with what the person is still saying, if they still continue to dominate the movement and represent their minority view publicly as a leader of the movement , at what point do further comments aimed at that unrepresentative dominance become personal attacks?
LW: I think you need to step back and really analyze what you’ve said here. How can someone who presents a “minority view” dominate (i.e. control the majority) the movement? This makes no sense. They may be trying to convince the majority of the movement that their approach or ideas should be adopted by the majority, but isn’t that what many, if not most, of us try to do? Isn’t that everyone’s right? I get the sense that you’re either letting someone make you feel unnecessarily insecure about your position or you lack confidence in the movement to choose the most effective approaches.
You will always come across people who are stubborn and think they know best, this is part of being human. My advice is to make your points very civilly and move on. Don’t let their stubbornness frustrate you to the point where you lose focus or react to them in ways that undercut your own position.
The bottom line here is make your arguments as best you can and trust that others in the movement will choose wisely. That’s really all any of us can do.
I look forward to reading your considered response.
Regards,
John
So what is your stance?
"The single most divisive issue within the movement stems from all the unfortunate speculation about what happened at the Pentagon. However, I think that most people who have studied the evidence will admit that they don’t have enough credible information regarding the events at the Pentagon to have sufficient certainty about what actually happened"
This issue is pretty easy to deal with if you ask me. The divisiveness I see comes from those who want to assume things that aren't proven and then demand proof that their claims DIDN'T Happen.
If someone claims that a 757 hit the Pentagon, they need to prove it. I agree with your assertion that 'we just don't know'. So that means the most acceptable stance is to NOT ASSUME a 757 hit the Pentagon.
My position is only supplemented by CiT's work along with the shady video that the Pentagon released.
exactly
and yet another example of how the behavior of some truthers is similar to the behavior of promoters of the OCT--make claims with dubious "evidence" and put the burden of proof on those who would then have to do the nearly impossible--prove a negative. the only way we could prove with hard evidence that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, for instance, is by finding the plane somewhere. on the other hand, proving with hard evidence that it DID hit the Pentagon would be much easier (if it did in fact hit the Pentagon.)
We don't know,
and there is still insufficient credible evidence on which to base a theory. Therefore, it is not rational to promote a working hypothesis as a credible theory and anyone who does so damages their own credibility, creates division (intentionally or not) and unnecessarily complicates the ongoing efforts of the truth movement to educate the public, imo.
I think it is also fair to say that the public promotion of said working hypotheses assists those engaged in the ongoing cover up. Please note that I am not saying that this is the intention of those publicly promoting said working hypotheses, only one side effect of said public promotion.
I agree that it should be much easier to prove that a 757 impacted the Pentagon than proving that one did not. It should also be a relatively easy matter to prove that AA77 was that plane. But we do not control the critical and definitive evidence and will only have access to said evidence once we can force a real investigation. This is where our focus as activists should be, imo. Researchers are always free to pursue their own line of inquiry, of course.
I have no interest in discussing or analyzing CIT's work right now, as I have far too much on my plate at the moment.
Please note that I work with, and am personal friends with, people on both sides of this issue, we just simply agree to disagree and move on.
I trust that this is an adequate answer to your question.
Regards,
John
No Plane Hit The Pentagon
You seem to be saying the topic should remain 'off limits' in any serious realm of discussion... mainly for the sake of saving credibility.
If the government, the military, 911 Truthers or anyone else makes a spectacular claim such as "AA77, a 757, crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001" would it not be more credible to assume this spectacular claim is false until proven otherwise?
A more credible approach would be to force the issue. Focus on this weak link. Not being able to prove such a spectacular claim seems like a huge weapon that would compliment the destruction of WCT 7 nicely.
Forget about ANY other theories. If the official theory has not been proven to be true, then it's false in my book.
extraordinary claims...
require extraordinary evidence. aren't we told that a lot by would-be "debunkers"? well, it's true! If some extraordinary claims are exempt from this, then something is very wrong in the world of skepticism. That said, in outreach to the public I believe strongly in using as a hook the most compelling claims, for which we DO have extraordinary evidence--the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
The prejudice (a very good word for it) of some users at 911blogger who treat the official claims as true until proven false is much less effective at preserving the truth movement's credibility than at preserving the credibility of the official hijacker narrative. Whether this is "in effect, or intent" is open to debate, but either way I don't buy the argument that because the topic is "divisive" in some people's view it should not be discussed. It's been shown that "controlled demolition" was once divisive and is now the accepted viewpoint among the vast majority of "rank and file" truthers. Where would be now if we had listened to the Sander Hicks, Kyle Hences, and Michael Rupperts among others who insisted such a focus was detrimental to our cause? And why should we not classify as "divisive and off-limits" things like the $100,000 wire transfer allegation--sorry, I mean the pork chop transfer?
Double standards abound both in the world of the OCT, the would-be debunkers, and some elements in the truth movement, and this cannot in my view be an innocent coincidence.
Double standards are part of the human condition
and can be found everywhere, unfortunate but true.
Humans are inherently irrational and thus imperfect creatures.
To assign all such human failings to conscious intention is rather simplistic, don't you think?
We can all only hope to strive for perfection, and this must always be informed with empathy and compassion, lest we lose our humanity to the brutality of pure logic.
blah blah blah
The fact is that the website that YOU moderate, 911blogger.com, is routinely using double standards when applying the rules. Not once, not twice but in many cases.
Instead of acknowledging obvious bullshit at 911Blogger.com, a site that you moderate, you just spout general truisms like "we can only hope to strive for perfection..." and "humans are inherently irrational..."
Spare me.
On another note...what's up with my request for my 911Blogger.com account to be enabled? How's that going? Do you have a 'reason' I was banned? I sent the request about 5 days ago for the 5th time in a few years. Do you think I'll get a response this time? I really need to know what I did to get banned so I don't slip up when I'm back in action at 911Blogger.com.
Once the rules revision is completed
you will be better able to see whether or not you want to resume your activities at 911blogger. You will probably not receive a reply on your status until said rules revision is complete.
As for the "bias" at 911blogger, please read my reply to RT below.
Is it safe to say that the focus (or "bias") of this site is more to your liking?
intentional vs unintentional double standards
"To assign all such human failings to conscious intention is rather simplistic, don't you think?"
Frankly, no. I think the simplistic view is that "oh, c'est la vie, vive la difference, etc." Nor was I assigning "all such human failings to conscious intention". I was and am suggesting that in the case of a forum dealing with a subject like 9/11, a double standard may well exist as a deliberate policy. If you disagree, meaning that you think that it is impossible such a deliberate double standard might be at work, then perhaps we have arrived at a point on which we can declare definitive disagreement? I'm not saying this to be difficult, and I think that JPass may have let his emotions get the better of him in his reply to you above, but that was as far as I'm concerend one of the purposes of this dialogue--to know what precisely our disagreements are...
Even this site shows bias,
and where there is bias double standards (to some degree) will follow.
So, yes, the moderators at 911blogger are biased, some more than others, but we are in general agreement on the critical issues.
I am trying to lessen the bias in certain areas and thus reduce the occurrence of "double standards", but there is already an institutional bias that is going to take a while to change.
Bias is not necessarily irrational and can be a direct result of logical analysis. Thus, bias is not always a "bad" thing. I have a bias against junk science and poor or dishonest research, as I expect most true critical thinkers do. As a moderator I also have a bias against rude, disingenuous and immature people; people who bait, badger and bully others, and people who are intentionally divisive and push wedge issues whenever they can.
When one's bias does not align with the bias of a forum, the perception of double standards will inevitably result.
As we revise the rules at 911blogger, we will try to make the policies and procedures of the site more clear. Hopefully, this will also make the focus (or "bias") of the site more transparent and lead to fewer misunderstandings and less conflict.
When in Rome ...
have fun
"As we revise the rules at 911Blogger..."
So now we have to explicitly state in the rules that double standards and hypocrisy should not be policy when moderating the discussion?
As a moderator of 911Blogger.com you have not provided any answers and apparently are unable to even find any information about the rash of bannings that left many out of the conversation at 911Blogger.com over the years.
You're not able to reinstate users who were unjustifiably banned from the discussion nor get any sort of response from 911Blogger.com.
And so far you barely seem able to even acknowledge 911Bloggers obvious double standards beyond labeling it as 'natural human irrational nature'.
Maybe it's not so obvious to you. I think most here believe 911Blogger.com was long ago compromised. I'm not talking about 'natural human irrationality' or any other human trait.
I'm talking about calculated, on purpose, rational, planned, decision making, standard policy etc. etc. etc.
JPass, if you really feel
that "911Blogger.com was long ago compromised", then why would you want to participate in discussions there?
I know I wouldn't.
I don't happen to share your opinion, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I also understand your frustration at how slow this process is and would council continued patience if you are really interested in returning to 911blogger and participating in good faith.
As I am not the only moderator, it is not solely my decision as to who gets reinstated, who gets moderated or who gets banned.
Realigning the focus of the site and adjusting the sensibilities of the users is a long, slow process and has only just begun. You should not be surprised to learn that I am meeting some resistance and skepticism in this endeavor.
John, I admire your efforts
and it's clear to anyone intimately familiar with this situation (0.01% of the movement?) that you're receiving huge resistance or at least inertia from at least one, maybe more, moderators at blogger with regard to you efforts over here.
I'm gathering that you are trying very hard, and are receiving, in some cases, the same level of 'deafening silence' I've also received.
We are in agreement that we want transparency, yes? One thing that everyone ranging from Gold to myself seems to be united on, is that the comment voting system at 911blogger is the most OPAQUE type of vote system possible. Say ten people voted up and another ten voted down a comment. THIS NEEDS TO BE KNOWN! For it to simply say "0 points" as if no one had ever voted on (or even read) it is unacceptable imo. The current system breeds political based voting, and one reason Reprehensor banned a number of people outside WTCD is because if the said person wrote too many comments that got downvoted, Rep would ban them for being guilty of being too "divisive" or "disruptive."
The best system would of course show how many yays and nays a comment receives. Even more transparent still would be to see WHO voted a comment up or down. This will shine the sunlight on political based voting. For all our differences, Jon Gold and I both have experienced what it's like to write a perfectly logical, rational comment that states a fact and has no opinion in it whatsoever, get voted down, and whoever votes it down most often doesn't respond to say why he didn't like the comment.
You say it will take time to change some biases on blogger. One way of changing things immediately for the better would be to put all Pentagon stuff, both pro and anti AA77 crashing into the building, on the front page which clearly gets the widest reading audience. This was demonstrated recently when Richard Gage's "clarification," of his endorsement of CIT (where he distanced himself from the flyover conclusion) did make the front page. (I'm guessing anti-CIT moderator Erik Larsen was responsible for this.) Dave Nehring, who only reads the front page, was unaware of the existence of "National Security Alert" and unaware of the controversy surrounding CIT. However, after I prompted him to watch the video, he was blown away by it and has become suspicious of the motives of those who always, without fail, keep pro CIT stuff on the back page. Also, this can be seen in the fact that Erik Larsen's recent anti CIT piece re Dawn Vignola, which was NOT front paged, sees my comments heavily downvoted yet my pro CIT comments on the Griffin "Coming Together" thread, which WAS front paged, have been highly upvoted. Clearly the front page has a far larger reading audience. Anybody intimately familiar with this situation understandably feels that the bias against no-757-crash research has been manufactured at blogger by (1) many people in favor of the no-757-crash have already been banned, and (2) the back-paging of the investigation's progress.
And then you've got the people such as Gold, who on the one hand insist (correctly) that "we don't KNOW what happened," yet five minutes later insists as fact that AA77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon. Forget flyover: If you even suggest a plane crash involving a Northwoods type swap, he (and for that matter Hoffman) get upset, and say that this claim "invites accusations of insensitivity to the victims" (Hoffman) and that "Promoting anything other than flight 77 hitting the Pentagon has NEVER helped this cause."
Hey LeftWright...
Hi LeftWright,
It's been about 3 weeks since I sent my fourth or fifth request for my account to be unlocked or a reasonable explanation as to why I was banned at 911Blogger.com.
Is there ANY progress on either of these issues? I know things move slow at 911Blogger as you stated. But this is pretty lame. I followed your instructions and got nothing in response and it's been almost a month.
And did I mention that I've send multiple requests over the past few years?
"why would you want to participate in discussions there?"
It's not so much that I want to participate. It's more about the fact that something was wrongfully taken from me without justification.
I find it hard to believe that this issue of my banning is REALLY so severe that it deserves this kind of non-response. Did I do something so unconscionable to deserve getting banned and ignored? If that is the case then surely you can show me an example of what I did to deserve this kind of treatment.
Reinstating my account at 911Blogger.com is the Right thing to do.
I think we should clarify what "bias" means...
And it can mean several things. I think you're using the word in the sense I've italicized below, whereas we're concerned with the meanings in bold.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that a bias in the sense that you describe, in favor of sound research and polite behavior, should not in fact inform the policies in effect at 911blogger. I think that it should be clear by now that the biases we are concerned with are those reflected in the tendency for certain claims to be exempt from standards to which other claims are stringently held.
Ultimately,
I think we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "sound research" and a sound strategic approach to 9/11 activism.
I agree that not all claims are examined with the same level of objectivity and that this is unfortunate. This is something I am addressing and hope to correct over time, as much as possible. With an institution like 911blogger, this takes time.
It is my opinion that the reason for much of the animosity is not really due to the act of critiquing different claims, but is due to the personal nature of many of the arguments made and that too many people interpret critiques on their ideas as personal attacks and respond with personal attacks (from all sides). Because these disagreements have become so personal and heated, everyone, including the moderators, can lose their objectivity to some degree and resort to judgments informed more by bias than rigorous logic. Thus enters the "unreasoned judgment".
That said, it is quite obvious that some people go out of their way to pick fights and focus on wedge issues within the movement to that end. This is something I have very little tolerance for and work to prevent at 911blogger.
Unproven does not mean false
It just means unproven.
I trust you see the difference, yes?
The major problem with investigating the event(s) at the Pentagon is that the government controls all the definitive evidence and has yet to release anything conclusive (imo).
I don't think serious discussions about the event(s) at the Pentagon should be 'off limits', I just think that honest and objective people should check their egos and dogma at the door and definitely not push hypothesis as theory or theory as fact.
One fallacy I see repeated here frequently is that anyone who thinks that a 757 hit the Pentagon supports the Zelikow narrative (OCT) with regard to the Pentagon. This is a rather mendacious straw man argument. One can believe a 757 hit the Pentagon and believe it was not AA77 or that Hani Hanjour was not piloting (or even on) the plane, all key elements of the Zelikow narrative.
I assume that most of you believe that planes impacted the Twin Towers, does this mean you support the Zelikow narrative with regard to the events in New York?
I think that we're all more intelligent and sophisticated than that, yes?
and yet certain people treat the OCT's unproven claims as fact
Jon Gold in particular has said before that he has no doubt that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. if that isn't treating unproven claims or theories as fact, what is? Why can't Jon Gold practice what he preaches and admit that he really has no clue what it was that exploded at the Pentagon, and that his HYPOTHESIS is that the OCT is right about some of it?
as far as the fallacy you raise, that anyone who thinks a 757 hit the Pentagon supports the Zelikow narrative, well, yes and no. Given that the physical evidence is wholly inconsistent with ANY 757 hitting the Pentagon, it's pointless to argue whether that hypothetical 757 was AA77 or not. before we accept the extraordinary claim that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon, we should demand extraordinary evdience to back it up. As you yourself admit, that extraordinary evidence, which should exist, has not been forthcoming. Where does that leave us?
It should leave us
setting aside pet theories and working together to educate the American people as to the massive problems with the Zelikow narrative and the need for a real criminal investigation.
As I said above, without access to the conclusive evidence that the government controls, arguing about theories based on insufficient evidence is a pointless waste of time (as entertaining as some may find it).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even irrational opinions.
The truth movement is made up of millions of people spread across several continents, so the opinion of any one person is really not that significant to the overall movement, yes?
The evidence for a 757 hitting the Pentagon may not actually be that extraordinary. It is probably just 90+ tons of aircraft stored inside a mountain in Pennsylvannia and the documentation that proves exactly where most of it came from. Credible security camera videos would be helpful too, but at this point and considering the quality of CGI, I wouldn't accept video evidence as sole proof of anything.
Less encouraged
> isn’t everyone entitled to take the approach to activism that they think is best?
No, not if they're simultaneously calling for 'unity'! And not when they speak on behalf of others who haven't consented to being spoken for.
LW the trouble with dividing
LW the trouble with dividing discussion into points is it becomes more daunting and time consuming to answer in one go, and I have been busy, but I appreciate your efforts here and will engage your reply in parts. In fact, as the separate issues are worth identifying and would be easier to find and comment on separately than in a long thread, I will address each point in turn in new threads here, as long as that is ok with moderators ?.
sure
go for it!
Hi LeftWright, any updates?
Do you have any updates on my account at 911Blogger.com?
Thanks
Dear Reprehensor And YT
For your reference:
And my e-mail to YT asking basically the same thing when I was secretly moderated and banned from TruthAction
What gives?
My discussion topics and comments are being deleted for no reason by the admins. at TruthAction.org. And now I've been banned with no explanation what so ever.
Who is running the show man?
I have done nothing wrong and if you remember, I believe I helped install the site. I at least deserve and explanation.
This is nuts because Danse has basically slandered a group of hard working, patriotic people and labeled them racist and then admiitted he was completely out of line.
He's admitted he was in a drunken stupor and his comments were irrational and far from the truth. Now your site is using this to censor myself just because I've posted on another website that they Danse has slandered.
It's beyond the pale.
Please explain why I'm being censored so harshly all of a sudden by your site YT?
THanks,
Jesse
Both went un-answered.
JPass -
Please don't expect Reprehensor to respond here. I opened this dialogue and I am responsible for it, not him or anyone else associated with 911blogger.
Please see my response below.
Thanks,
John
I don't
Hi John,
"Please don't expect Reprehensor to respond here. "
I don't. He didn't respond to multiple e-mails or a public open letter. It's more 'for the record'.
JPass -
The word from moderator central at 911blogger is for you to apply for an account, said application will be reviewed and responded to along with all the other requests for new accounts.
This policy applies to anyone else who is interested in opening a user account at 911blogger. Everyone will be considered on a case by case basis.
Acknowledgment and acceptance of the site rules is a prerequisite for anyone to be granted a user account, just as I imagine it is here.
While I can influence the decision to grant or not grant an account, it is a consensus decision among the moderators, especially when considering a previously banned user.
I know that it can be frustrating to wait for decisions to be made and thank you for your patience.
Regards,
John
ok thanks
Thanks John. I really appreciate it.
I guess you were un-able to locate any specific reason I was selectively moderated and banned?
JPass -
You are correct. As of this date and time, I have not found any specific reason for your moderation and subsequent banning.
Please apply to have your account re-activated.
Regards,
John
And the double standard with regard to rules?
Why are you really here, John?
It is plainly evident that there is a double standard in place with regard to the site rules. This was clearly visible recently in a thread in which Sheila Casey was repeatedly bashed for being "disinfo" and when she objected to the ad hominem attacks, slippery weasel rhetoric ("We didn't call you disinfo, we just said your behavior was disinfo-like") was used by several privileged posters. Then Sheila's account was blocked.
Moreover, the double-team effort to intimidate Adam Syed for using different identities at different sites was not only hypocritical (since one of the people doing the intimidating has at least as many different identities) but a violation of the rule about carrying arguments from thread to thread (or in this case, site to site).
This all hearkens back to the original reason gretavo started the blog here. gretavo (as RT) and Gold had been given identical warnings to not post on each other's blogs. Gold posted on a blog of RT's, clearly violating the warning, and after RT responded -- in the comments section of HIS OWN BLOG -- he was banned. Please explain to me how the slack cut to Gold over and over again is not an Animal Farm-like example of "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
The interaction to read begins here...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22377#comment-225680
in fairness...
Sheila does suggest that certain people in the movement, namely those who insist on accepting without supporting evidence and despite evidence of massive fraud the existence of arab muslim hijackers and a plane hitting the pentagon as well as those who claim evidence of deliberate demolition is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, of being "so-called truthers" and/or "fake truthers".
While I agree with her 100% and personally think it is self-evident that accepting any aspect of the OCT as true without 100% rock-solid evidence of it being so is a sign that someone is not really interested in discovering the whole truth about 9/11, the rules at 911blogger would seem to make such suggestions off-limits, which I think says a lot about that site--namely that it serves, in effect if not intent, as an effective vehicle for cognitive infiltration of the truth movement.
Of course everyone who in turn insinuated that Sheila was herself a disinfo agent, or at least behaving in a manner indistinguishable from one, should also have been put in the moderation queue. The fact that they aren't suggests something else about 911blogger.com, that it makes use, as a policy it seems, of double standards in a way that skews the discourse in such a way that prevents strong challenges to arguments that should long ago have been abandoned (those with no basis in reality that support the OCT.)
Ah, nuts ...
I was in the middle of writing a reply when the site went sideways...I have to run now, but will return asap and rewrite my reply.
Be well and enjoy the day!
Regards,
John
sorry about that
I know what a pain it is to lose a comment you've spent time working on! while the site has become much more stable as I've learned to better manage things "server-side" it is still a good idea to copy the text of your comment before hitting submit. and if anyone knows how I increase the value for "max_user_connections" on my mysql server please share! :)
Hi Gret
I live to solve this kind of issue.
here's a possible solution, not sure if it applies for you
http://kb.mediatemple.net/questions/711/(dv)+Increasing+Max+MySQL+Connections
If you can admin your sql-db, it should be easy
if not, you should talk with whoever can, i.e. your hoster.
_________________________________
happiness is either here or nowhere
This was precisely my point...
Of course everyone who in turn insinuated that Sheila was herself a disinfo agent, or at least behaving in a manner indistinguishable from one, should also have been put in the moderation queue. The fact that they aren't suggests something else about 911blogger.com, that it makes use, as a policy it seems, of double standards in a way that skews the discourse in such a way that prevents strong challenges to arguments that should long ago have been abandoned (those with no basis in reality that support the OCT.)
It's not unreasonable to have a policy that forbids discussions about who is "an agent" or "disinfo." It is, however, hypocritical to ban some people for it and let others do it without consequence (or even with tacit approval, since one of the people involved in that verbal gangbang was a mod).
sure "Cass", whatever!
bwahahaha... :)
And I must say I object to your characterization of the treatment of Sheila as a "verbal gangbang". I wonder if you would have used the same term had the object of the "gangbang" not been a woman. This is just the kind of reverse sexism that is preventing 9/11 Truth from exploding vigorously all over the mainstream's face.
shh
Can you pipe down a bit. I'm about to get an official response as to why I was banned! I've been waiting like 2 years for this!
For real though....
Casseia, are you certain that the other users involved were not moderated as well? If they were not... I would ask John...
Do you disagree with this?
For the record,
two other comments were unpublished by me, as I felt they were over the line, and the posters were given a warning.
I'm trying to slowly roll back the hostility and inflammatory behavior on both sides, and while it certainly can have the appearance "double standards" what I'm trying to do is shift the standards and make everyone aware of the new standards as gently as possible and this is not an easy thing to do, especially since there is a team of moderators who are still getting to know each other while we develop a process to manage our collective moderation.
[As I am a soccer referee, let me try to explain this using that frame of reference. One player on team A commits a series of fouls while several players on team B commit one foul each. The fouls are all about the same severity. The player on team A has been warned after each foul and already given a yellow card. Do you eject all the players or only the one who persists in fouling while warning the rest? This is further complicated by the fact that one assistant referee calls everything a foul and the other calls almost nothing a foul. Note: I've had players intentionally try to get thrown out and not stop fouling until they are ejected. We sometimes see the same perverse behavior online, yes?]
These are all judgment calls made by different individuals, so there is going to be some inconsistency until some agreement on standards is reached by the moderators and well communicated to the site users. This is what I'm trying to do right now while I also try to better understand the history of the various grievances.
I hope this helps to explain what I am doing here and what my intentions are.
Regards,
John
all of this is fabulous
but how do you countenance your role with what's gone on in the past? Or aren't you aware that users such as Jpass, myself, and I'd wager dozens of others were banned with no explanation and very little reason other than that we did not agree with some of the opinions put forth by some of the apparently more-favored individuals?
Tahooey -
I only recently became aware of the mass banning that took place well before I became a moderator (although I was a regular user of 911blogger at the time, I guess I somehow missed this event).
One of the main reasons I've come here to engage with you all is to address this mass banning of WTCD members, see if we can come to an understanding and perhaps convince some of you to return to 911blogger and participate (observing the site rules, of course).
As I have said before, and will undoubtedly say again, I do not believe in guilt by association.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should feel free to express their opinion in a civil manner.
That said, I hope that you will agree that moderators have a right to determine what is acceptable for their site. If you disagree with the focus of a particular site and don't want to stay within that focus , then you are free to choose another site which better suits your particular focus.
Another reason I'm here is to openly discuss the differences in focus that exist between the sites, so that we can better understand the reasons for these differences and, hopefully, accept these differences and move on.
Regards,
John
Difference in focus between the two sites
What do you see as the difference in focus and as the primary obstacles to some sort of acceptance?
How would you characterize Jon Gold's influence at 911blogger?
I'm not here
to discuss or characterize any particular person (and were I to do that I would choose someone else to discuss first).
I will give my opinion of the differences between the sites soon, as I want to do so with as much clarity as possible to avoid any further misunderstanding.
I will say now that it is obvious that the two sites choose to focus on different subsets within roughly the same superset.
supporters of the OCT wrt the Pentagon get free rein at blogger
There is no blogger rule against criticisms of groups or ideas. The actual rule as posted here: http://www.911blogger.com/rules reads:
"Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated."
So clearly ZBH broke the rules, I didn't, yet I was queued, he wasn't. I did not call another user, a specific user, a disinformation agent. I know that ZBH was not queued, as I watched the site for several days after, and he continued to post regularly.
I wrote here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/22377#comment-225680
Clearly there is no rule against naming specific individuals as disinfo agents -- so long as they are not site users -- since this has been done constantly to Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Neither is there any rule against naming certain segments of the truth movement as disinfo, since multiple posts and comments have lambasted those who doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon as disinfo agents. In addition, if you are a no-planer, space beamer or video fakery proponent, 911blogger has no problem with calling you disinfo.
So if I broke a rule, then this rule is being applied with extreme prejudice. Specifically, those who support certain aspects of the OCT, that there were Muslim hijackers, that the cell phone calls were real and that a plane did hit the Pentagon -- those people are allowed to lie outright and make the most outrageous and defamatory statements about those who disagree.
Yet LeftWright posted a comment in which he accused me of:
(Note: the screenshot of LeftWright's comment which I attempted to insert here as an image is not showing up in preview. I will send the screenshot to anyone requesting it.)
I sent LeftWright an email on Sunday Jan. 17 asking him to substantiate this charge that I made "unsupported assertions and accusations against others," and he wrote back the same day saying that he would do so.
Having heard nothing two days later, I wrote him:
He again replied that he was working on it.
Now more than a week later, still no word from LeftWright as to what those "unsupported accusations and assertions" were that I made. Meanwhile, I am still in the queue.
At the same time, we see that if blogger users come out in support of the OCT meme that a plane hit the Pentagon, they are given endless amounts of permission to lie outright and never called to account for anything they say, no matter how egregiously they are wrong.
In a blog entry titled "John Bursill Schools Wannabe Debunkers," at: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21963, I ask Bursill:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21963#comment-222672
My question to Bursill currently has 7 downvotes.
The following day, I posted another comment:
This comment also has seven downvotes.
Even the most newbie truther knows that AE does not take a position on the Pentagon. Yet when John Bursill states unequivocally "I think a plane hit the Pentagon....that's what architects and engineers think." and I ask him to substantiate this outrageous claim, I am aggressively downvoted, Bursill does not retract or apologize for his misrepresentation of AE, and the blogger mods are strangely quiet about Bursill misrepresenting the most credible 911 truth organization we have.
LeftWright, would you care to explain why Bursill was allowed to make this erroneous statement? Any guesses as to why blogger users aggressively downvoted me when I asked him to substantiate? And I would still be interested in seeing any examples of the "unsupported assertions and accusations" I have supposedly made against other users.
Hope you and yours are well. Thank you.
EDIT: at 10:15 am EST Monday, January 25
I just emailed LeftWright to alert him to this comment so he doesn't miss it. Very interested to hear his response.
the bottom line is the double standard
When people argue that we shouldn't promote theories as facts while they themselves treat dubious OCT claims as fact, they are quite simply being hypocrites. These same people who deny that the analysis of the towers leaves no possibility but deliberate demolition with explosives seem to accept the flimsiest "proof", including obviously planted evidence, for the alleged flights having crashed at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. This double standard is VERY telling.
"why are you really here"
Cass, I think that might be a tad harsh--not exactly the makings of a civil discussion. Are you suggesting that LW has an ulterior motive for being here? If so, could you elaborate? If possible in a way that doesn't sound like you're accusing him of acting in bad faith (unless that *is* what you're accusing him of, in which case I would ask that instead of posting it here you start a separate blog post titled: "LeftWright, and a Less Than Civil Discussion of His Real Motives in Establishing a Dialogue With Users of WTCD"? :)
ROFLMAO
RT - I'm glad to see that you can still make me laugh.
Thanks!
Ciao for now,
John
as a token gesture...
...I've replaced the default "annoymouse" avatar with one more appropriate to your role as would-be peacemaker... :)
Thank you, RT
I wasn't quite sure how to change it myself.
Cheers, John
So finally some glasnost
So finally some glasnost after a 1.5 year cold war between the two sites? :-)
There was one other memorable attempt
A while back the user "Danse" appeared and leveled some heavy accusations against the users here. He got drunk one night and used some nasty language and said some disgraceful things to the users here. Like LeftWrigth, he had someone close to him pass away and was under a lot of stress.
I mention it here:
http://realtruthmovement.blogspot.com/2009/10/911boggercom-bans-censors-...
It did not end very well though.
The Way Banning SHOULD Work
Follow the link below to see how bannings SHOULD work. The banning decision is made within the comments
The Way To Ban
I realize that 'moderators are human' and sometimes have kids and busy schedules. However, I don't buy this excuse when a moderator decides they have time to moderator a user's comments but not to respond to your requests for justification to that user.
The recent banning here at WTC can serve as an example of an open approach to banning users who violate the law of the land.
Lead Stories
Sorry to keep making this thread so far about 911b, but the other thing is the selection of stories to the front page.
For a year I only read the news section and did not discover the tracker section til later.
As I said in a thread over there somewhere when I counted up a while ago,the balance of stories on the front page are predominantly about Muslim terrorists, it does not seem to have got better the last month.
That seems to be indicative of site focus policy does it not?
Let's test your theory, shall we?
Here's what's on the front page right now:
Vietnam veteran takes on 911 and everything else that's rotten in America
We Are Change Boston gives Thermite Paper to 4 Unresponsive Mass. Congressmen and Senator John Kerry
Truth Profile - Dustin - WeAreChangeLA member
Treason In America Conference: 911, The Wars & Our Broken Constitution
Mahathir: 9/11 was staged
New England United AntiWar Conference
First Lady Obama asks "Who has inspired You?"
We Are Change Boston Gives Fox News's Carl Cameron WTC Nano Thermite Evidence
What’s Next for AE911Truth? — Richard Gage, AIA Jan 20, 2010
Obama advisor Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theory" : Proposals for Silencing Dissent, Misrepresenting the 911 Truth Movement
Join We Are Change and Cindy Sheehan this Friday in NYC
The Weird Factor: 9/11 and the Panty Bomber
9/11 Truth Film Festival Saturday February 6th, 2010 Minneapolis, MN mn911truth
Mass. Senator Scott Brown Voted Against Helping 9/11 Workers in Order to Subsidize a Golf Course (Video)
The FBI used faked terrorism emergencies to illegally obtain Americans' phone records: Report
March 6 & 7, 2010, Valley Forge Convention Center - "Treason in America: 911, the Wars & Our Broken Constitution" Conference
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Janice Matthews, 911Truth.org
35 people show up for freeway bannering in Hollywood!
MLK assassinated by US government: King family civil trial 1999 decision. Why didn’t you know this?
"A time comes when silence is betrayal" Martin Luther King
Architects and Engineers reach 1000
Connections, Connections
Going To Dick Cheney's House
Glenn Greenwald: "Obama Confidant's Spine-Chilling Proposal" (cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups)
Nafeez Ahmed at BoilingFrogsPost: Interview and 3 Part Series on Yemen and the MIC
* * * *
There is only one story here about "Muslim terrorists" and it is about the "Christmas Day bomber" and, even though this antiwar.com story by Justin Raimondo is not a truth informed piece, there are links to the backstory elsewhere on 911blogger which debunks the msm propaganda we are being fed.
So, no, I'd say the balance of stories on the front page are NOT predominantly about Muslim terrorists.
I think your bias is showing here, maybe?
Btw, the thread is about 911blogger and reaching some kind of understanding between the 911blogger community and the community here at WTCD, especially those here who feel they have been moderated or banned unjustly. So your question is quite welcome.
I hope to have a reply to your "Agree" post (above) soon.
Regards,
John
Hi LeftWright!
I apologize I don't check in here more often. First time I'm seeing
this discussion. I'm encouraged by what you've written above.
I too was banned from 911b with no reason given. I suppose the reason was that my opinions were offensive to Jon Gold and / or I am a
participating member of this site (WTCdemolition.com/blog). Might you be able to find an official explanation?
How does one go about getting one's account reinstated at 911b?
Since you are a moderator there, are you able to get our accounts reinstated
as a show of good faith and an indication that we are welcome to
participate there regardless of our participation here?
As I stated above,
the other moderators at 911blogger have informed me to advise anyone who was previously banned to apply to have their account reinstated. All applications will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
What was your user name at 911blogger, Tahooey?
I strongly encourage all interested parties to take part in this dialogue as we try to address the issues that have led to so much acrimony in the past. This should prevent the kinds of misunderstandings that took place in the past and resulted in people getting put into moderation or banned.
I don't think anyone should be prohibited from posting at 911blogger just because they also post here.
We are in the process of revising and clarifying the rules at 911blogger.
I have taken on this role of mediator to help people better understand the rules, explain why posts become unpublished, help people work their way out of moderation and avoid getting banned all as part of a commitment to greater transparency at 911blogger.
I think it is safe to say that 911blogger and WTCD have different standards and sensibilities, and I hope everyone would agree that the moderators have a right to set these according to their own vision for each site. One of the challenges is communicating these standards and sensibilities to the users and then moderating in a consistent and equitable manner based on same.
I look forward to a lively discussion of the differences between the two sites and the underlying reasons for these differences. I know that we will not all agree on everything (what a boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything, eh?), but I hope that we can at least understand the underlying reasons and/or reasoning for these differences and learn to agree to disagree about them in a civil manner. In this way we can at least spend more time and energy focused on research and activism, which is what I hope we all want.
I hope that you and yours are well.
Regards,
John
what's my name
> What was your user name at 911blogger, Tahooey?
=Tahooey
Apologies
I was lazy and did not investigate before the accusation.
(Since I discovered the Tracker I don't read the front page any more)
Though it was true a few months ago when I was active there.
it seems to have been an anomaly by your reply which I accept.
(Including the bias part).
but
I see it. 911Blogger.com has always given credence to the Muslim Hijackers theory as if it were proven and factual. At times I've been guilty of this.
I have years of experience to go on. Whether the current day's 911blogger headlines reflect that is irrelevant IMO.
I tend to agree with Jpass
But I would put it a bit differently. I don't think 911blogger itself "has always given credence to the [OCT]" simply because I don't see the site itself as having any agency in that regard. What is certainly true is that as I and others have already mentioned, a number of users at 911blogger have always consistently acted as if certain elements of the official theory, like the hijacker narrative, have actually been proven--all the while undermining the importance of the forensic research into the physical evidence for deliberate demolition of the 3 towers with the untenable admonishment that we should not be promoting "theories as fact". This is particularly disturbing from a truther's point of view because evidence based on actual observations and immutable physical laws is vastly more conclusive and therefore convincing than the kinds of evidence offered by these same people for why the theories/claims they are promoting are somehow facts and not theories.
What's more is that when anyone points out that much of their evidence for things like the hijackings and AA77 being what exploded at the Pentagon is in no way hard evidence of the kind that one would expect to abound, but instead the kind of "evidence" that is relatively easy to manufacture/concoct/conjure/plant, they tend to resort to well-worn arguments from incredulity like the rhetorical and sarcastic "do you think EVERYTHING was faked?" Followed up by more sarcastic reductio ad absurdum arguments like "oh well why assume the towers even existed? surely they were faked too!" What these arguments do is to blur the line between what constitutes credible evidence of fraud or deception, or on the other hand what constitutes credible evidence for the veracity of any aspect of the OCT.
It is the apparent privileged status of those 911blogger users that make many people suspicious of the motives behind some if not all of the moderators there.
What really is the problem here?
Is the problem that certain people:
1) Don't understand or feel comfortable with Junior High level science?
2) Don't take a rational, critical thinking approach to 9/11 research and activism?
3) Don't trust others to see the fallacies in some arguments?
4) Allow personality conflicts, side issues and rhetorical techniques to detract from the focus of their arguments.
5) Are so insecure in their own position and or reasoning that they cannot tolerate others to espouse a different opinion (see 3 above)?
6) Feel that they are unable to effectively counter the arguments of others while staying within the rules of the site?
7) Perceive that some users have a "privileged status" at 911blogger that unfairly favors them over others?
8) Actually do have a "privileged status" at 911blogger?
I really think that if you reflect on my above points and other things I've already stated in this thread you will find your answer and the "solution" to this "problem" will be obvious.
I also really think that you should trust the intelligence of most readers to recognize what is and is not important and worthwhile when it comes to 9/11 research and activism and not be so concerned with the choices other people make. Most of those within the 9/11 truth movement are pretty adept at critical thinking.
I'm going to be offline most of the day and will return to continue this useful dialogue as soon as I can.
Be well and enjoy the day!
Regards,
John
The real problem here
Regardless of your justifications (moderators busy with kids, personality conflicts, etc) above, 911blogger has controlled discourse in a highly suspicious manner and in contradiction with its publicly stated objectives.
Will you not acknowledge that fact?
By definition,
any moderated site is controlled.
What is suspicious to one is innocuous to others.
Human perception is highly subjective, yes?
all ideas are equal, but some are more equal than others
The problem has nothing to do with people's inability to understand 7th grade science, or their lack of rationality, or their insecurity.
The problem is the highly unlevel playing field that grants carte blanche to users such as Jon Gold, Loose Nuke, jimd3100, Zombie Bill Hicks, John Albanese, John Bursill, Victronix and Michael Wolsey, to make outrageous claims, to lie, to misrepresent and to attack other users, with impunity.
Is it mere coincidence that the above users all support the view that a plane hit the Pentagon?
On the contrary, those who have taken the time to view CIT's National Security Alert or to view any of the videos made by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for Truth, know that we were lied to about the Pentagon, as about so many other things.
What we see at blogger is: those who know the most and have done the most research, are aggressively downvoted and frequently banned or queued. The list of people who have been banned includes some of the biggest contributors to the truth movement: Kevin Barrett, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Rob Balsamo.
While it is possible that the blogger mods are oblivious to the fact that the site has been co-opted by a group that promote the OCT wrt to the Pentagon, I find it very hard to believe. I am on blogger only occasionally, yet I see it. If anyone is reading each and every comment that goes up, they will see it. So, to me, the integrity of the blogger mods is very much in question.
EDIT: 3:30 pm Monday, January 25
LeftWright writes:
Why then, is there so much focus at 911blogger on "rooting out disinformation" and banning those who believe that there were no Muslim hijackers (such as Kevin Barrett) and that no plane hit the Pentagon (such as Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis and Rob Balsamo)? If we are to trust truthers' intelligence and trust that the cream will rise to the top, shouldn't all points of view have their day?
Instead, LeftWright wrote in a public comment to me, wrt my queueing, that:
That sounds very different than: