Adam Syed and Adam Ruff on the Kevin Barrett Show, exposing 911blogger censorship farce
http://noliesradio.org/archives/17083
(You have to turn off the live stream in the right corner first, then click on the archive file.)
I haven't talked about the current 911blogger fiasco here at WTCDemolition.com yet, but Adam Ruff (formerly "atomicbomb" at 911blogger) and myself ended up on Barrett's show this afternoon as backup guests because his Gaza-Israel guest didn't make it.
This was perfect timing for us because this past week, the moderating team at 911blogger has engaged in what is probably the most blatant (but much more silent) purge since mid 2008, and I've noticed that LeftWright has not posted in weeks, indicating to me that he might have been purged of his moderator status. LW was trying to do some good things and mend fences and he used to promptly return my e-mails. Now, deafening silence from not just him but the entire blogger team.
Stefan, Adam Ruff, myself, OneSliceShort, and I'm not sure who else, have been purged from commenting (we can still log in and vote) for the past week now, and this was in response to the blog entry by "Shure" with regard to the Pentagon.
We all politely e-mailed the team and asked what we had done wrong and to be pointed to an offending post which would warrant us getting queued. None of us ever got a response.
By the way, since I've been queued, I've tried submitting totally innocuous comments such as "Bravo Dr. Griffin on yet another great presentation!" and these comments don't get posted. It seems as if there is an official "[fill in the blank] is no longer welcome to comment here." I've been taking screenshots of my comment previews so that 911blogger's censorship can continue to be exposed.
So, Adam and I went public about this today on Barrett's show. We were careful to not accuse anyone of being agents or "fake truthers" but we did talk about their tactics. One of the most blatant examples I've seen the past year, which I made sure to highlight on the show, was how Pentagon crash OCT defender "Victronix" sounds exactly like John McCain in his Popular Mechanics foreword. Listeners can make up their own minds about Victronix and others.
It is obvious that since they were unable to give any of us a reason for silencing us, it can be inferred that because the Pentagon OCT was becoming even more strongly debunked than before, censorship was the only option on the part of those who for whatever reason have a vested interest in defending the South of Citgo flight path and the impact into the building.
When I say "more strongly debunked," I mean that 911blogger moderator Erik Larson several months ago tried to spin a bunch of printed witness testimonies as being South of Citgo testimonies. For example, Albert Hemphill. CIT called Hemphill and he confirms unequivocally that the plane was on the North path, hence proving Larson to be disingenuous at best and a liar at worst.
So, Justin Keogh and the rest of the team, you've been called out on your, frankly, Stalinist actions. At least Reprehensor generally had the courtesy to announce why he was purging people. This past week's purge was a quiet one, just like people disappearing slowly and gradually from Soviet society and quietly up to Siberia.
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
Guess which moderator has been conspicuously busy?
Loose Nuke a.k.a. Erik Larson. Something has definitely happened behind the scenes there and I would indeed like to hear what LeftWright has to say about it.
I saw loose nuke scold
I saw loose nuke scold somebody in a post from yesterday because that somebody dared to lay out some of the evidence that zionists were involved in 9/11. I'm quite sure that Larson is the one behind this purge, I only lurk over at 911B and don't comment(I never even tried to re-register to 911B after the great purge that Reprehensor engaged in in 08), but it seems to me that hes losing his grip a bit lately. Thank you Adam Syed(and Ruff), for telling it like it is when it comes to 911bloggers shady ass operation.
great discussion adam
I'm particularly glad that Kevin reiterated what Alan Sabrosky said that the CIA as an agency would never have done 9/11, that it has Zionism written all over it.
Maybe, maybe not...
The CIA has had no compunctions about causing death and suffering to non-Americans, and factions within the CIA have had none regarding non-affluent non-white Americans (for example the engineered crack epidemic). I don't think there's any reason to be confident that "they" (and we can argue the "qua agency" versus "factions within agency") would NOT kill service workers and some hapless white middle managers in the WTC.
not their style...
I didn't say they wouldn't be capable of bad things, just that 9/11 did not seem to be their style, and it was the CIA that opposed the bogus intel produced by the Pentagon Zionists about Iraqi WMD...
and the more I hear people try to frame them...
...along with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Arabs and/or Muslims, the more I am convinced of their innocence in this case--except of course with regard to the cover-up...
kevin ryan wrote:
The author of the official cover-up report for the USS Liberty incident was Clark Cifford, LBJ's second Secretary of Defense, after Robert McNamara.
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/clifford.html
Clifford had earlier been JFK's personal lawyer and then his chairman of the FIAB. Clifford went on to become the attorney for BCCI and the chairman of First American Bank, secretly owned by BCCI. The Pakistani/Saudi/UAE run BCCI was a "bank" that worked with (and perhaps was run by) the CIA, and was deeply involved in funding and supplying the Afghan rebels in the 1980s, some of whom later became al Qaeda.
A ha!
"Worked with/was perhaps run by" the CIA. Sheesh... what if the CIA was controlled by the Pakistanis/Emiratis/Saudis?
the problem has always been
that the CIA has always understood that what is best for the security of the US is good relations with Arab and Muslim regimes willing to let the US have oil on friendly terms (i.e. screw the little people of those countries, screw the USSR, and yes, screw Israel.) This makes it a target of the ire of Zionists, since Americans might actually listen to the professional analysts of the CIA and realize what spineless sycophants "their" representatives actually are. in this light it makes perfect sense that the real 9/11 perps would want to lump them in with the evil arabs and muslims...
style
why isn't 911 the cia's style? do you not think they had anything to do with the previous wtc bombing, or oklahoma?
I agree with Cass
I don't have any doubt there was Israeli involvement, and I've long suspected that it might have been Mossad agents who rigged the buildings. But at the same time, I have little doubt that the Pentagon destruction and staging of light poles was orchestrated by none other than Cheney/Rumsfeld. This would explain why Rumsfeld was out in the PentaLawn, "tending to the injured" (ensuring the cover-up went smoothly) instead of being at his command post.
or...
Rumsfeld was afraid to be inside thinking there might be more bombs. But sure, I'm open to the possibility that Cheney/Rumsfeld had foreknowledge and/or complicity--where's the evidence though? Cheney is often accused of giving a "stand down" order because of his "of course the orders still stand" comment. Problem is, we don't KNOW that the orders were to not shoot the plane down. In fact it could well be that the orders were if the plane gets within 5 miles, shoot it down. And that attempts to shoot down the plane failed because there was no plane, just a huge explosion. Maybe this is why Aldo and Craig are so keen to put a plane at the scene... a flyover begs the question of why wasn't the plane that flew over shot down as it was approaching. This would imply a real stand down. But why wouldn't a complicit Cheney have said to go ahead and shoot down the very real plane alleged to have been flying towards (and then into or over the Pentagon?) That would have been no less spectacular and effective as a psyop... No, I think there really was no plane at the Pentagon.
Interesting discussion
"a flyover begs the question of why wasn't the plane that flew over shot down as it was approaching."
Do you mean why wasn't it shot down right next to the Pentagon in a way that people couldn't tell that the plane was actually shot down, and still assumed that the plane impacted the Pentagon? Good question.
If you meant why wasn't an obvious shoot down part of the script, in order to provide a display of heroic defense, then I'm confused about your logic. How would they explain the damage to the Pentagon in such a case? Or are you arguing that it would have been a better psyop to not blow up the Pentagon and instead just provide a display of a heroic shoot down? In that case, I'd argue that that would be nearly impossible to substantiate, nor would it be that crucial in the overall picture.
"But why wouldn't a complicit Cheney have said to go ahead and shoot down the very real plane alleged to have been flying towards (and then into or over the Pentagon?) That would have been no less spectacular and effective as a psyop.."
Because they needed to have an alabi to blow up the Pentagon along with destroying evidence (of Dov Zakheim's missing Trillions?, among possibly other things)?
"I think there really was no
"I think there really was no plane at the Pentagon."
Then what do we do with all the witnesses who are just about universal, including those who were verified and interviewed, in their recollection that a plane flew towards the Pentagon?
My own theory is that
My own theory is that Rumsfeld(and possibly Cheney) was following Zakheims orders on 9/11. Keep in mind-that infamous perfectly timed Sept.10,2001 press conference Rumsfeld gave about the "missing" 2.3 trillion? Zakheim was the comptroller, he would have been in a position to time that perfectly, not Rumsfeld. Guilty? Yes, but I believe he was basically "just following orders" and playing his part, meaning he is no architect of the attacks imho. A crucial player but not a mastermind. I have similar feelings about Cheney, no doubt guilty of being involved but likely not an architect of 9/11. The zionist agenda lined up with his neocon agenda so he went with it. 9/11 pushed both of those agendas forward in a big way.
"The zionist agenda lined up
"The zionist agenda lined up with his neocon agenda so he went with it. 9/11 pushed both of those agendas forward in a big way."
I agree. That seems to be the most likely scenario. As far as I'm concerned, there are certainly enough home-grown psychopaths in the US military industrial complex and elite political ruling class in the US to have pulled off 9/11 without the involvement of any international entities, although the evidence convinces me that the Mossad and Zionists were definately among the key criminal partners behind 9/11.
The nuances of the CIA as an
The nuances of the CIA as an agency doing 9-11 is lost to me. The Mossad, as an agency of the government of Israel probably has no official records sanctioning 9-11 either. I do not think there is a report detailing how they did the WTC attacks filed away in their agency cabinets.
To me, even participation in the cover up by a news reporter who knowingly, even if unwilingly reported disinfo for the WTC attacks is just as guilty as the people who wired the bombs in WTC.
In this business, few, if any of those demo people who wired the buildings with bombs would have wanted to kill the near 3000 who died. They were all just doing their job. Just had to pay mortgage, whatever.
A whole intel agency that cannot bring itself to reveal the truth about an attack against the people every one of its employees has sworn to protect and collects it's paychecks from at the same time? Guilty for 9-11, what the fuck
Just listening to it again...
Did you notice where I used your words "steaming pile of LIHOP"?
I guess my fears are proven
I guess my fears are proven correct that 911Blogger has not changed at all, it is still a controlled site.
LeftWright, for all the good intentions he has does not pull the shots even though for a time it seems he was given enough leeway to initiate peace with wtcdemolition.com.
911blogger participants beware
shadow mods
Behind the scene shadow moderators for 911 Truth!
The community at large never even knows that there's a bunch of mods secretly picking and choosing what they feel is the best information for consumption, choosing secretly who they feel should be allowed to participate in a debate, secretly using their moderation power as influence to help them win arguments and debates.
BTW, why is everyone so afraid to call people what they obviously are? The moderators at 911Blogger have been secretly banning people, censoring comments and moderating user contributions based on their own view points for years. I wouldn't mind if it were not all done in secret. The community then gets a sense of what is actually going on. But instead you get completely censored with no warning or response from the Truth Moderators. Same shit different day.
i'm not afraid...
I am fairly confident that whoeevr ultimately controls 911B is in fact an accessory to the cover-up. A knowing, willing accessory.
I agree, and i think we
I agree, and i think we should be shouting to the world that we think so to warn people that they will be getting disinfo at that site at the very least, and perhaps exposing their identity to the perps at the worst. The last part I regret I have already done to myself.
911 Blogger
I am still in moderation at blogger over my spats with John Gold & Loose Nuke last year over them deliberately trying to change the emphasis of Blogger away from CD issues to much weaker arguments & promoting lihop evidence. I appealed to Leftwright and the moderator board to cancel my moderation, but it seems I am permanently on a 'troublemaker list' despite my arguments being entirely focused on the issue. I never went into the CIT thing at all, so I am not convinced that this is the issue that must be censored above all else. I think it is good stuff, and should be discussed, however based on the density of posts and disagreement on this issue, I find it a bit of a distraction (to outsiders) compared to the conclusiveness of CD. As I suggested to Left wright here, surely one purpose of the site is to assess and promote the best evidence, and to that end they should poll what is the best evidence and promote that upfront whilst allowing for all other discussion at the same time. If you dont do that, then you are promoting disagreements and weaker evidence based on volume of posting alone.That is what I did on my (Venomous post according to Mr Gold) when I polled blogger on whether the evidence for CD was conclusive, and got an overwhelming support despite Larsen & Gold's stated attempts to Change direction of the movement away from CD.
On a related note it seems to me that the most active misdirection agent currently on blogger appears to be
Brian 78046 (Dean Jackson Editor in Chief etc a "political science graduate"). He is constantly trying undermine CD conclusiveness and promote weak evidence instead. His toy throwing over the fact that everyone was not swooning at his drop dead lihop " discovery" that AOC WAS monitoring airspace on 911( Shit,lets all grab the pitchforks now eh!) - set my alarm bells ringing, and every (frequent) post of his since seems to attempt more misdirection. He also uses every opportunity to dismiss the WTC7 freefall admission of nist etc, using the OT argument that (as I understand it) the 'work' of the collapse was done internally prior to the
onset of freefall, therefore freefall was possible as the
'shell fell with no internal structure remaining' bollocks.
the thing is entirely co-opted
And it's not terribly surprising given that many people see it as a central clearinghouse of the movement. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about creating a new "general interest" blogging site that would be what we all think 911blogger should be, but we seem to be waiting for someone to step up and do it. I would except for two main reasons--one is that I am considered a polarizing figure by many, and the other is that I just don't have the time and energy to manage a site in addition to WTCD. An alternative would be to find an acommodating existing forum and spread the word that it is the new "in" place for genuine discussion. It's important that any such site, new or existing, be included in as many blogrolls as possible of course otherwise we'll just be hiding ourselves from the public...
"Brian" appears to get
"Brian" appears to get around a lot. Ive encountered him on numerous mainstream-ish sites pushing the "Bush and Cheney did it" line and he always attacks people who go beyond that. One of "Brians" bullshit lines was-"did zionists make norad stand-down?". Most recently I saw him on alternet on the dishonest-"Glenn Beck forum promotes Israel did 9/11 theme" story which was linked from islamophobe Adam Hollands site. The same Adam Holland that Col.Jenny apparently likes enough to link to despite Hollands long history of attacking 9/11 "truthers"(I don't usually play the guilt by association game of-"this person is connected to this person who took a picture at some event with this person so hes a crypto-nazi agent!!!, but since Col.Jenny specializes in it I will in this case).
Same experience, hopefully it will be solved soon
As Waarheid911 I was a regular poster on 911Blogger for quite some time. Sadly I had exactly the same experience as described in the article. I do not expect that my carefully selected contributions are being selected for the "News" section. I rest my case when moderation decides that better options are available to fill each days frontpage.
But then I experienced that some of my selections were completely neglected, also from the Blog section. I struck me because of the quality and possible impact of that particular articles. Reason to respectfully ask the moderation if there are some rules to keep in mind, because dropping nicely edited contributions each time are never a product of some rush job, they'll take time and I don't want to waste my time.
I never got any answer!
Just before I stopped contributing a few months ago, I saw some of my actual contributions refused again, but saw them back weeks later from another contributor. Again, no response when asking what policy is being used.
I'm still making a lot of advertisements for 911Blogger with the @W911 Twitter newsfeed. I really miss some kind of solidarity which each other, mutually between 9/11 groups. W911 is one of the largest 9/11 Twitter feeds around. Much larger than 91Blogger's twitter feed. I still support this important news platform and I don't want to see conflicts emerging within the heart of truth gathering initiatives. Whe don't need to agree with each other all the time without still being able to profile ourselves as decent explorers of information.
I consider moderating 911Blogger's input of information as an important tool to be safeguarded against misinformation from so called 'debunkers' and other figures with their intentions not to inform but only to mislead.
But in return I expect clarity on 911Blogger's policies and at least the decency to respond on normal questions. We are all working hard to make a success of 911Blogger and to evolve this platform to a quality that can be taken seriously by a broad audience, even people who are used to mainstream news. Exactly the audience we need to reach, instead of people who are already convinced of the many flaws in the official 9/11 story.
In a world where White House officials are openly talking about infiltrating groups and internet communities that criticize official statements about 9/11, I consider total clarity about policy rules as the only guarantee that we're talking about a decent organization.
Frank Ho
http://waarheid911.com
W911 Twitter
Hi Frank
Yes, you have more than four times the following of either @911blogger or @truthaction, I see. I think I'm your 2002nd follower.
It's all about spreading credible information
Thanks mate!
My idea for a divers share of information [it's about information, not opinions] is that strong 9/11 information messengers support each other much more than we are used nowadays. We don't have to be afraid to be each others rivals, because this diversity of sources will strengthen visitors conviction that the recurring information has credibility. It will therefore strengthen all individual sources too.
I don't have a rule for who is a strong messenger. That's a choice for every individual source to make, balancing common sense and personal likings.
In the same time it's [of course] free to each of us to deliver the best presentations or the most striking facts, preferable not mixed with colored opinions. Diversion means everyone supports it's own brand or style. All those styles together will result in synergism. The common information can be checked by the public, but will soon sound more real and easier to assimilate for those who are conditioned to mainstream sources.
Allende Admirer
AA,
You said
I never went into the CIT thing at all.
That's precicely it. You have to watch their presentations. When you do, you will realize that it's all about the witnesses, not Craig and Aldo. The witnesses speak for themselves (credible and non-credible ones alike).
however based on the density of posts and disagreement on this issue, I find it a bit of a distraction (to outsiders) compared to the conclusiveness of CD.
This is a perfect example of the microcosm I'm talking about. Let me explain.
I first met Gretavo on the Amazon forums, primarily in the forums (1) defending DRG's books against the shills and (2) exposing the fallacies of the Popular Mechanics book on its customer review/comments page. This led both of to discover the Amazon Politics Forum.
The fact that on 911blogger, a "typical" thread receives no more than 10-20 comments, while a CIT thread receives hundreds, often involving dense posts, is just like the issue of 9/11 truth as a whole, on non-9/11 specific sites. Check out this screenshot taken just today:
See my point? This trend follows on countless other forums too.
Now, someone who is anti-war and wants the troops home, but is not convinced of 9/11 truth's claims, might look at the above image and think to themself: "Gee, with all those posts the debate must be heated and thus the evidence must not be that conclusive." And they might view every minute spent debating minutiae about weakening points of steel, etc., to be a distraction.
Simply a microcosm of your assessment of the North of Citgo evidence, which amounts to a simple left vs. right claim, which makes or breaks the official Pentagon story.
Oh, but it can't be so "simple" if there are all those heated discussions with hundreds of comments, right? Don't you think it's more likely that the Cognitive Infil-traitors have deliberately made it that way? Don't forget that prior to Steven Jones and Richard Gage, there was a time where CD was still controversial within the movement. And, by contrast, in the earliest years of the truth movement, the no-757-Pentagon-crash idea was pretty much universally agreed on. The controversy has been manufactured, and definitely not from the CIT side. It was pretty much the Hoffman/Ashley duo who singlehandedly manufactured the controversy with their blogs/essays supporting the official narrative.
totally agree...
with this:
"Don't forget that prior to Steven Jones and Richard Gage, there was a time where CD was still controversial within the movement. And, by contrast, in the earliest years of the truth movement, the no-757-Pentagon-crash idea was pretty much universally agreed on. The controversy has been manufactured, and definitely not from the CIT side. It was pretty much the Hoffman/Ashley duo who singlehandedly manufactured the controversy with their blogs/essays supporting the official narrative."
Adam
When I said I never went into the cit thing at all, I was not saying that I am personally unaware of their presentation, and in fact I said it was good stuff and should be discussed. What I was saying was that my interaction with 911 blogger had nothing to do with the pentagon issue, and yet I was, and am still moderated,whilst you were allowed to continue your CIT discussions there at length for another year, and therefore I would not like to over inflate the fact that you are now banned as 'the CIT thing is too hot to handle' therefore it is censored therefore it is THE issue.
As I also said , It is extremely important that everything is allowed and discussed, however I also believe that any 911 information site has to be aware of its educational value, as this is the ONLY tool we have on our side against the OT and surely once there is a consensus that certain evidence is pretty darned watertight, then you should be amplifying that evidence and sticking it in the face of any casual lurkers.-Jon Gold was well aware of this with his 'big list of facts' linked to with every single comment he made (Into the thousands)even if it was just "thanks" or something (always dumb!)
Instead what I see at blogger is a complete failure to assess, and AMPLIFY the best evidence. Remember
Change = diversity X advantageous selection X amplification
911 blogger has totally failed to recognize this!
The fact that the pentagon issue is the highest VOLUME of posting is completely irrelevant, as there appears to be no consensus. If there was a poll and Pentagon became the No 1 issue, then fair enough, but I don't think we are there yet.
(IMH(but irrelevant)O, anything involving witnesses can be faked given enough resources, so no matter how unlikely, CIT COULD be disinfo , the witnesses COULD be misrepresented or bribed, or led to certain directions. I dont believe that this is true of CIT, and reiterate it is IMO good stuff, and should be discussed, HOWEVER,compared to CD which I KNOW to be true based on my scientific education and not on what he/ she said, if indeed they did say that and they wern't set up to say it.
It is not up to you or me to decide what our 'best evidence' is, everything should be hypothesized then attacked then modified then (assuming your punters have listened to and absorbed the discourse) trust them to tell you what they find most persuasive and then amplify that !
Furthermore, without testing and then amplifying your best evidence in the face of the world, the site's evidence becomes by default that of the greatest volume.
Therefore the fact that the CIT discussions are long has nothing whatsoever to do with how effective that evidence is to outsiders. What I see on Blogger is a lot of people talking about why CD is inconclusive, and arguing at great length on issues where the 'membership' is divided. Therefore as a site , blogger (as an educator) is merely amplifying 'noise' and has no relevant 'Signal' to transmit.
great post!
that's all. nice analysis, of which we need more in this movement!
Moderation
BTW to test my 911blogger moderation status I made an innocuous comment on the Kevin Ryan current post about samples going missing about 14 hours ago and it has still not appeared so I refuse to contribute to a site where my hands are tied, regardless of whether or not my comment eventually appears.
what it's all about...
That image is priceless.
That image is priceless.
That should be making the rounds
Too bad we can't hack into the site and replace the background with that... so accurate, really..
countdown to moderation: darkbeforedawn
Here we go again... Erik Larson (aka Rancho Truth, Loose Nuke) posts a story from the mainstream media that names Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the "self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind". Larson does not preface his post at all with a disclaimer about the ridiculous characterization of a tortured man's confession as reliable. He is, however, called out for it by user darkbeforedawn, who has subsequently been up-voted. But no response from Larson. How long before darkbeforedawn disappears for his/her audacity in calling out Larson's transparent promotion of the racist and murderous Official Conspiracy Theory?
George Bush admits US waterboarded 9/11 mastermind
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/george-bush-us-waterboarded-terror-mastermind
George Bush admitted yesterday that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded by the US, and said he would do it again "to save lives". "Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," the former president told a business audience in Grand Rapids, Michigan. "I'd do it again to save lives." Waterboarding is a simulated drowning technique that the Obama administration has said is torture. Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and is the most senior al-Qaida operative in US custody. In his speech, Bush also defended the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. He said ousting Saddam Hussein "was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him". But he said he was not tempted to criticise Barack Obama. "You are not going to see me in the public square criticising the president." In February he said he was "trying to regain a sense of anonymity. I didn't like it when a certain former president made my life miserable." This was said to be a reference to Jimmy Carter, president from 1976 to 1980. Bush also talked about the role of religion in his life. "I prayed a lot. I really did. I prayed before every major speech. I prayed before debates. It was a very important experience." And he talked about the morning of 9/11, describing how he had learned that first one, then two planes had hit the World Trade Centre in New York. The third plane, which hit the Pentagon near Washington DC, was "a declaration of war on our country", he said.
Bush's memoir Decision Points will be published in November.?
5 points
I guess that means Obama won't have to try him
And I guess that means that "sensitive material" can stay hidden.
the "master mind".....ha ha ha ha ha hee hee
wouldn't waste one second on this drivel if I were you.....but then those of us who still think box-cutter wielding camel jockeys took away the pilot controls from seasoned air force vets and flawlessly aimed the giant jumbo jets with pinpoint accuracy at the buildings and that the buildings did fall because of kerosene fires do still buy this shit.
and fellow fake truther zmzmzm
pretends that KSM won't be tried because of the fear that he will reveal "sensitive material" which is fake truther speak for "the role of the USG in managing the evil arab muslim al Qaeda operation".
This is part of the 'game'. Let's not loose our cool
The last thing the Truthmovement can use is growing conflict from within. Our focus should basically keep on the outside. The public we want to reach for having a better understanding about 9/11. In the action-segment of whatever movement we're talking about, you'll often see the bad habit to keep focused on each other with silly fights that discourage the audiences they need so badly.
We are challenged by the U.S. Government and by the mainstream press with wild accusations. Lawmakers are studying ways to get better grip on so called 'home grown terrorists'. The same legislation that is being developed to tackle them can be used to tackle the 'free speech' that is left almost ten years after 9/11. We're getting nervous when organizations, specially 9/11 organizations, are using vague rules and procedures that trigger suspicion about the intention to explore truth and nothing but the truth.
This is part of the 'game' that we are pressed to play. If we destroy each other with quarrels we are losing definitely. We need our brains and analyze our emotions all the time. And we need to keep focused on the big audience that we try to convince with facts and data.
Each organization is built from a variety of segments. Let's give 911Blogger the chance to repair itself. Let's not fuel the suspicion and create enemies before trying to save the ship. We need each other. All we ask 911Blogger is clarity, in my opinion, and a set of rules that will safeguard our legitimate demand that truth is spoken. 9/11 Truth should be our goal. Twisting around is exactly what many (mostly ignorant) forces in govt. and mainstream press love to see. This is what the counter-work (Sunstein et al)is all about. Let's not bite too greedy.
thanks for your level headed views
I agree in principle, but at this point, given the undue influence and control that obvious frauds have it is more important to call thse people out than to be unified. There are plenty of things that unify the movement--talks by David Ray Griffin attract large numbers of diverse people in search of the truth. This doesn't stop the little cadre of fake truthers including most of the people at truthaction from denouncing Griffin at every chance they get. Moreover, the users at truthaction published a high and mighty "statement of principles" only to violate it brazenly, as evidenced by ————- (aka Col Jenny Sparks') libelous witchhunts. I don't need any more evidence that these people are hypocrites and liars whose only goal is to sabotage the truth movement. This is not divisiveness, this is a reasonable response to obvious disruptors who, despite their views being far out of the mainstream of the truth movement, somehow hold sway over a site many consider (dangerously imo) to be influential. If you truly mean what you posted, then I suggest you approach that crew and ask them if they truly believe that the material they have posted about me on their forum is true, or if they do in fact hold to a much lower set of "principles" than they profess to.
that said...
I wholeheartedly agree that our focus should not be on these internal squabbles but on outreach to the public, and indeed that's what I spend most of my time on, both on the streets and now with the new site/wiki which is still a work in progress but which will continue to cover (in addition to our take on the truth movement) issues and methods of explaining the truth to all kinds of people. I did not start the flame war with ———---she did. The truthaction gang, by allowing her a platform for her attacks, clearly showed itself to be less interested in public outreach and more interested in tearing down fellow activists. at no point have YT, John Bursill, Loose Nuke, or anyone else complained about ———‘a use of obviously fraudulent accusations against another truther. People like that should not be allowed any influence, let alone moderation powers, on any real truth forum.
"People like that should not
"People like that should not be allowed any influence, let alone moderation powers, on any real truth forum."
Precisely!
Is it too much to ask for any web site that would claim to be representing the overall 9/11 Truth Movement, as 911Blogger and TrueFaction do, that they at least try to not operate at cross purposes against majority opinion within the movement, or to not be such utter hypocrites with stated policies and guidelines? Sheesh!
This is part of the 'game'. Let's not loose our cool
I agree with your reply as far as it deals with bad intentions. My point is that I'm still not sure that the complete 911Blogger 'crew' is fake.
In the meantime I do support this thread as being an important message towards failing mods and a visiting truth-gathering audience. I already sent a few messages, during a period of approx. 6 months, to the 911Blogger moderation. But like I said, I never got any response. Then I still hoped I missed something (due to spam filters, etc) but I checked well and this thread really drew my attention because I experienced the same odd behavior according to selectivity and the complete lack of personal feedback when serious questions occur.
I was a frequent contributor with the most actual news many times on their news section. But specific material and hot stuff was neglected multiple times, also from my personal blog. I'm not a racist, or a dangerous foul with wild and unproven accusations, I just delivered important news from official news sources or serious blogs. So, I guess that my questions for clarity were quite legitimate. 911Blogger should also improve their understanding with those who are part of their own success.
I'm not so much into this mess between "false truthers" as you obvious are, but I also want to underline to be cautious with other opinions when we do not agree. I met a lot of guys with strong opinions on 9/11 conspiracy. Opinions which I detested. These persons were no agents or false truthers, they just do not have the capacity to see the scientific consequences/stupidities of their own ideas. But these figures [sometimes approaching 9/11 as some kind of exciting game and pumping up their egos] really can stick to their convictions. This is a common problem in every movement based on activism. Therefore I'm always emphasize the need for information, not for opinions, etc.
Of course, the kind of people you are talking about do also exist. That's for sure. But I'm still quite blind for their exact locations, just trying to be cautious. Thanks for helping!
I'm glad with your second reply. It's indeed very important to keep the eye on the real thing, on 9/11 Truth itself. We're doing a collective and most important job with exposing the lies of the US Government and allies, and the almost dying free press.
My sigh-in to this blog is still pending. I don't like to respond without mentioning my name. It's still Frank Ho/waarheid911.com/The Netherlands. Moderation will check that this is true ;-)
thanks, ur all set!
glad to have ur input!
Very well said
"This is not divisiveness, this is a reasonable response to obvious disruptors who, despite their views being far out of the mainstream of the truth movement, somehow hold sway over a site many consider (dangerously imo) to be influential."
This summarizes perfectly why it is so obvious 911Blogger and TrueFaction have been co-opted by those who are the least deserving of holding any sway or influence whatsoever in the [Real] Truth Movement. If any of those fake lie-hop "truthers" would disagree, then PROVE IT! Poll the entire membership of 911Blogger on these issues that you controllers/gatekeepers of that site trying to shove down everyone's throats, such as de-emphasizing controlled demolition, damanding that people accept the OCT of the Pentagon attack, and insisting that box-cutter wielding camel jockeys took away the pilot controls from seasoned air force vets and flawlessly aimed the giant jumbo jets with pinpoint accuracy blah, blah, blah, blah...to name a few examples.
So, let's see if you guys are willing to prove whether or not your control clique has even the tiniest bit of legitimacy by running polls on these issues/policies. Yes, YOU! YOU sitting there reading this right now. You TrueFaction/911Blogger shills reading this right now who claim to not care about WTCD and claim that, "everyone who frequents that site is an enemy of 9/11 Truth. Every single one," and then proceed to frequent this site every day, even though, as JohnA asserts "every MINUTE you spend reading Gustapo's disinfo site is a MINUTE lost for the cause." I'm talking to YOU Jon Gold and Eric Larson and Mr. Cosmos "I haven't scummed up my browser looking at WTCD in years" YT, John Albanese. You know who you are. Let's see you guys prove your legitimacy by running a single poll on anything you are trying to shove down people's throats. You won't. You never have and you never will, because you are all cowards and fakes and you have never had the legitimacy to do what you are doing to control the online discussions of 9/11 truth.
duplicate comment
n/t
This is part of the 'game'. Let's not loose our cool
[sorry, we don't allow anonymous posts to be signed with the name of a "real person". to attribute your posts to a name please register! thanks. -gReT]
[sorry mod. forgot to sign previous message]
Erik Larson
What a total piece of scum.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38266#38266
The above post is the one and only time so far that ANY moderator from 911blogger has addressed the issue of the purging and censorship.
We get silenced with no explanation, despite our polite inquiries as to why. Inquiries are met with deafening silence. So we go on the Kevin Barrett show and expose the farce. Then Larson has the chutzpah to say:
If the Barrett show w/ Syed is the beginning of a
campaign against 911blogger and credible activists, it may be useful to
document and analyze it, as has been done with other efforts at
disruption; documentation has already begun on this thread (thx for the
summary, truebeleauger).
Wow, the sheer nerve of this man, making it look like we're the disruptors.
You know, I was a bit slow to waking up to all this "fake truther" stuff back when CD was still somewhat controversial. That's why for me it was the CIT issue which made me realize what was going on.
As we mentioned on Barrett: Where the hell do people like Cosmos, Truthmover and Gold think they're getting off thinking they're somehow smarter than DRG, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, and so on, who watched National Security Alert and were impressed enough to endorse the presentation with glowing blurbs? Cosmos referred to the endorsements as "unfortunate," which signifies that he thinks he and his ilk have some sort of genius IQ and were somehow able to see right through Craig and Aldo's evil plot to CON those major movement intellectuals into supporting disinfo.
Cosmos, I know you're reading this. When I briefly posted as Hussein over at your site and you promptly banned me after discovering who I was, you said "Adam if you'll apologize for your past attacks against this site I'll consider reinstating your posting privs."
Sorry amigo but you guys really showed your fake truther colors when, instead of seriously considering that the endorsements might signify that the film presented damning information, you simploy redoubled your venom against CIT and ignored the message therein.
No apologies from me mate. You folks have EARNED being called True Faction.
Oh, and as for you, John Albanese: At the 0:09 mark on this video, it seems like you're really biting your tongue from saying the word "job." "My... I basically focus on..."
"I basically focus on
"I basically focus on studying the cultural phenomenon of this movement..."
So says John Albanese on Fox News.
Wow. I'm speechless. So, here is one of the self-proclaimed "great leaders and veterans of this movement" that is actually presented with a fantastic opportunity that most of us could only dream of ever having to use this valuable national tv air time to advocate for "our" side's perspective to help open the minds of the brainwashed masses and hopefully bring more people to our cause, and what does he do? He completely blows his opportunity and sabotages the cause that he constantly claims to be pushing?! WTF?
Not only does he completely blow this amazing opportunity by failing to offer a single coherent argument to validate our cause, but instead he actually re-enforces the controlled media's ongoing strategy to paint the truth movement as a bunch of psychologically insane people who don't really have any valid reasons for questioning the official narrative of 9/11, and therefore can be simply dismissed as just another useless "cultural phenomena"?
And these fake "truthers" actually feign confusion and insult over the fact that an increasing number of people within their own "movement" accuse them of being disinfo agents?
That clip says it all about
That clip says it all about Albanese really. He lets the bobblehead frame the debate and fails to talk about any of the evidence for why such a "cultural phenomenon" exists. The segment was obviously condescending to 9/11 activists from the start and he just went right along with it. Greasy haired scumbag is too obvious....
Seriously...
What more proof does anyone really need at this point that these people are not only NOT helping the cause of truth, but are instead actively working against the goals of the [Real] truth movement?
To reiterate:
There exists a 9/11 LIHOP ("lie-hop") Movement.
There exists a 9/11 Truth Movement.
The two are mutually exclusive.
A primary focus of this group of frauds is to deceive people about this crucial fact.
It wasn't an opportunity.
It wasn't an opportunity. It was his duty.
John AlBaloneyese was CHOSEN specifically to re-enforces the controlled media's ongoing strategy.
Bit off topic. But did not
Bit off topic. But did not want to start a new thread for this, but was trying to find something by Jon Gold on 911Blogger and I always get this when I click on his profile.
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.
Since I can see the profile of any other user, I was wondering if this was just for me or is it a loss for the whole world also?
His account is blocked
per his request. (One of the mods said some dumb thing about "we have a policy against removing accounts" -- I guess they reserve the right to act like Facebook.) Anyway, same message for all blocked accounts, including mine. (I think I was like user #29 or something.)
I was #86 I think...
we're dinosaurs of truth... :)
Moderated = Comments deleted
Adam:
By the way, since I've been queued, I've tried submitting totally innocuous comments such as "Bravo Dr. Griffin on yet another great presentation!" and these comments don't get posted.
Yes, being put into 'moderation' at Blogger doesn't appear to mean your comments are checked before they posted - they are simply deleted. You're basically banned from commenting, but they don't tell you that - they put some blurb at the top of the screen to the effect that you're in some kind of 'queue'. I lost several posts that way when I was in 'moderation'.