TrueFaction Shills launch new disinfo website: 911truthnews.com
I guess they finally created their 9/11 "Truth" Site run by "Veterans" of the movement? The core "team" of shills running this new fake truth site include:
- Victoria Ashley
- Cosmos
- Scott Ford (from Shillibility911 run by Shill Michael Woolsey)
- Julian Ware
Advisers include:
- John Bursil
- Jim Hoffman
- Frank Legge
- Janice Matthews
- Bob McIlvaine ---> I wonder if it is too late to save Bob from these shills?
- Cindy Sheehan ---> looks like we lost Cindy after Jon Gold got to her in DC
Editorial priorities with Real Truth markup by Keenan
a) Relevance: That which is specifically 9/11 LIHOP (un)truth
The 911 Truth Movement has it’s own unique history and independent character. While many who participate share an interest in other issues, it is essential that some do the work to represent this LIHOP movement’s core facts disinfo, goals, actions, accomplishments, and unique obstacles of our shrinking credibility in the face of the growing Real Truth Movement..
b) Reach: Accessible to those who are unfamiliar with or have negative impressions of the 911 truth LIHOP movement
As educating brainwashing the public is a top priority for the 9/11 truth LIHOP movement it is essential that it have introductory resources that appeal to the widest possible audience. Having participated for many years in the LIHOP movement, the editors have each very clearly seen that reaching new and skeptical people before they get exposed to Real 9/11 Truth requires that we maintain a high standardsophisticated propaganda operation for both that has no factual validity and nor internal accountability.
911truthnews911LIHOPnews seeks to demonstrate a commitment to distinguishing replacing fact from with speculation and promotion of LIHOP from alongside faulty research. To do that we will be making difficult editorial choices based on our experience promoting 9/11 truthLIHOP. That experience includes having actively dealt with the very best and most sophisticated disinfo and worththis LIHOP movement has to offer the public. Somewhere in between the editors have each drawn a very similar line between essential factsdisinfo and (dis)honest speculation that will guide our choices regarding site content.
c) Responsibility: Sources for information that best reflect the LIHOP movement’s core factsLIHOP disinfo and values
The editors will rely upon sources for all content that demonstrate a consistent commitment to factual responsibilityLIHOP disinfo. Such a commitment is integral to the falsification of science, history, journalism, and athwarting the movement promoting the real truth. Also included will be information from mainstream sources.
d) Road blocks: Avoiding obvious impediments and distractions
The editors have found that promotion of the more speculative and controversialhonest and scientifically-based claims one can find in this movement has represented a significant impediment to effectively promoting our core factsLIHOP disinfo and values. SpeculationTelling the real truth about 9/11 often creates distractionloss of credibility for LIHOP promoters and has been widely used to stigmatizehelp grow the real truth movement. A good deal of interesting information is simply not essential for outreachpromoting LIHOP. In order to reach a duly skeptical audience, the editors of 911 TruthLIHOP News will only be posting content that best serves as an introduction to the LIHOP topic and reflects the logic, (in)sincerity, passioncriminality, and internal awareness of the LIHOP movement.
______________________
Note: The shills have made clear that there will be no open discussion on this site, and that comments will be heavily censored and controlled, surprise, surprise!
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
they're running scared
Not only are their positions at odds with the undisputed champion of 9/11 truth (David Ray Griffin), they're also at odds with one of the movement's rising stars, David Chandler. Here are some excerpts from Chandler's essay Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job:
I think real truthers get it...
Is there a need for another 911 Truth news site?
It used to be, a couple of years ago, that 3-5 new articles would appear on 911blogger every day, since those were the days lots of things were happening. NIST was issuing reports and making comments; DRG and Dr. Jones and others were publishing their works and producing articles and such. Now, a lot of that has been digested and absorbed into the 911 Truth mainstream. There isn't as much 911 Truth news these days, so it isn't unusual to see no changes on the front page for a day or two.
I have to wonder what the point of 911TruthNews.com is when 911blogger is adequate and there isn't as much significant news about 911 as there once was. And isn't there a whole bunch of other 911 news sites out there that haven't generated much regular traffic?
Submitted by Dearth on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:07am.
The short answer:
More 9/11 truth is a good thing.
Submitted by YT on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 5:23am.
Well if truefaction and troothmove are anthing to go by
its traffic will tank. As with those sites, and increasingly now 911blogger as well (after a brief uptick in popularity when LeftWright was exerting more fair handed control there), truthnews will become a ghost town - probably from the start - simply because NO ONE CARES to associate with them and their shillery. I do hope Bob McIlvaine will be saved from these peoples' influence.
Bwahaha, nice markup Keenan
By the way, for the record, since you mentioned "Shillibility911 run by Shill Michael Wolsey":
When I discussed the Pentagon and CIT's evidence on Cincinnati 9/11 Truth's TV show, and then posted the youtubes to 911blogger, here is what Michael Wolsey said:
He's either an idiot or an agent. One of the two. The fact that EVERY contributor at Visibility911 is hard core anti CIT (and PilotsForTruth also) --- Wolsey, Bursill, Ford, Ryan (who de-friended me on facebook for posting the Zwicker endorsement on his wall), and Larson --- makes me suspicious that its a Cognitive Infiltration op.
There are agents and there are dupes. In terms of the functionality though, there is little difference between the two, because the net effect is the same. If Wolsey is not on the payroll, then the gatekeepers behind the scenes are high-fiving each other in the lunchroom over the fact that they're saving money.
Michael Wolsey got me banned from TrueFaction
Back in December of 2007, when I was posting at TrueFaction, Michael Wolsey was instrumental in getting my banned because I had the audacity to pick apart Wolsey's blog post insisting that AA77 really did hit the Pentagon.
Hilariously, Wolsey accused me of derailing the thread and being off-topic, and the mods then split the thread at the point where someone (me) first posted any dissenting opinion from the great Michael Wolsey. So, the unwritten rule there at LIHOP central (when they still allowed dissenting opinion from the LIHOP clique) was that only comments that agreed with the LIHOP clique are considered on-topic. Dissenters will be considered as derailing the thread and going off-topic, and continued dissenting behavior will get you banned.
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 28
Location: Greeley
Colorado
obviously didn't crash at the Pentagon ala the official story, while leaving too
small of hole in the building and no wreckage outside, lets not quote Mike Walter of USA Today, please. Better to stick to
the physical evidence.
Not surprisingly, you have missed the entire point of this posting and are
more concerned with promoting your no plane theory. Seems par for the
course.
What's that, Visibility? My own "no plane theory"? Oh, you mean like the WTC
no planers? Ha ha, very clever, Visy. But that tactic of trying to equate WTC no
planers to Pentagon no planers is kinda transparent and worn out, wouldn't you
say? Nice try, though, I just wouldn't expect too many people to fall for
it.
My own "no plane theory"? Well, I'm flatterd, but the fact that millions of
people don't believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon hardly makes it my own.
So, you are still trying to peddle the government's ridiculous "flight 77 hit
the Pentagon" nonsense? Why don't you try reading what I posted and Dave
McGowan's research I linked to and if you can dispute anything presented then
maybe you can make some actual arguments rather than engaging in pseudo-logic,
straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Go ahead, Visy, if you are up for
the challenge.
Hey Cosmos-
I am fairly new to this forum, and don't know all the folks that contribute
here. I have found this a fairly civil place to post and dialogue 9-11 related
issues. No forum is immune to trouble makers, and it appears now that this is
the case here at the truthaction.org forum.
I am speaking of the obvious attempt at stirring up trouble by the poster
known as Keenan. As you can seen from his responses to my posting this thread,
Keenan is engaging in divisive and disruptive behavior. This started with
replying to my original posting with an off topic diatribe promoting the no
Boeing theory at the Pentagon. This was not the subject of this thread. Rather,
the subject of this thread is one specific piece of dis-info promoted by many,
who use it to justify that there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.
In two replies on this thread, Keenan has done several dishonest and divisive
things, including trying to bait me into an argument, which would draw others
in, and waste valuable time. Above, I stand accused of promoting the
"government's ridiculous "flight 77 hit the Pentagon" nonsense" or the OCT, of
inserting the word "own" into an imaginary accusation of association with the
"no planers", ie WTC/Pentagon (his words, not mine), engaging in false logic,
straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks.
If I have done the above, someone please point this out to me.
On the contrary, these seem to be the behavior exhibited by Mr. Keenan. In
two short postings to this thread, he has managed to not only make false
accusations toward me, diverted attention away from the original subject of this
thread, but also called me names in an obvious attempt to bait me into a
confrontation on this forum.
I will not take the bait and recommend a re-assessment of Keenan's posting
privileges.
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
Revised and Updated edition of The New Pearl Harbor:
"I wish to emphasize now, more strongly than before, how problematic the
theory of Arab-Muslim hijackers is." pg. 169
"Besides making those corrections, I have, through several minor changes,
made clearer than before that I do not necessarily endorse Meyssan's missile
theory. What Meyssan and like-minded researchers have provided strong evidence
for is the two-fold point that what hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, but a
much smaller aircraft, and that it must--given the fact that it was not shot
down by the Pentagon's missiles--have instead been a military aircraft of some
sort (with transponders sending out a "friendly" signal.) These are the crucial
points, with the question of whether the aircraft was a missile or a small
military plane being a secondary matter (and one that the presently available
evidence may be insufficient to settle.)" ibid, pg. 172
Instead of using the blanket and indeed suggestive "no-plane" label, folks
here should clarify whether they believe, along with David Ray Griffin and
truthers like Keenan, Casseia, and myself, that it is highly unlikely that a)
the plane that hit the Pentagon was hijacked by Arab-Muslims as per the OCT and
b) that the plane in question was AA77 or any other Boeing 757.
If you disagree with us and DRG, you should be able to provide some good
reasons for doing so. Good reasons for believing the OCT on this point do not in
my mind include carefully selected eyewitness statements (omitting those which
contradict your desired belief) since none of those eyewitnesses could possibly
have identified the hijackers (if any) or victims.
Tell us, in other words, why you are so sure that it was indeed AA77 that hit
the Pentagon, and that it was piloted by Arab-Muslim hijackers.
Finally, requesting that people be banned from posting is nothing but a sign
that one wants their point of view excluded, and says quite a bit about one's
confidence in one's ability to defend one's own positions from
criticism.
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 373
pm Post subject:
this thread from a specific topic (the highly typical way Walter's statement is
constantly taken out of context, not just by Von Kleist) into Keenan's standard
general routine (obey 100% demolition certainty + no Pentagon Boeing +
absolutely no hijackers + Zionists in charge or I will call you a shill for the
Official Story). Just saw this exact same M.O. on another thread this week that
I started. Why doesn't Keenan start his/her own threads, instead of pretending
his comments are relevant to the threads he/she derails?
To address the only interesting thing Keenan brings up, which is the quoted
material from McGowan: Originally I found McGowan's analysis of the witness list
very interesting (his own childish namecalling and reflexive dismissal of all
who disagree as "shills" notwithstanding). But the Pentagon is not some random
place, it is the center of the military industrial complex. One would expect
most of the thousands of people moving through its grounds every day to be
military officers - high-ranking ones a plenty - think-tankers, military
contracters, politicians (especially Republicans) and employees thereof. Who
else would be populating that area on a workday? Anti-war protesters? Garment
workers?
McGowan's presentation of the Gannett list is especially disingenuous. As he
lays out, Gannett essentially is a subsidiary of the Pentagon, publishing a
separate, full newspaper for each and every military service. Which in turn
leads to the expectation that there would be dozens or hundreds of Gannett
people in and around the Pentagon every day, that Gannett no doubt has its own
offices at the Pentagon, that one might expect in fact there would be more
Gannett people than all other reporters combined. To top it off, the USA Today
offices are located on a sightline directly across from the Pentagon. So yes,
many Gannett people could have seen the event from their own offices, from the
parking lot, or on their way to or from the Pentagon.
The rule for witnesses seems to be that 1) anyone who says they saw a Boeing
crash into the Pentagon is a liar; but 2) anyone who says they heard an
"explosion" (which does not necessitate the use of explosives) at any time
during the WTC attacks speaks the gospel truth about bombs (even if they don't
mention or mean they heard bombs; and no matter how illogical a bomb would be in
a given context, i.e. sometimes as a "foreplay" bomb long before the actual fall
of the buildings).
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
pm Post subject:
Yea, I agree. When discussing the fact that
a big Boeing obviously didn't crash at the Pentagon ala the official story,
while leaving too small of hole in the building and no wreckage outside, lets
not quote Mike Walter of USA Today, please. Better
to stick to the physical evidence.
Not surprisingly, you have missed the entire point of this posting and are
more concerned with promoting your no plane theory. Seems par for the
course.
So let me get this straight--the original poster's intent was to point out
what is good evidence and what is likely to be disinformation, using the words
of an eyewitness taken out of context as an example. When Keenan agrees and
suggests we focus less on eyewitness statements and more on physical evidence,
providing more info on the problems with using eyewitness statements, he is
criticized for being off-topic and promoting "his no-plane theory" ?
I see. Since the topic is disinformation and the misrepresentation of
evidence as an example of such, why would we only look at examples that support
one side? Shouldn't we also consider the disinformation put out by the
mainstream media and the government? I guess the point is to beware of
disinformation coming from alleged truthers like VonKleist who might well be
part of a disinfo campaign?
But... if anyone were to suggest that anyone here might be involved in a
similar disinfo campaign, that a second layer of disinfo seems apparent in the
way that it is suggested that since von Kleist seems like a shill, everything he
says must be the opposite of the truth, conveniently putting the definition of
the truth in the hands of von Kleist! Whatever he supports must be false!
Because he of course wouldn't be playing a double bluff where precisely by
pulling an obvious stunt like using the Mike
Walter interview out of context he is trying to discredit the notion that AA77
didn't hit the Pentagon!
Let's see what someone said over a hundred years ago and see if it sheds
light on this: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending
it deliberately with faulty arguments."
You don't have to be a nihilist to understand that human deception has been
honed over thousands of years to be very sneaky. Indeed, when you see someone
"supporting" a case poorly like von Kleist, the easy (and wrong) answer is that
he wants you to buy what he is selling. The truth is exactly the opposite--by
doing a poor job of supporting a particular view (AA77 did not hit the Pentagon)
he wants you to DISbelieve it, AND on top of that feel like you're really smart
for "discovering the trick."
Don't let yourselves continue to be made fools of. It's time to throw out the
entire OCT and begin from scratch, relying only on incontrovertible evidence to
decide what actually happened. Again I challenge those who believe we should
take the OCT at its word just in this case (when we know everything else is a
huge lie) what evidence exactly you find compelling for your position of support
of the OCT in this case.
Not why you see no reason for skepticism, but why you actually start from the
assumption that the OCT is true.
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
pm Post subject:
Pentagon. In fact I lean in the opposite direction. Unfortunately the issue is
so fraught with conflicting evidence that it becomes a time-sink. Best to simply
re-iterate that nothing should have struck the building and move on. That's my
opinion.
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 173
pm Post subject: Re: Attention Cosmos
that contribute here. I have found this a fairly civil place to post and
dialogue 9-11 related issues. No forum is immune to trouble makers, and it
appears now that this is the case here at the truthaction.org forum.
I am speaking of the obvious attempt at stirring up trouble by the poster
known as Keenan. As you can seen from his responses to my posting this thread,
Keenan is engaging in divisive and disruptive behavior. This started with
replying to my original posting with an off topic diatribe promoting the no
Boeing theory at the Pentagon. This was not the subject of this thread. Rather,
the subject of this thread is one specific piece of dis-info promoted by many,
who use it to justify that there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.
I will not take the bait and recommend a re-assessment of Keenan's posting
privileges.
This is just sad. This is a discussion forum -- a place where you can expect
others to disagree with you. Keenan disagrees with you. If you can't handle it,
then I suggest you limit your posting to your own enclave at 911 visibility,
where you, Jon Gold, and Nicholas are free to blog in a commentless, safe
environment. (Full disclosure: of the three, only Gold has comments actually
disabled, the other two just seem not to garner comments.)
In any event, I know Keenan from several online fora and I do not find him to
be disruptive at all, even when he and I disagree.
And to reiterate, since I got the sense that you would like to ignore this:
the use of the term 'no-plane' to describe a view at odds with the OCT on the
presence of a big Boeing at the Pentagon, is a shrill attempt to inflame the
discourse around the issue and an advertisement of your bad faith. Whenever you
do it, Michael, your credibility takes another hit. Please stop.
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144
am Post subject:
small details related to the Pentagon attack is the whole mess has been
organized to divert attention from the most basic fact involving any Pentagon
attack.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY AIRCRAFT TO PENETRATE US AIR DEFENSES AND ATTACK THE
PENTAGON UNLESS THE ATTACKERS HAD COMPLETE SURPRISE. To get a hit in on the
Pentagon, they had to attack the Pentagon first. They obviously didn't.
The hijackers no longer had surprise. Even if the entire US Air Force pilot
cadre falls on their heads KOing themselves running to their fighters, literally
half the US Navy is based 100 miles away in Norfolk VA. There would have been a
minimum of 20+ AEGIS equipped Guided Missile Cruisers or Destroyers in Norfork
on 9/11 that could have hit any inbound airborne threat against the Pentagon
with SM-2 Anti-air missiles FROM THEIR PIER IN NORFOLK.
It's pointless to debate the details of the Pentagon attack because it was
impossible to attack the Pentagon unless there was a stand-down
order.
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
am Post subject:
because it was impossible to attack the Pentagon unless there was a stand-down
order.
I don't believe at all that it is pointless to call into question whether or
not AA77 was hijacked by arab muslims and/or flown into the pentagon. Whether or
not an actual stand down occurred depends on whether or not it was actually an
enemy in control of whatever hit.
There is no need to dispute the fact that nothing should have hit the
Pentagon--that is a no-brainer. There is every reason to dispute the official
and highly problematic hijacking narrative, and we do. And will.
Alleging a stand down is problematic also because it is very difficult to
prove a stand down when it is nearly impossible to distinguish it from
incompetence. The best we have seen towards proving a stand down is the cryptic
(deliberately in my view) account of Cheney's "do the orders still stand" reply.
First of all, we have some unknown person telling a room full of big shots that
there is a plane approaching the Pentagon. Who told that guy there was? Who was
tracking the alleged plane? How do we know it was not a false radar inject? How
do we know the plane referred to was AA77? Because Ted Olson says his wife
called him from the plane? Because the government claims all the passengers were
identified from DNA form the remains? And we should believe any of that why?
The point is that even if you were to prove there was a stand down that does
not get you any closer to knowing exactly what happened. And tehre is a HUGE
difference between a stand down allowing some random plane to hit and one
allowing a 757 full of passengers that was hijacked by Arab Muslims to hit. To
deny that it makes a difference what actually went down in that sense, or even
to downplay the importance of the question seems odd behavior for someone
dedicated to uncovering the whole truth about 9/11.
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144
am Post subject:
because it was impossible to attack the Pentagon unless there was a stand-down
order.
I don't believe at all that it is pointless to call into question whether or
not AA77 was hijacked by arab muslims and/or flown into the pentagon. Whether or
not an actual stand down occurred depends on whether or not it was actually an
enemy in control of whatever hit.
There is no need to dispute the fact that nothing should have hit the
Pentagon--that is a no-brainer. There is every reason to dispute the official
and highly problematic hijacking narrative, and we do. And will.
Alleging a stand down is problematic also because it is very difficult to
prove a stand down when it is nearly impossible to distinguish it from
incompetence. The best we have seen towards proving a stand down is the cryptic
(deliberately in my view) account of Cheney's "do the orders still stand" reply.
First of all, we have some unknown person telling a room full of big shots that
there is a plane approaching the Pentagon. Who told that guy there was? Who was
tracking the alleged plane? How do we know it was not a false radar inject? How
do we know the plane referred to was AA77? Because Ted Olson says his wife
called him from the plane? Because the government claims all the passengers were
identified from DNA form the remains? And we should believe any of that why?
The point is that even if you were to prove there was a stand down that does
not get you any closer to knowing exactly what happened. And tehre is a HUGE
difference between a stand down allowing some random plane to hit and one
allowing a 757 full of passengers that was hijacked by Arab Muslims to hit. To
deny that it makes a difference what actually went down in that sense, or even
to downplay the importance of the question seems odd behavior for someone
dedicated to uncovering the whole truth about
9/11.
It is pointless. Debating the impossible is pointless
Is there a point in yelling and screaming at someone whether unicorns are
pink or lavender?
No. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FREAKIN' UNICORNS. This is the same thing. Go
look up the capabilities of AEGIS equipped Guided Missile Cruisers and
Destroyers. There are multiple AEGIS equipped ships sent out with every carrier
task force. That means there had to be a minimum of 20 in or immediately around
Norfolk VA on the morning of 9/11. Once you understand what one AEGIS air
defense system equipped ship can do, you'll understand why I say it's
impossible.
In fact, the fact that attack got through to the Pentagon when the Pentagon
was on alert is all the evidence one needs to convict Rumsfeld for Treason.
Whether you can get anyone else is what the investigation would be for but a
successful attack against the Pentagon is all that needed to show Rumsfeld
committed treason against the US.
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
am Post subject:
that sense, or even to downplay the importance of the question seems odd
behavior for someone dedicated to uncovering the whole truth about
9/11.
I don't think anyone disputes that it's important. The question is relative strength of evidence. WTC7 is rock
solid, Pentagon is wishy-washy. Since
the Pentagon is a mess of conflicting evidence and testimony it seems
prudent for activists to stress the most
damning and unambiguous angle -- that no object, 757, small jet, missile,
kite or piper cub should have been permitted within 100 miles of the behemoth.
Barring an inside job.
Insisting dogmatically on a particular theory (plane, small plane or no
plane) at this point is counterproductive – that includes both 757 advocates and
non. It opens us up to a barrage of obfuscatory blather and counter-attacks by
would-be debunkers.
As for LIHOP: here’s a criticism I’ve been arguing for over five years. It’s
never been discussed (to my knowledge) in the scholarly literature.
Rummy and other high-ranking officials were IN the Pentagon at the time of
the attacks. Unless Rummy has an IQ approaching that of Bush Jr., there is no
way in hell he (or any other strategic planner) would allow Hani Hanjour
anywhere near the Pentagon, plane or no. I don’t care if Hani was channeling
Chuck Yeager, it would have been insane to guess upon the eventual target of a
“suicide hijacker”.
LIHOP (according to the strict definition) is utterly idiotic. Those planes
were remote-controlled.
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329
am Post subject:
I don't think anyone disputes that it's important. The question is relative strength of evidence. WTC7 is rock
solid, Pentagon is wishy-washy. Since
the Pentagon is a mess of conflicting evidence and testimony it seems
prudent for activists to stress the most
damning and unambiguous angle -- that no object, 757, small jet, missile,
kite or piper cub should have been permitted within 100 miles of the behemoth.
Barring an inside job.
Insisting dogmatically on a particular theory (plane, small plane or no
plane) at this point is counterproductive – that includes both 757 advocates and
non. It opens us up to a barrage of obfuscatory blather and counter-attacks by
would-be debunkers.
IMO, that IS the object of muddying the Pentagon issue. This is the real
"honeypot"--setting sincere Truthers at each others throats.
Cheers for pointing it out, Danse.
Nothing should have hit the
Pentagon.
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 117
am Post subject:
It's at the 9/11 UK forums. Lots of images. I have two big posts on that
page, and a couple of supplementary ones. I post over there under the name
TmcMistress.
Keenan, your initial post in this thread leaves something of a bad taste in
my mouth right off the bat. The notions that the Pentagon hole was too small, or
that there was no debris, are outright fabrications. The fact that the debris
didn't go flying backwards all over the place in some cartoonish fashion does
not mean it didn't exist, and claiming that the hole was too small is a
seemingly purposeful misreading of the evidence. Look at pictures where the hole
isn't obscured by smoke or by water.
There are certainly questions to be had about the Pentagon OCT. Whether there
was a plane, to any reasonable person, shouldn't be one of them; whether it was
Flight 77, IMO, shouldn't be, either.
_________________
"If you do a
commercial, you're off the artistic roll call. Every word you say is suspect,
and everything that comes out of your mouth is like a turd, falling into my
drink." - Bill Hicks
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
pm Post subject:
is relative strength of evidence. WTC7 is rock solid, Pentagon is wishy-washy.
Since the Pentagon is a mess of conflicting evidence and testimony it seems
prudent for activists to stress the most damning and unambiguous angle -- that
no object, 757, small jet, missile, kite or piper cub should have been permitted
within 100 miles of the behemoth.
I think you've touched on a major problem here Danse, that is the difference
between discussing something for the sake of unerstanding versus discussing how
best to conduct 9/11 activism/awareness raising.
I have said thisbefore and it bears repeating--when it comes to awareness
raising I always begin (and usually end) with the demolition of the three
buildings. Even as a "dogmatic" rejector of the "arab muslim hijacker myth" I
don't bring up anything else when introducing people to the issue--when
answering the oft-asked question "so what is the truth?"
I rely on people's common sense to lead them after that introduction.
Unfortunately, as is evidenced on this thread, there are still people who
dogmatically support the notion that we were indeed attacked by arab muslim
suicide hijackers and who engage people in discussions in which they push this
view under the guise of "promoting only the best evidence". Can I remain silent
while this goes on, not in public but on a forum mainly frequented not by
newbies but by seasoned truthers? Isn't that the excuse given by the admins at
911blogger for their suspension of comments (including the suggestion to move
commentary to this site specifically?) that newbies should not be immediately
exposed to our advanced quibbling over "pointless details" like whether or not
"Arab Muslims hijacked and slammed a plane load of Americans into America's
military HQ"? And now we find people here suggesting that users who insist on
taking issue with the Islamofascist myth have their commenting priveleges
"reconsidered"?
I think that people would benefit from a reality check. The essence of 9/11
was the creation of an Islamofascist myth that would serve to justify wars
anywhere in the world so long as they could in some way be linked to Arab or
Muslim extremism. Hence Afghanistan, Iraq, and (maybe not, thanks to some sane
renegades in the intelligence community) Iran. The death toll attributable to
this myth may well already be in the millions. For some of us, 9/11 Truth is a
means to expose the true nature of not just an attack on Americans with a death
toll of 2000+, but the much more serious, systematic slaughter of Arabs and
Muslims based on their dehumanization by means of the lie that people like them
showed themselves to be the personification of evil on September 11, 2001.
In that context, quibbling over whether or not someone in the USG did or did
not allow those evil arab muslims to carry out their sinister plot is exposed as
the truly pointless task at hand. Stopping a genocidal campaign of regional
hegemony and resource theft by a gang of thugs armed with nuclear weapons and
which continues to make veiled and not so veiled threats directly against
americans under a fabricated cloak of arab/muslim evil is and will always be the
goal of this truther.
LOL at Danse/Scott N.
He said that no aircraft should have been allowed within 100 miles of the Pentagon when Reagan National is 1 mile away!
Thanks, was never familiar with that old thread. It certainly does reinforce the notion that Wolsey is a shill.
anyone know how to fix the html on this page?
I an unable to edit the comment now, since there are replies to the comment. Can one of the mods fix the width problem? thx
more comments
Here are a few more comments from that revealing thread:
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
Except it's high treason.
And proven. Whoever was at the controls of the planes (unknown), they were clearly allowed to succeed by these US government officials. If you can't see that as mildly important in the context here, there's not much hope for you.
Your version is speculation.
And unproven.
And, like it or not, 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum.
I guess they created Osama with some website program too. He never declared war on America, military and civilian. There was no Cole bombing, no embassy bombings in Africa. No training camps in Afghanistan. No assistance from Pakistani and Saudi intelligence. This was all created after 9/11, because the "evil Muslim myth" blah blah blah...
Oh why bother?
62% of Americans think Bushco was warned and decided to do nothing to stop the 9/11 attacks (Scripps, Nov. 07). This is high treason. This reality needs to be leveraged into strong action and prosecutions. It doesn't need to be dismissed out of hand by "real" activists who want to take attention off of blatant criminals in the white house, identifiable, and mostly despised -- and to direct everyone's attention elsewhere.
There's actual progress in reaching people, yet it's probably going to be squandered. Gee, you're so brilliant.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 71
Ditto. It does not appear to me that a 757 hit the pentagon, but plainly the issue is divisive, and the talking points above we can all agree on without getting bogged down in "conflicting" minutia. We DON'T KNOW WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON, but we DO know [fill in the talking points above here].
Double Ditto. This site has the current Iraqi civilian death toll at ~1.13M. The rest are looking at much shorter life expectancies thanks to wrecked economy, wrecked infrustructure, land/water poisoning, DU etc. This is a modern day genocide, a holocaust of Semitic populations.
The shills I see astroturfing internet forums nowadays posture as 'properly skeptical truth seekers', but it's always with that LIHOP core-- AKA seeking to keep the islamofascist terrorism myth which the 911 OCT gave birth to, alive. They tirelessly seek to obfuscate the CDs of the WTCs, because CDs = MIHOP, and MIHOP debunks the islamofascist terrorism myth.
We shall know them by their fruits...
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 407
Nothing should have hit the Pentagon.
That paired with the Mineta Testimony - Pointing a finger straight at Cheney's Stand Down Order wraps up the Pentagon event in a nice little package.
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168
I managed to get through a page of that before I fully remembered why I can't stand that site, have you see the thread about it here?
This is an absurd simplification, take someone like Nafeez Ahmed, he doesn't ever talk about the buildings being blown up and yet he is far better at demolishing the "clash of civilizations" nonsense than, for example, DRG.
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 71
Nothing should have hit the Pentagon.
That paired with the Mineta Testimony - Pointing a finger straight at Cheney's Stand Down Order wraps up the Pentagon event in a nice little package.
Disagree on the Mineta testimony... too dubious, too subject to alternative interpretations. It wasn't "does the air defense stand-down order still stand, enabling the incoming 757 to ram into (...the Pentagon)??" NO. It was simply "does the order still stand?" Unclear, circumstantial, road-to-nowhere as far as proving anything. "The order" could've had something to do with ensuring the fighter planes preoccupied with the flurry of wargames which Cheney was running & the related false inserted radar blips, remained preoccupied with said diversions. "Stand down order" = too obvious, too many loose lips to silence after the events. The Mineta testimony is a worthwhile circumstantial "dot" in putting together a larger 911 Truth hypothesis, but on its own it's not a smoking gun; just like most 911 Truth dots/evidence, outside of perhaps their continued withholding of pentagon videos, or WTC7s CD.
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 71
This is an absurd simplification, take someone like Nafeez Ahmed, he doesn't ever talk about the buildings being blown up and yet he is far better at demolishing the "clash of civilizations" nonsense than, for example, DRG.
Which do you believe would be a faster route to waking up Joe-6-Pack to 911 MIHOP:
A) Ahmed's scholarly tomes on the deep politics of 911
or
B) The obvious CDs of the WTCs?
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
I'm not going to sink to your level, Mr. JDRM, so don't bother with the snide attitude. It is beyond clear right now that there are people who would like to be considered real truthers who simply cannot come up with any valid arguments for presupposing the truth about the arab muslim hijacker narrative.
You keep on suggesting that I somehow want to let off the hook those in the USG who did indeed have a role in the destruction on 9/11. That is clearly not my position. As anyone can see from everything I have written my problem is with those who define the crime of those people as specifically "allowing arab muslim hijackers to attack America" when there is as yet no credible evidence that that is what happened, and much reason to suppose that it did not.
I've been around the truth block more than a few times and I remember when there was as concerted an effort to dismiss the idea that the towers were demolished with explosives as far-fetched, unhelpful, etc. I have seen the movement proceed to disregard those voices and pursue what we all know to be the most damning facts surrounding the events.
I have no doubt that the notion of LIHOP will also go the way of the dodo, since the only people who claim to believe it are clearly just "pretending to sleep" so that attempting to wake them up is not worth the time, no matter how loudly they snore.
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
Let me just re-iterate that last point, because I for one can't wait to get back to my normal life after having spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on 9/11 activism. I'm tired and exhausted and running low on money and have missed out on lots of fun things I'd rather be doing, frankly. But for a lot of us that is the main reason we are spending our limited time and resources here and on the streets doing things that we wouldn't choose to do if we didn't think it was necessary as conscious human beings - WE ARE TRYING TO STOP THE ONGOING HOLOCAUST WHICH HAS CLAIMED MANY MILLIONS (since 1948) OF INNOCENT MUSLIM/ARAB LIVES AND LOOKS SET TO CLAIM MANY MILLIONS MORE THANKS TO 9/11 AND OTHER FALSE FLAG OPS. That plus restoring our constitutional democracy to me is the primary objective, in my opinion. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SECONDARY, including the issue of who might be offended by the truth.
We should all thank Cosmos for providing us this valuable space in which this type of open discussion is possible. Thanks for all the good commentary from the honest and good faith commentators among you (I think its obvious to most people which ones are which, so no need to specify, and the dishonest gatekeepers would vehemently deny their true agenda anyway).
I'd just like to re-iterate Danse's excellent point about the absurdity of clinging to any particular theory about what exactly hit the Pentagon. And that goes especially for the most ridiculous theory of them all - THE GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIAL NONSENSICAL AND UTTERLY LAUGHABLE AND DISPROVED MYTH of a Boeing 757 piloted by a crazed fanatic suicidal muslim with super acrobatic skills being allowed to smash into the Pentagon, LET ALONE BEING ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR RUMSFIELD'S OFFICE WITH RUMMY SITTING CALMLY AT HIS DESK
(courtesy to Danse for this excellent point).
Now, some people say that we should just say 'nothing should have hit the Pentagon' and leave it at that. While I can appreciate that that stance might possibly be the least controversial one to agree on, as it is the most obvious truth that everyone can agree on, it doesn't really do justice to deconstructing the most important aspect of the OCT. I view it in the same light as the other parts of the OCT that have been disproven: Namely, WE CAN AT LEAST SAY WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND THAT IS A PERFECTLY VALID POSITION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO PROVE WHAT DID HAPPEN. "I don't have to "prove" anything--THEY need to explain themselves" (credit to Col. Jenny for that one)
Let's remember that the OCT requires every major aspect of the lie to be true. It is dependent on a whole series of interconnected parts, each one dependent on the other. The OCT specifies that 9/11 was carried out by low-tech fanatical muslim hijackers who were amazing pilots who piloted 4 sophisticated passenger planes, 3 of which hit their targets, while crashing the 4th, and starting fires that completely collapses 2 of the targets. There are so many vulnerable points to attack and destroy that myth. Probably dozens. But we only need to disprove one or two before the whole fabrication completely disintegrates dissolves into thin air, which is where it belongs.
Once we destroy one or two major parts of this integrated myth, it should be over - that is - NONE OF THE REST OF THE OCT SHOULD BE GIVEN ANY A PRIORI CREDIBILITY ANY MORE. That should be enough for most thinking people. Out on the street it is, in my experience. But for some reason, on the blogsphere it is different. I have never met a real live person on the street who is a 9/11 truther and who ademently insists that a big Boeing hit the Pentagon. I've met hundreds of people in the truth movement and I've only heard people say that they either don't believe that a big Boeing hit the Pentagon or they are agnostic. None of the truthers I've met believe in the muslim hijacker back story anymore, either.
I'm quite done debating the Pentagon minutia with people, because those who continue to stubbornly prop up this part of the OCT in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary have shown over and over again that they must rely on dishonestly and straw man arguments and bully tactics to attempt to control the debate (just like with the other major parts of the OCT...that the very same people usually try to defend). This thread blatently confirms it.
I look at patterns and I call obvious patterns like I see it. When the same people who staunchly defend one part of the OCT that has been reasonably disproven are the same people who prop up the other parts of the OCT are the same people who try to shut down discussion of opposing viewpoints are the same people who often seem to be full time bloggers, I say "GATEKEEPERS".
I remember imgstacke. Very
I remember imgstacke. Very annoying. Does anybody know what happened to him/her or who it is? Sock puppet? The shills all seem so similar to me after awhile so I tend to get them mixed up.