Very revealing concessions from Frank Legge

Adam Syed's picture

This is a post on a hot thread that's on the front page of the 911oz forum (Australian 9/11 truth movement), regarding an email chain started by Frank Legge. Reposted here at Keenan's request.

Reply With Quote

16 Oct 2010, 04:26 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26
While I don't usually do this...

While I don't usually go public with
certain behind-the-scenes conversations, there is one particular one
which I feel deserves a bit of mention, because it is not only extremely
timely but also very extremely revealing and enlightening.

Recently, Frank Legge initiated an e-mail chain, addressing Rob Balsamo.
The CC list included John Bursill, Duane Deets, S Jones, R Gage, K
Ryan, Scott Ford, H Fenton, DRG, Justin Keogh (owner of 911blogger and
ultimately responsible for the mass bannings there), myself, Barrie
Zwicker, and one other person who's name is not as well known so I'll
keep it private, although it was this person who ended up truly having
the last word, since which time there's been silence.

After about 20 back-and-forth letters between Frank and Rob, the rest of
us just observing (and the non-mathematicians among us simply glazing
our eyes over each person's claims that their math is correct), Frank
ended up saying the following:

This false claim [that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon] is very
detrimental to the truth movement because most of the public believes
the plane did hit the Pentagon. If they hear members of the truth
movement claiming that it did not, they will turn away and will not
learn about the important hard evidence for explosives in the towers.

At that point, I stepped into the ring and wrote this message to the whole group:

And there you have it: the motive behind the anti CIT and P4T
brigade. Even if the flyover is true (which it is, based on the north
side evidence), you want people to shut up about it because you think it
sounds crazy to the public and they will turn away.

Sorry Frank, myself, CIT, P4T, and company are members of the 9/11 TRUTH
movement (meaning we research and investigate no matter where it leads)
and you and yours are members of the 9/11 PR movement, or 9/11
half-truth movement.

In fact, I hereby call you out as disinfo because one disinfo tactic is
to accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of. And you're able to
fool a few people because you have a PEE AYCH DEE after your name.

You speak of "unity" in the truth movement and claim that those who
promote the flyover are "dividing" the movement. It is YOU (along with
Hoffman, Larson, Arabesque, Victoria) who are dividing the movement by
using pseudo-intellectual SPIN to try and malign, and turn people away,
from certain investigators' very real legitimate hard work which
uncovers damning evidence of an inside job.


Upon reflection, since some readers might think my tone was a little harsh, I offered the following clarification:

Oh, and just to be clear...

When I said I "call you out as disinfo," Frank, that does not
necessarily mean I think you're receiving a paycheck from an agency.
Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. However, the functionality of what
you've been doing is the same either way. You've been trying to
persuade people to reject very real legitimate findings.


Then, the person who's name I'll withhold chimed in with this really spot on message:

I agree Adam, but I think it is worse than that.

First, the Truth is "unbelievable" to most people regardless of the
evidence. The EVIDENCE was right in front of our eyes on the morning of
9/11 for those who had eyes to see. Logically, it was physically
impossible for steel structures to "collapse" in the way and at the
speed shown repeatedly on 9/11 and afterweard. Nevertheless, most people
(myself EXcluded) bought the "collapse" lie hook line and sinker
because "authoritative sources" allowed them no alternative. Repeatedly
and to this day, and even among truthers, the buildings are said to have
"collapsed." They did not. They were demolished. Once people have an
idea fixed in their minds like this (especially when coupled with
emotional trauma), it takes a lot more than mere "evidence" for them to
change their point of view. Lets face it, 9/11 Truth requires a paradigm
shift regarding the way power actually works in our society. It is
deep, dark and dirty and it isn't somewhere 'over there' but right here.
Our very lives and livelihoods are wrapped up in it.

Second, I've verified that people who are not particularly interested in
or aware of what happened in New York, have little difficulty
comprehending the implications of what happened at the Pentagon. I base
this on having shown CIT's "NSA" in various stages of completion to over
two dozen people prior to its public release. True, these weren't just
people off the street -- they were neighbors and friends of mine --
generally younger than 40 and college educated and most with
left-of-center social and political views. 80% of these viewers had no
difficulty comprehending the significance of the eyewitness accounts vs
the official story.

Finally, however, is the real question regarding why what happened at
the Pentagon is kept in more of a state of controversy -- given the
available evidence -- than it needs to be among 9/11 Truth adherents.
I'm certain there are many but I maintain that the fundamental reason is
that what happened at the Pentagon -- more so than what happened in New
York -- directly implicates the Department of Defense and its various
intelligence and counterintelligence networks in mass murder, treason,
war crimes and crimes against humanity. The events at the Pentagon were
staged and they weren't staged by "al Quida" "CIA" "MI6" or "Mossad"
but, one must assume, under the direct supervision of the DIA itself.
The significance of this should send shudders down the spines of
everyone reading.

I just pray that when this is all over "a few good men" will be left standing.

I'm not optimistic.

Now, much to my surprise (perhaps he was simply trying to
patronize me, I don't know), Frank responded with the following (bolding
is mine):

Hi Adam,

Thanks for taking the trouble to set out your position so clearly. I
agree with the way you have thought it out and I believe your logic is

There is just one problem. You say you "research and investigate no
matter where it leads", and that is right and proper. But you apparently
have not studied the calculations used in the P4T website. They are
wrong, and it only takes a year 10 school student to work it out. The
skill required has has nothing to do with aviation and everything to do
with physics.

If you have the courage to take the calculations to a mathematician I
think you will find I am right, and the boot in your eloquent conclusion
is on the other foot.


Now, of course, I am no mathematician and I can not check either
Frank's or Rob's math, and neither can this other person. Anyway, here
is the final message of the thread, by this person, which effectively
ended the debate (bolding is his):

Ok, Frank, let me get this straight: You have "several"
independently verified witnesses to a south of Citgo approach and
impact that you have interviewed on site, on camera? Link please! I'd
very much like to know how many "several" is, their names and exact
locations and how you independently verified their claims.

As for the P4T's caclulations -- I confess, I'm an artist, not an
aviation expert nor a mathematician. But, then again, I'm not a
physicist or engineer or architect, either. Like most of my fellow
citizens, I'm a generally well informed and educated 'joe' with good 'ol
common sense. So, no, I can't check P4t's calculations or yours.

However, just as I don't need to be a physicist, engineer or architect
to understand that steel framed buildings can't "collapse" at a rate of
+/-10 floors per second without some other, unacknowledged energy source
explosively removing their structural integrity, I don't need to be an
aviation expert or mathematician to understand that it is physically
impossible for a 100+ ton commercial Boeing 757 traveling "approximately
530 miles per hour" (
to discend from the top of the VDOT antennae and then level off
sufficiently to strike light pole #1 (etc.), before slamming into the
Pentagon at exactly ground level but without any apparent or reported
damage to its foundation.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand that some things are not only statistically improbable but physically impossible.

What we're suppose to believe happened at the Pentagon is in the latter
category, as impossible as a 110 story steel structure "collapsing" in
+/-10 seconds. It not only stretches credulity to the breaking point, it
defies the laws of physics. And it does so quite dramaticallly, whether
one has the ability to work out the aerodynamic mathematics or not.

But, most important to the discussion we're having here, what data do
we have to work out those calculations except data supplied by a source
that you yourself acknowledge may have a vested interest in keeping
"skeptics of the official position arguing with one another"?

To me, this is the most important point, Frank: Pilots for Truth has
shown repeatedly that the government supplied data is logically
inconsistent and inconsistent with its own narrative -- and therefore is
useless as evidence of anything other than a cover up. "Evidence"
that is inconclusive, has internal logical inconsistencies and
contradicts that which it is supposed to prove is NOT evidence. In the
vernacular, it is Bull Shit.

This is WHY the CIT/NOC witness accounts and fly-over hypothesis are so
important and why even someone like Peter Dale Scott (a personal
acquaintance known for his public caution) felt CIT's work needed to be
taken seriously even if one were unable to adopt the fly-over hypothesis
conclusively. Absent a thorough investigation by a special prosecutor
and a grand jury with subpoena power these eye-witness accounts may be
the closest thing we have to independently verifiable evidence of what
actually happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. That they are unanimous in
placing the aircraft they saw NOC can not be ignored unless you want to
take the position that all of them are either mistaken or lying. Barring
that, their accounts are as important as nano-thermate in the WTC dust
because NOC is inconsistent with the physical damage, just as the
government supplied data is inconsistent with the same physical damage
because it is aerodynamically impossible.

Lets try and put all this in some perspective, shall we? After all,
we're not discussing subtle and illusive phenomena here, gentlemen.
We're talking about a specific Boeing aircraft, N644AA, weighing over
100 tons impacting the god damned Pentagon. Pardon my French but the way
I see it, this should be so bloody fucking OBVIOUS that NO rational
skepticism or debate could exist among any but the patently insane!

And yet here we all are going on 10 years after the fact and to my
knowledge not one piece of irrefutable and independently verifiable
evidence has been put forward proving conclusively that anything at all
struck the Pentagon on 9/11, let alone N644AA.

On the contrary, what we have is a mountain of inconclusive, logically
inconsistent and contradictory data supplied by agencies of the US
government that can not be used as evidence of anything other than a
cover-up -- and the independently verified accounts of a dozen or so eye
witnesses who report having seen an aircraft traveling on a flight path
and at an air speed irreconcilable with the physical damage presented.

Gentlemen, you have your options: You can believe whatever the hell you
want to believe -- or you can look at the evidence and try to make some
logical sense out of it. The latter choice is the most challenging
because, unlike Alice in Wonderland, we're not merely playing croquet
with hedgehogs and flamingoes -- we're playing with counterintelligence
operatives whose end game is our perpetual confusion, division and
argumentation. They don't give a rats ass WHAT we "say" "think" or
"believe" so long as we never reach a concensus that has a snowball's
chance in hell of challenging the established narrative.

IF the CIT/NOC witnesses are to be believed, then the plane they
witnessed did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon. It is
physically impossible for it to have done so. Given this, the fly-over
hypothesis is rational as it does not invoke "magical thinking" beyond
reasonable (untested or verified) assumption made under emotional duress
(all the NOC witnesses ASSUMED the plane they saw struck the Pentagon).

HOWEVER, if the SOC flight path is to be belived one has to explain a)
HOW the alleged aircraft could have been allowed into arguably the most
sensitive national security airspace 30 to 45 minutes after this country
was known (alleged) to be under attack by hijackers using commercial
aircraft as weapons of mass destruction AND THEN b) traversed the
precise flight path necessary to cause the damage presented while
simultaneously being either invisible to the CIT/NOC witnesses or
unanimously confusing them regarding its observed location, flight path
and air speed.

If there is any other reasonable alternative given the evidence collected I'd very much like to hear it.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Keenan's picture

I'm really curious who the

I'm really curious who the mystery person is who ended up having
the last word. Is it someone who is well known either in the truth movement or on blog sites? Also, do you know what Legge's criteria was for choosing who was part of the e-mail chain?

Adam Syed's picture

Not particularly well known, no...

Though he's made some occasional posts at 911blogger. Unless I get his permission to reveal either the screen name or the real name or both, I'm going to respect his privacy; like I said, it's extremely rare protocol for me to publicize any e-mails without asking the principal participants' permission first, but I made an exception in this case because (1) of the stakes here, (2) because of the illuminating nature of what was said given those stakes, and (3) I thought it important to reveal who was in the reading audience of that chain.

With regard to your second question, I'm not sure exactly. It might have been simply a list from a previous e-mail chain weeks or months ago on the Pentagon issue. Clearly, it was a list of people who seem to advocate a particular passion (on either side) of the issue, or are super well-known as opposed to everyone under the sun in the truth movement, as some other mass email chains have been.

Adam Syed's picture

Okay, drumroll...

It's F. Michael Wells, aka "painter" at 911blogger. He says he doesn't mind.

Keenan's picture

It's too bad this discussion can't happen at

911Blogger out in the open. If Legge is really sincere, perhaps he wouldn't mind publishing this exchange at 911blogger. I suspect, though, that Legge and the LIHOP faction would be deathly afraid to have this sort of information published there, considering the lengths they went to when they censored Barry Zwicker and Dwain Deets.

Lillyann's picture

Adam, amazing reporting!!!

You told Legge "You want people to shut up about it (CIT, flyover), because you think it sounds crazy to the public and they will turn away".
Adam, perhaps you should include Blogger's Leftwright in those who truly are turning away the real investigators of the Truth of September 11,2001.
On a recent blog over there, Visibility 911: A dozen questions about Flight 77 from Kevin Ryan, Leftwright says, "Sometimes I wonder if it is possible to have a blog about the Pentagon and not mention CIT. I won't hold my breath, but I do look forward to the day when CIT is not automatically introduced as if by reflex . I hope that you and Jim are both well, Vic. The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward".
Amazing, and leftwright poses as a peaceloving mod at that site!!
He hopes to get to the truth by hoping it will go away???? Please don't hold your breath, beloved Leftwright. Also Jon Gold is fuming as usual, especially when he hears your name Adam! Jon "when I see that statement I get FURIOUS,," haha, poor Jon Gold gets so upset over real truth upsetting his pseudo truth. He says, "Adam Syed should not be promoted or trusted by anyone... His biggest accomplishment is attacking other people..". And he snaps back at zmzmzm, "if this was my site, you would be banned, but it's not".
Thanks for putting up this very revealing e-mail exchange.

Adam Syed's picture

Thank you.

Thank you.

LeftWright's picture

This is just one more example of why I don't take the time

to post here.

If you go to the original thread and are a native
American English speaker, then you should be able to pick up on the fact that I was gently chiding Vic for unnecessarily and gratuitously bashing CIT.

I really do have better things to do with my time than wasting it trying to untwist my words here [or anywhere else (e.g. RCFP), for that matter].

One of them is a project I may have finally found a financial backer for: a 2 1/2 day full exploration of the event at the Pentagon, where all the best evidence will be presented and analyzed for all to see, hopefully live streamed on the web with an interactive blog to allow anyone to comment or pose questions for consideration.

FTR - I lobbied to have the Zwicker and Deets endorsement videos posted in the blogs section, so that yet another round of discussion on the relative merits of CIT's NSA report could take place.

FTR - I stand by my opinion that CIT's NSA report is primarily a subjective analysis of subjective evidence and thus cannot be considered conclusive of anything.

Please note that this does not mean that, based on the evidence I have seen and consider credible, a flyover scenario of some kind is not possible, only that it is extremely improbable.

We really do need a full and transparent investigation in order to get to the bottom of this and 1000's of other questions, yes?

If anyone is truly interested in an honest dialogue without hidden agendas and which are not fishing expeditions, you know where to find me.

For those of you who remain in moderation at 911Blogger I encourage you to comment and as long as your comments are within the rules and guidelines, I will get around to posting them. I read every comment posted.

I strongly believe that we will reach the tipping point for 9/11 truth in the coming year, so put on your truther togs, take your vitamins, get busy and be ready. The (r)evolution is coming, brothers and sisters.

(I better go to bed, I have a soccer game to referee in 8 hours, most likely in the cold rain, too, sigh)

I hope that you and yours are all well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Adam Syed's picture

Blah blah blah, LeftWrong...

First of all, cut the bullshit milk-and-toast placation; you're not talking to Snowcrash or Victronix here. You're talking to a very pissed off Adam Syed, and you, Mr. Wright, are one of the prime reasons I'm disillusioned with this online community of alleged "truth seekers."  You are part of an extremely dishonorable team over at blogger. Even if you didn't personally queue/ban me, you are part of the team that did, and with no explanation, and you have done damn all to actually intervene on mine and many others' behalves and stand up for what's right. "I hope you and yours are well" and "be well and enjoy the day!" simply do not sound right coming from you anymore; in fact, they seem more and more fake every time you post them.

Okay, John. You CLEARLY have fallen into the unfortunate trap of group think with regard to the Pentagon issue. You never have answered my (and others') simple question: did you ever take the time to watch the NSA video in full, or are you still, 1.5 years later, allowing your darling sister-in-arms Victoria Ashley to tell you what to think, thereby being as incompetent as humanly possible when it comes to being a moderator at the most heavily trafficked "truth" site?

When I angrily wrote you and told you that you were dead wrong in your comment that anyone who was either queued or banned was deserving of it because they violated the rules, in John Bursill's thread angrily relaying the Creek article to blogger's attention, you emailed me back and said that the RCFP article is "blowing up in [its supporters'] faces."

Oh no no no.

Ooooh, no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.


Wow. You're even more incompetent than I thought. You really don't get it do you.

The dishonorable conduct of "you and yours" i.e. the blogger team is what has blown up in YOUR faces.

Let me explain in a very elementary fashion so that EVEN YOU can get it John.

When you reject not only Zwickers' but also Deets' endorsements, yet concurrently approve the entry "CIT is useless," how can you not expect that to go unchallenged.

The "arguments" in that Arcterus blog entry are on a par with the threads at JREF which attempt to argue against ("debunk") 9/11 truth as a whole.

And I think, at this stage, you know DAMN WELL that the above example is hardly an isolated example of the uneven playing field and double standard w/r to what really happened at the Pentagon. That example was simply that last straw after what had been a series of injustices. The Creek knew it had to call you guys out on this kind of information suppression.

John, I know you're not an agent, but your incompetence is breathtaking. Do you realize who approved the "CIT is Useless" hit piece? One (or more) of your three colleagues on the mod team! Who rejected Deets' endorsement? One (or more) of your three colleagues on the mod team!

Yet you continue to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are "well meaning activists with only the best of intentions for the movement."

I can not believe you can be so friggin' naive as to believe that EVERY user at blogger is well intentioned. Do you seriously believe "cognitive infiltration" doesn't exist?
And would they not seek to worm their way into key positions of power at the movement's most influential news site? (Erik Larson is most definitely a fraud imho.)

And you yourself, John, are guilty of this double standard. When Sheila Casey emailed you and the rest of the team to let you know that an article was in the works, at the Creek, one of her questions was:

Your editorial policy advocates civility and forbids calling others
liars or disinfo agents.  However, YT kicked off the "CIT to tour
Europe" thread with an attack on CIT, and linked to two articles which accuse CIT of "conning" the movement, which is the same as calling them liars.

So Jon, your response was:

3) Actually, I think one can con someone without lying outright.  My personal
opinion of CIT's work is that it is a highly subjective analysis of highly
subjective information from which a truly critical thinking person cannot
positively conclude anything.

So in other words, John, you're actually DEFENDING Victoria's ad hominem title.  Oh, but when the punches come from the other side, you get outraged.  Your take on Barrie Zwicker (from the same email chain):

Ms. Casey -

Watch Barrie's
CIT endorsement video starting at 2:10 and you'll clearly see that he is
calling people who have a different opinion of CIT's work "disinformation
specialists", here are the relevant quotes:

"To add
insult to insult, the same perpetrators have assigned disinformation
specialists to attack the honest citizen detectives of CIT.

"Second, and to learn
more about -- and unmask for all to see who are willing to see -- the cadre of
disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and
confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.

These quite unfortunate statements are in clear violation of 911blogger's

So, John, it's okay for Cosmos to kick off the European tour thread with "Bad News for 9/11 Truth and Europe." 

It's okay for Vic Ashley's hit piece to be promoted and hyperlinked to, under the title "To Con a Movement."  

It's okay for YT to link to Jim Hoffman's essay entitled "PentaCon: Smoking CRACK Version." 

It's okay to publish the "CIT is Useless" hit piece. 

But the moment Barrie Zwicker calls them out on this, WITHOUT EVEN NAMING ANY FUCKING NAMES, LET ALONE SPECIFIC USERS AT BLOGGER, you get out your crying towel, and --- booooo hissssssss --- you fucking LAMENT that "these [sniff] QUITE UNFORTUNATE [sniff] comments are in clear violation of the site rules."

Another thing you said in your e-mail response to Sheila: 

2) I have no idea why "CIT is useless" was published, I certainly
would not have published it. I was extremely busy at the time it was published
and did not notice it for a few days.

Right.  But then when you DID notice it, and realized it shouldn't have been published, did you stand up for what's right?  No, you didn't.  What you should have done was exerted a bit of the power you have there, and you should have either unpublished it or demanded that if it stay up, that the Zwicker and Deets entries also be approved.  And if they'd refused to cooperate with you, you should have resigned in protest and spoken out.  (You will regain credibility in many peoples' eyes the day you do resign from moderating there.)  But instead, perhaps because you're committed to either "democratic principles" or "not wanting to rock the boat," you merely lamented the blog's publication, but did damn all to correct the situation, because you don't want to "upset" anyone on the team.

And then, "to add insult to insult," you claim that these injustices that occur all have innocuous explanations, such as "we're all human and make mistakes" and you sweep the blatant censorship of one side of the debate under the rug under the placation of "egos have gotten out of hand on both sides."

Honestly, John, your incompetence makes me think of the woefully ineffective Weimar Republic which preceded Hitler's regime.

Your position that the CIT evidence is "subjective interpretation of subjective evidence" is still spoken like a true groupthinker who has not taken the time to watch the video.   And your take that "their conclusions are truly unwarranted" is also complete and utter bullshit.   First of all, even before CIT ever came along, the general consensus was that no plane hit the Pentagon, based on the prima facie photographic and video evidence.  People were confused, though, about the numerous witnesses to a plane.  CIT came along and proved what happened.  They were the Sherlock Holmeses who found an extremely small but damning clue which unravels the whole mystery: which side of the gas station the plane flew on.

Currently at YouTube, NSA has 2317 ratings: 2200 likes and 117 dislikes.  That's easily a convince rate on a par with Blueprint for Truth.  Sorry, but the real truth movement DOES endorse this work.  It is your miniscule little gatekeeping clique at blogger that is in the wrong side of history, and it is "quite unfortunate" that you side with them.

But, at long last, no matter.  We protested, we tried to get through to you, we tried to appeal fairly to the moderation team only to be greeted overwhelmingly with silence.  And as jpass said in another thread here: "Syed and CIT are a few years late to the party."  This is hardly the first issue within 9/11 truth that has not been treated fairly at blogger.  You guys banned Kevin Barrett the very day he announced he was running for Congress.  I can't think of any reason why you guys would ban Edward Rynearson (AJFan) other than that he posted a lot of material pertaining to Israel (he too was never given an explanation).  And the examples go on and on and on.

Gretavo started this blog as a direct response to some of the stupid bullshit he saw being allowed to be tolerated at blogger in 2007 from the same cast of LIHOP gatekeepers like Jon Gold, Hoffman/Ashley and others back then. 

Now, several more of us have joined to form yet another 9/11 news site,  Gretavo stated that he did not want WTCD to become the next 911blogger, i.e. the newest most trafficked website, and that he prefers this site to remain a niche site.  However, once we get fully launched and past the BETA mode, we are going to promote it as aggressively as possible.  We've had people like Chris Sarns and John Bursill tell us that rather than sit on the sidelines and bitch, why don't we create our own site and do a better job?

That's what we intend to do.  It is our firm notion that 911blogger is completely hopeless and beyond repair as an objective, level playing field, unrigged site.  It is unfortunate that this has to be done, but in addition to promoting our new site, "me and mine" will do everything within my power to warn people about the censorship and fake truther infiltration that goes on at blogger, and we will most certainly warn them that it is an un-level playing field.

Finally, you just said "For those of you who remain in moderation at 911Blogger I encourage you to comment and as long as your comments are within the rules and
guidelines, I will get around to posting them. I read every comment

Too little, too late, amigo.  Not only have you tried to make this rosy offer before, it smacks of condescension.  It implies that those in the queue DESERVE to be there and that it's neccessary to baby sit their comment submissions.  If you really wanted to stand up for what's right, you'd simply take out of the queue those who are in it, and unblock the accounts of those of us who've been banned.  Once again, though, I notice a double playing field: Jon Gold has had his account closed in the past (February of this year to be precise) only to be welcomed back several months later.  Of course, that's no surprise, since at blogger, Jon is essentially God's Second Favorite Son After Jesus.

Matt Sullivan, editor of the RCFP, tells me that the feedback to the explosive article was FAR more positive than negative.

This is indeed war, John.  This is an info war.  And I will do everything I can to turn people away from that crap site that passes as the no. 1 "9/11 truth" site.

Take care Mr. Wrong, and have fun back at the echo chamber.

Lillyann's picture

Leftwright's poor response to a serious issue!!

Very well said, Adam.
How can Leftwright desire an open conversation about the Pentagon and hope, holding his breath for god's sake, that CIT won't be mentioned?? Perhaps he has changed his mind and no longer wants to censor the truth.
Now Leftwright has found financial backers, well no, what we need is 911truth seekers with backbone!
If you're reading this, Leftwright, I reread your comment to Victoria and I still, though I speak English, do not see your gentle chides. Sorry!
And those of us who were banned without reason, as I was, do not seem to be included in your open forum on the Pentagon issue.

casseia's picture

Adam, you just took exemplifying Godwin's Law to 11!

"Honestly, John, your incompetence makes me think of the woefully ineffective Weimar Republic which preceded Hitler's regime."

I laughed out loud -- a welcome moment of levity in the middle of reading your appropriately impassioned screed. Sidestepping the direct Hitler analogy with a reference to the Weimar regime... brilliant.

gretavo's picture

good morning everyone!

So yes, WTCD had been a bit of a sleepy town for the last few weeks--I was away celebrating my grandmother's 90th birthday over thanksgiving (giving special thanks for her to have reached this milestone given that a year ago I was there to help the family take care of her in what we thought were to be her final days after falling ill...) but the truthing has of course not stopped just because most of us have been away from the site!

Over the TG holiday (which, yes, is unfortunately too close to being a celebration of genocide) one of my family shared with me a wonderful anecdote--two young police and one national guardsman in uniform were overheard by my fam at the local cafe/deli discussing what? The fact that 9/11 was engineered as an excuse to start wars in the middle east, and that one sign of this was the absence of evidence of a large passenger jet crashing at the Pentagon. That's for anyone who thinks either that the truth movement is being contained or that somehow military and law enforcement types are immune from the truth.

Locally here in Boston the truth continues to march on as well. I recently acquired a portable micro-projector and have discovered that playing videos like David Chandler's analysis of the WTC demolitions in public at night is a FANTASTIC attention getter, conversation starter, and mind opener. My nearly daily displays of the huge AE911truth banner are also bearing fruit--just yesterday I was somewhere off-campus and heard someone say "hey 9/11 guy!" and ended up chatting at length with a Harvard student who wanted to 'talk shop'. That's real truthing, folks, and it WORKS.

It's beyond obvious at this point who the fake truthers are, and they are becoming increasingly irrelevant as the real truth continues to spread across the country and the world. If indeed people like LeftWright are well-meaning and simply unable or unwilling to disassociate themselves from the fakes and would-be controllers, then he will simply go down in history as one of them. Rest assured that all the work we have done as a community of real truthers to document the ongoing complicity of the fake truthers in crimes against humanity are being carefully archived and will be available to the public in perpetuity.

Nothing can be done at this point to prevent justice from taking its course. It has been a long, tough road, but we have prevailed. If any fake truthers out there are taking false comfort from the assumption that I am engaged in false bravado here, by all means continue to do exactly what you've been doing. Your identities are known, your crimes have been documented, and your fate is sealed.

Congratulations to all the real truthers--all you need to do is to keep doing what you're doing--we have won.

Keenan's picture

John "LeftWright", are you actually claiming that all of the

more than 3 dozen users who were banned from 911Blogger over the last couple of years were banned for violating the site's rules? I think the vast majority of those users would take issue with that assertion. It's very instructive that you and the rest of the Blogger team have NEVER even tried to substantiate that assertion. So I am asking you for the nth time (the number of times that the blogger team have been asked to substantiate this claim is probably dozens of times), could you please either make some attempt to substantiate this claim or retract it, please? If you are the least bit honest and sincere, I think that is the least you could do for all of the dozens of users who were never given a reason for being banned. It would be a first step towards addressing the lack of trust that 911Blogger has with so much of the truth movement at this point.

Adam Syed's picture

Leftwright's response very poor indeed!

LW said, in part: "FTR - I lobbied to have the Zwicker and Deets endorsement videos posted in the blogs section, so that yet another round of discussion on the relative merits of CIT's NSA report could take place."

Well, even if these entries were to be posted now, a "discussion" would be of little use because every single articulate supporter of the issue has been banned, and only the true faction clique of plane-crash-huggers remains, so both blog entry comments sections would simply be circle jerks of people like Bursill and Sarns lamenting how "most unfortunate" the endorsements are, and oh, if only those endorseres had bothered to read Frank Legge's "excellent" paper and read Arabesque's and Arcterus' excellent blogs, they would have been more informed and withheld any public endorsement for NSA.  In fact, publishing those blogs now would ONLY have merit if it were to be accompanied by a mass un-banning of the 3 dozen + users who've been  silenced.

Sorry, no sale John.  You've also said that you've been trying for many months to lobby the rest of the team to even come up on an open and transparent editorial position on the Pentagon, and obviously they haven't worked with you yet.  Yet you cling to your fairy tale about how they're "well meaning activists with only the best intentions."

As I said, the only alternative is to create a new site to serve as an antidote to the wrongs at blogger, and that is indeed happening.

Oh, and for the record, here is LeftWright most recently stating that the queuings/bannings are justified:

No one has been banned here because they expressed

an "unpopular idea".

Those who have been banned have either broken rules or repeatedly violated the guidelines after being warned.  [complete and utter BS, John]

This is not a "free speech" site where anyone can say anything they want.

Those who feel that they have been unfairly banned and want to return
to 911blogger should make as strong a case as they can for
reinstatement to the moderators and not just keep slamming the site and
expecting the moderators to change their mind.

(I think I can hear the other moderators collectively groaning at me right now...)

Since sorting through all of this will fall on my virtual desk,
please email me directly at marin911truth (at) yahoo (dot) com and be
patient. In addition to moderating here I am also a full time activist
involved in many other projects.

I know that some have been frustrated in the past at the very slow
process of reviewing individual accounts to see what can be done, but
that is just the way it is and you have my sincere apologies for that.

Finally, there is nothing "narrow minded" about rejecting clearly
false "theories" that have do not adhere to the scientific method and/or
basic logic and reasoning, or exclude relevant data.

I hope that you and yours are well.


Adam Syed's picture

deleted double post


Keenan's picture

I would like to know how Legge's fancy calculations...

that he apparently acquired from the JREFers can explain

How the plane was able to dissappear completely into the first floor space as per the official story and the alleged damage path as shown in the publicly available photos:

And then of course there are those pesky details of how it would have to have been in a particular bank or at a higher altitude above the lawn to account for the generator damage, lack of damage to the lawn, avoiding the spools, and other factors...and still slide/squeeze into the first floor...

Oh, and I wonder where the 44 foot tail section disappeared into? Can his sophistry and super-genius calculations explain how the plane somehow shape shifted like a transformer toy in order to disappear into the first floor space in such a way, while missing all those obstacles, etc.? And accomplish that while flying at 530 mph - a speed at which professional pilots as well as Boeing claim would make it impossible to reliably control the plane - to say nothing of the fact that the 5 light poles that the plane allegedly smacked into would have severely damaged the wings and would have eliminated any ability to control the plane whatsoever no matter what speed?

And while he's at it, why doesn't he make use of the JREFers calculations that "prove" that the official story of the fire-induced collapses of the WTC buildings are really true? I mean, if Legge has so much trust in the JREFers mathematical proofs of the Pentagon, shouldn't he consider the possibility that the JREFers might be geniuses in regards to the WTC case as well?

Annoymouse's picture


The calculations that show Balsamo is incorrect are child's play. Anyone who thinks only JREFers have worked this out is leading the truth movement astray.

Keenan's picture

Could you possibly have come up with any statement less

substantive than this one? Annoymouse, this is exactly the kind of bald assertion combined with ad hominem that one would expect from an agent of disinformation. So, who are you? My guess is that you are either Frank Legge or one of his LIHOP pals from the 911Blogger/TrueFaction squad.

And, where did I mention anything about Balsamo? I simply asked you to show how it would be possible for a Boeing 757 to magically slip into the first floor of the Pentagon while missing all of those obstacles, and somehow making the engines and tail section disappear, etc, etc. Your avoidance of this real issue speaks volumes. All you people ever have is well-honed diversion tactics and straw men, while never answering the pertinent questions. You guys are so transparently dishonest, I don't see who you think you are fooling.

One does not need to do any calculations to see with their own two eyes that the WTC towers were blown to kingdom come, nor does one need to do any calculations to simply see with their own two eyes the obvious fact that a Boeing 757 could not have disappeared into the Pentagon's first floor as per the official story. You can throw all the BS calculations you want at me, just as NIST, JREF, and other government apologists do in regards to the WTC demolitions, but, as the saying goes, "you aint foolin' no one."

Annoymouse's picture

Legge's Calculation are "Childs Play" - You are correct

Legge does not take into consideration aerodynamics.

He is still stuck on 10th grade math with respect to a baseball, not an airplane.

This is why his "new paper" is more than 3 months behind schedule, and his last "Peer Review" paper needed more than 8 revisions, with more required, after a real expert reviewed it.

Annoymouse's picture

On behalf of Rob Balsamo..

"Subject: Legge's calculations are indeed "Child's play".

Legge does not take into consideration aerodynamics.

He is still stuck on 10th grade math with respect to, for example, a baseball, not an airplane.

This is why his "new paper" is more than 3 months behind schedule, and his last "Peer Review" paper needed more than 8 revisions, with more required, after a real expert reviewed it."

I feel your frustration Adam, I really do mate.


gretavo's picture

I wonder if this is the email thread...

...that so charmed David Chandler...?