"John Bursill" Defends 911Blogger.com Against Rock Creek Free Press Criticism
Reposting this here so that Bursill's points can be rebutted on an unrigged forum...
"911Blogger.com" Accused: Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
Submitted by John Bursill on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:14am
Commentary by John Bursill - Contributor and supporter of 911Blogger.com
"Is 911Blogger.com working for the other side?" This question has been asked in an article written by the "staff writers" at the Rock Creek Free Press.
I found this article I have attached below rather corrosive and it appears to me some people ("staff writers") want to perpetuate some sort of civil war within our movement over the Pentagon? Or is it only that many people truly believe that no plane hit the Pentagon and need a plausible scenario to make that theory work for them? And the limiting/censoring of CIT's exposure and other advocates of no plane theory, is just too much to bear and they have to speak out for their important theory?
Now any reasonable person could accuse 911Blogger.com of being, too careful, too reasonable, too responsible and pro positive public relations, fair enough. But to insinuate they are working for the government is laughable, ridiculous and very hurtful to some very hard working 9/11 Truth Advocates at this site!
So here's my take on it..."the censorship of CIT"?
Well firstly it is not just 911Blogger.com who has limited or removed support from groups and or people over the years, such as CIT, Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, Pilots for Truth, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and David Shayler to name but a few. This is a very common thing within political movements to stick to the best evidence and information and to only support people who behave civilly and responsibly regarding their dealings with people and subjects associated with the case being advocated. The 9/11 Truth movement is probably the loosest political campaign in history and is so full of misinformed people and theories it is already nearly impossible to get any high level support for such a rabble.
So who gives sites like 911Blogger.com the right to chose who they support? Well in a nut shell, they do! It's their site and they do what they please based on their experience and the advice they chose to take from the experts they trust around them.
It is obvious to us that watch the "deep politics" within the 9/11 Truth Movement why these people and groups have been marginalised. For the editors here at other major site have found their material either not sound on closer examination or they have done or said things that bring us as a movement into disrepute. In our "9/11 Truth World" where nearly everyone in the media is looking to attack us, it makes association with dubious or problematic characters and or ideas simply impossible for sites like 911blogger.com. In the case of the Pentagon issue it can be argued that it needs to be sidelined simply because of the disruption the debate has cause our cohesiveness and our effectiveness as a movement.
Sites that have taken stands on people and groups like the ones I've listed above include 911Truth.org, AE911Truth.org, TruthAction.org, Visibility911.com and 911TruthNews.com to name just a few. And it's not just web site editors that have made a stand against controversial information and or bad behaviour. Organisers of events like WAC's Luke Rudkowski, Jon Gold and my self have not allowed many of these people access to the stage because there were simply better people and ideas available that were not controversial. So would you accuse Luke, Jon and myself of being agents for being careful with information and our associations? Do people think that experienced editors, organiser and web site owners are idiots or people who don't understand the issue's, the evidence or the science? Do you think they follow along with one persons view, say someone like Michael Wolsey or Victoria Ashley? Do you think these hard core seditious types, these 9/11 Truth seekers, are all owned or controlled into one way of thinking, are you serious??
It is a fact that 911Blogger.com, myself and many, many others let the CIT information be seen by the public and got the word out about their film National Security Alert, so initially they were not censored. But for the editors, scientist, engineers, web site owners and organisers of many groups and sites the non-negotiable "fly over" became a cause of great concern, while the spamming by CIT et al of bloggs also became simply too much to bear. The CIT so called "censorship" in my view is of their own creation. I believe it was their aggressive take no prisoners approach to their pet theory "the flyover" and their absolute inability to see the reasons people thought their research proved very little that they have been pushed aside by so many websites. They are now seen by the most reputable editors and bloggers within our ranks as simply problematic and disrupting to our cause.
So who exactly does support CIT's non-negotiable "flyover"? Well it's not Peter Dale Scott or Richard Gage AIA as they often try to claim. They actually have specifically said they do not support "the flyover". There is also no such support from any of the editors of our premier science journal, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Rather Ryan, Legge and Jones are sceptics of the no plane theory and are slowly, scientifically, with other colleagues moving to the position that a Boeing 757 or similar did "likely" hit the Pentagon on 9/11, just as most of the witnesses believe. So I suppose that means that three of the writers (Jones, Legge and Ryan) of the Nano-Thermite Paper are also all agents? Although it is true that we do have some high profile supporters of the "no plane" at the Pentagon theory and of the "flyover" theory it is also true that CIT wanted support from many, many more but were refused. Even though most researchers, leaders and organisers like myself supported their gathering of witness testimony, they could not be tied to the unsupported "flyover" theory. As I have pointed out this is true of their two most important supporters with Gage and Scott by their clarifications on the matter.
I personally fully support 911blogger.com's choice to post what the experienced editors deem fit for public consumption. I also understand that there are many CIT supporters who want "the flyover" to feature in our top 5 strategies to awaken the masses. All I can say is good luck to you and yours and there are many web sites that support your claims and ideas, so go there and do your thing to your hearts content. One of these sites that allows debate is one that I do have some editorial control over; 911oz.com. Alas even though I am not trying to get them censored at my home site I still see I'm being targeted as an agent as well, go figure?
So here we are apparently divided once again....what now?
Well I think first those that are upset about "censorship" of content here and at the other premier 9/11 Truth Sites should ask yourselves three questions;
Q1. Why is it that 911Blogger.com is the #1 9/11 news site if it is censoring so much?
Q2. If experienced 9/11 Truth Researcher's question the validity of groups like CIT and chose not to support them, how on earth does this make them agents of the state when the information they do provide in abundance destroys the official story of 9/11?
Q3. Who are the staff writers for the "Rock Creek Free Press" and do they have a score to settle with 911Blogger.com?
In closing, please judge me on my record and do the same for 911Blogger.com the #1 source of 9/11 News on the web. But hey, please do me small favour, please stop your moaning and winging about censorship at "your" favourite sites! Just get your own site and build your own reputation there and make it the #1 9/11 Site, it's is still a free web world you know!
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
answers to Bursill's questions
Q1. Why is it that 911Blogger.com is the #1 9/11 news site if it is censoring so much?
There are a couple of points to be made--how does one define "the #1 9/11 news site"? Where are the statistics that show this to be true? I'm not saying it isn't the most popular source, but let's be clear what we mean when we say things like this. Also, why can't it be both the most popular AND censored? Wouldn't it make sense that the most popular 9/11 news site would be a target of infiltration? Couldn't it be argued that 911blogger.com was selected for special promotion once it was decided that it was going to be infiltrated? This is assuming that it didn't begin as a psyop, which is entirely possible. Perhaps it became the most popular because "competitors" like From the Wilderness, GNN, Truth Action, and Oilempire.us were so obviously controlled that people shunned them in favor of what I can personally attest to was a much more welcoming forum (at one point) for real truth? Could it be that once it became clear that those other sites were useless as vehicles for controlling the movement from the inside 911blogger was made safe for Operation Fake Truth through censorship of its more independent voices?
Q2. If experienced 9/11 Truth Researcher's question the validity of groups like CIT and chose not to support them, how on earth does this make them agents of the state when the information they do provide in abundance destroys the official story of 9/11?
It isn't rejecting CIT in particular or even the Pentagon controversy (did AA77 hit or not) generally that makes these "experienced 9/11 truth researchers" suspect--it is the fact that they absolutely do NOT present information that destroys the official story of 9/11. They instead present information that preserves key elements of the official story. When no evidence has been provided proving that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and numerous facts surface that make it apparent that it most likely did not, the acceptance of the OCT with regard to the Pentagon is unacceptable from anyone wishing to maintain their credibility as a critic of the official story.
Q3. Who are the staff writers for the "Rock Creek Free Press" and do they have a score to settle with 911Blogger.com?
I'd really like to see a list of the individuals/groups that have controlled 911blogger since its inception and through its many apparent changes in leadership. Beginning with the founder "dz", whose real name is allegedly Roger Peters, I'd like to know who everyone else is, and what their day jobs, if any, are. I'd like to know, but it doesn't really make a big difference, because facts are facts regardless of who puts them into words. I am not impressed in the slightest by the fact that people like "John Bursill" or "Jon Gold" claim to be using their real names. I can only judge the material that they publish, and I do so based on reason and logic, not on the personality behind it.
Surprised to see 911blogger acknowledging the article...
I have to say, I'm kind of surprised to see that 911blogger acknowledged the RCFP article at all. Naturally of course, virtually all the comments are howling with chagrin over this article, because at least 30 people have been silenced there. But it's nice to see that they got the message loud and clear.
I know, I said the same
I know, I said the same thing but forgot to sign in when I said it. I also said I wouldn't be surprised to see the entire thread vanish at some point but as you point out most of the independent thinkers there have been purged so maybe they wont have to do that.
Do you happen to know why Robin Hordon was banned? He seemed a little.....unique, but he also seemed like one of the last people willing to mention Israeli involvement on 911b. I'm guessing it has something to do with that.
Original RCFP article:
PDF File: Starts on page 1, continues on page 8:
http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf
teaming with agents
Adam Syed and CIT are a few years late to the party. www.911Blogger.com is teaming with obvious agents and assholes. It's nothing new. Many have known this since 2006 when another famous purge occurred via Reprehensor.
Bannings and purges started years before I'd even heard of CIT when the same agents and asshole (Jon Gold, Bill Douglas and friends) were given free reign to badger controlled demolition advocates and demonized Muslims with wild conspiracy theories about 9/11. I pointed it out...I got banned.
Sure...911Blogger.com does allow a broad range of topics to be posted to the site. But the moderators control the discussion by banning users and moderating comments.
Think about it...www.911blogger.com allows you to register and become a user but insists on moderating registered users comments before they are posted to the site. It doesn't get much more obvious then that.
I guess I'm preaching to the choir here. I'd post to 911Blogger but I'm not allowed.
oh, not late to the party...
I remember the 2008 purge of WTCD. I also remember Edward Rynearson (prolific activist and creator of davidraygriffin.com) getting silenced for posting too much about Israel. I remember Kevin Barrett getting purged the very day he announced he was running for Congress in 2008.
Incidentally and for the record, I was consulted by, and furnished a few quotes for, the RCFP article, but am not one of the authors. I did suggest to them that they make the article more than just CIT, and include previous purges, but in the interests of word space (they already stretched the 2000 word limit with what they produced) and because it was the most recent purge, the decision was to focus on CIT.
Yes, for those who are reading, 911blogger has a history of purging people who are "too effective" for lack of a better phrase.
Response to Leftwright
(Since I'm silenced from commenting over there, I will respond to
LW's response here, and e-mail him to let him know I'm addressing him
publicly here.)
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-...
While I did say I've " been busy; as a fulltime truth activist I have
higher priorities" or something very similar, this was in reference to
the repeated requests I have received to provide a thorough critique of
the CIT NSA video, as my immediate critique of the video ( "this is a
highly subjective analysis of subjective "evidence and is not conclusive
evidence of anything") has never been satisfactory to these proponents
of CIT's NSA video and the flyover theory.
John, way back in
January, when the Pentagon/CIT controversy was still blazing hot, and
numerous CIT supporters could still post there, you admitted to me in an
email that you hadn't watched the NSA video. You are of course aware
of Einstein's phrase "Condemnation without investigaiton is the height
of ignorance" right? Well, while admitting you hadn't watched the
presentation, you nevertheless tried to reassure me that "CIT's work has
been thoroughly critiqued at blogger" and that I should "read Frank
Legge's excellent [rolmfao] paper and reconsider the merits of CIT's
work." Oh, of course, Franke Legge has a PEE AYCH DEE after his name,
so his paper MUST be good as kosher, right?
You told me that you
would get around to watching the video and would let me know when you
finally did. That announcement never came. If you ever did finally watch it you can set the record straight now.
I don't know about others, but I never asked you to "provide a thorough critique" of the NSA video; I wanted acknowledgement from you that you, as a moderator at the most heavily trafficked 911 news site, had at least watched it, and would hence be intimately familiar with the facts, so it might make you more informed as to who is really on the correct side of this issue.
Given that this past year, CIT has been THE hot topic on the blogosphere, with threads extending into the hundreds of comments, it is the height of incompetence for you, as a moderator, to not be familiar, first hand, with the video that has ignited such a firestorm.
Instead, you have done what much of the non-truther populace does: you succumb to groupthink. You undoubtedly feel that since your darling brother and sister colleagues in San Francisco (Cosmos, Ashley, Hoffman) have been so anti CIT from day one, and since you know them in person and believe their intentions to be wholesome, you take it on faith that if THEY say CIT is garbage, it must be true.
I know you're not an operative John. However, your incompetence this past half year or so has been breathtaking, and if you must lead a "full life" raising 2 teenage daughters and working and reffing soccer games every weekend, perhaps you could resign your moderating duties to one of us single and looking people living in mom's basement (j/k) who have the time to do the job thoroughly?
Moving on:
[I should note here that I have never stated that the flyover theory
is not possible, only that CIT has not proved anything conclusively
through their research and the NSA video. That said, I do not think the
flyover theory, as they present it, is very plausible.]
[ I should also note here that in resorting to this kind of yellow
journalism, the proponents of CIT have given me even less of a reason to
spend the many hours a full critique of the NSA video would require,
and I’m probably not the only one who feels this way]
See above. You are truly speaking like someone who STILL ten months later has not bothered to watch the video.
With regard to "despite their best efforts, rules are not always
enforced fairly": The moderators at 911blogger are human, we make
mistakes and each has our own bias, so yes, sometimes some rules are not
enforced as equally as I think they should be in an ideal world, but I
continue to try and work to make the moderating here as equitable as
possible (and when anyone finds an ideal world, please let me know).
I don't buy this, John, and I have to really wonder if deep down you truly believe it yourself.
You have called this article "yellow journalism" but you and your team have done everything within your power to ensure that this piece would come across as one sided. First of all John, did you read Stefan's accurate explanation as to why Ruff, myself and Stefan were banned?
“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we
were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule
breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at
the exact same time.
“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner
over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were
witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it
striking the Pentagon.
“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was
just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous
witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list
was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively
that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the
list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the
north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that
they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.
“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory
for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a
completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full
knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from
being able to respond.
“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out
there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research.
911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”
There is nothing "out of context" about Stefan's statement; that is exactly what happened.
Now, John, if one of your colleagues is banning people because those people are pointing out serious errors (or should I say "errors") in a blog entry he was promoting, what does that say about his intentions and motives?
Now, let's flash back to May/June. This was the period where you got burned out and took a breather for several months. Prior to that, when you were prolifically involved with the site, you were doing some great moderating and I was glad you'd joined the team to balance things out. Then you disappeared suddenly, and everything went down the toilet. Myself, Ruff, Stefan, oncesliceshort, LillyAnn, nobodyparticular and others, as we found ourselves queued or banned, politely emailed the team and asked to be pointed to posts that broke the rules, and were greeted with deafening silence time after time. Including from You, John Wright. After the way you used to promptly respond to me, combined with the fact that I perceived you to be a good egg, made a few of us wonder whether you'd been Barry Jenningsed.
So after no responses from the team when inquired as to why we'd been queued, we stepped things up. I initiated an email chain which openly CC'd many people in the movement including prominent people. Even this did not make anyone from the team speak up and defend their editorial policies. To this day, John, you are the only one of the four on the team to respond to these accusations at all. Why the deafening silence from the team member who bans people who are beating him in a debate?
When you guys refused to publish not only Zwicker's but also Dwain Deets' endorsements, yet published a hit piece entitled "CIT is Useless" written by an anonymous poster, it confirmed in our eyes that 911blogger is no longer a real truth site.
You yourself have admitted that you've tried to get your team members FOR MONTHS to come up with a clear editorial policy on the Pentagon, and have not gotten anywhere.
Yet, breathtakingly, you write a few paragraphs later:
Finally, even though I may have relatively minor disagreements over some
moderation issues here at 911blogger, I know that the other moderators
are well-intentioned activists who work extremely hard to insure that
this site remains the excellent asset for the 9/11 truth movement that
it is.
Given the shady actions especially of Loose Nuke but also the shady silence of Keogh, I find it dumbfounding that you could still be this naive with regard to your colleagues.
Maybe it's your "peace and love, brothers and sisters" persona, but you seem to be living under the delusion that EVERYONE at blogger is sincere and well meaning, and that Cass Sunstein's agents don't really infiltrate these highly trafficked truth sites.
Rather hypocritically though, while censoring Zwicker because of his comments about "disinformation specialists," you nonetheless seem to be OK with Hoffman, Victronix, and company calling Craig and Aldo "con men" and "con artists" who are "intentionally" spreading bad info and "disrupting."
Also, you initially agreed to a phone interview prior to the printing of the Creek article, and after this initial agreement you slivered back into the shadows, presumably because you didn't want to be faced with some hard questions?
Instead of doing the interview, which might have contributed to the article coming across as more "fair and balanced," your silence contributed to its coming across (to some) as a one-sided piece.
IF you have any backbone at all John, you will do the right thing and fully reinstate the posting priveleges of these THIRTY ONE people who over the past 2 years have been banned, almost all without a cogent explanation, from 911blogger:
1. Craig Ranke
2. Aldo Marquis
3. Rob Balsamo
4. Kevin Barrett
5. Stefan
6. Adam Syed
7. Onesliceshort
8. Lillyann
9. Adam Ruff
10. keenan
11. jpass
12. casseia
13. Real Truther
14. chris
15. juandelacruz
16. kate of the kiosk
17. nobodyparticular
18. Allende Admirer
19. influence device
20. Scrubby
21. Big_D
22. P45
23. stallion4
24. AJ Fan (Edward Rynearson)
25. Sheila Casey
26. Domenick DiMaggio
27. SanderO
28. Truthmiracle (Michael Cook)
29. DoYouEverWonder
30. Naomi
31. Robin Hordon
Now, if you can't do that because you must be all nice and peachy and democratic, it shows that whether you're an agent or not, your persona of placation does little to actually move forward the dialog that we must all be engaged in to seek and discover truth.
Leftwright
Has again just recently shown his position on CIT, Adam.
He states in a recent blog, "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 ".
Well, yes, the perpetrators are also hoping for such a day when the Pentagon issue is watered down and essentially not considered in any real way. Leftwright reveals his true colors here, and so why would he hope to reinstate the CIT supporters or the anti-Zionist supporters!!
Your letter is wonderful and I look forward to a response from Leftwright.
I appreciate your efforts as well as Adam Ruffs, Stefans and Gretavo and others here at Wtcdemolition. Thanks for mentioning me.
Lillyann
make that 32 banned contributors
I was banned in July for simply objecting to the vicious, unprovoked and unwarranted attack on CIT, instigated by YT and carried on by the usual suspects.
The 911blogger team are a cliquish bunch, they obviously fancy themselves to be the prime mover of the 9/11 truth movement, but from my own personal experience there, the show is being run by folk with giant egos and very thin skins.
I sort of feel sorry for John Bursill ... as a fellow countryman, I consider him to be genuine and sincere, but I fear he has been suckered by the big wigs at 911blogger. I suspect that one day, John will come to regret his overly cosy relationship with that mob.
CIT = The Banned?
I remember that exchange back in July. I was banned back in 2007 but this July was re-instated when LeftWright could find no reason for my original banning. But I also faced off with YT and was banned for it.
The problem is the impression is now that anyone who has been banned is somehow a "CIT Supporter". I argued against 911Blogger's blatant censorship of CIT as well as YT's actions that would have gotten anyone else banned from the site...if they were being so vitriolic in support of CIT's work.
Something to consider is that 911Blogger.com is actually marketing CIT's work in a way.
yeah...
they sure never shut up about them! i've said before, i think CIT's witness statements are an important part of the puzzle, even if they're bogus, because they are real people going on the record. but to turn the complex Pentagon issue into a pro or anti-CIT debate is not helpful to the real truth movement.
like lancing a boil...
the words of Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, reposted from Pilots:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20721&view=findpo...
CIT and the “Controversy”
Shelton F. Lankford
LtCol. USMC (Ret.)
With the recent salvo fired by that plucky little monthly muckraker “Rock Creek Free Press” (RCFP) against the 9/11 Truth community’s nearest thing to the New York Times, 9/11 Blogger, (comparison is intentional, since the Times has been instrumental in several heroic and some disgraceful campaigns) I find myself compelled to enter the lists on the side of what I believe is right and just. As a follower of the discussions over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I have been aware for some time that some posters there who are solid, informed, and reasonable individuals as I came to know them, had been ill-treated at Blogger, allegedly for having run afoul of some policy or other having to do with the content of their arguments. I don’t write on Blogger. My only attempt to create an account there failed and sampling the atmosphere that was evident when Rob Balsamo was under attack, just before he was shown the door by the powers that be over there, that it was not a place I would care to hang out in much. This was when Pilots was being assailed for their research at the Pentagon and just as CIT’s work with the Pentagon witnesses was starting to bear fruit.
The article in the RCFP has brought the issue out of Blogger into the (semi-) public square, and the audience of primarily convinced Truthers are choosing sides in the argument, some think to the detriment of the movement.
I think it is healthy in the same way, and for the same reasons, that the lancing of a boil is a good thing. Citizens Investigation Team is not the first truth research operation to fall afoul of what has to be termed a vindictive assault by some loud and, in my opinion, destructive, forces who don’t mind using the tools that are all too familiar to anyone who has spoken out against the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) - ridicule, personal attack, invective, and distortion. The tactic of Silencing opponents while allowing the forum to serve as a continuing medium for attacks on that opponent is, at best, cowardly, and in a community committed to the truth, it seems oddly out of place.
I dislike the charge of “disinformation agent” leveled against someone who disagrees with a line of reasoning, but since a presidential appointee was moved to write a proposal for a campaign of “cognitive infiltration” specifically against the 9/11 Truth community, how can apparent efforts to discredit solid research with arguments like “CIT is Useless” not arouse some inklings of suspicion?
In recent conversations with leading figures in the Truth community, the topic has arisen, and more than once, when CIT’s work came up, someone has been quick to label their work “controversial”. Well, that sounds accurate, certainly. Tell me more. The word controversy implies two sides to the story, but by itself does not explain either side.
CIT, in this context, consists of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Their work in making multiple visits from California to Arlington, VA, digging up the witnesses that were documented by a post-9/11 oral history project that was filed and apparently forgotten by the government, and doing exhaustive and repeated interviews to let those witnesses explain what they saw in their own words, is documented in the film “National Security Alert”. It is all there, and the viewer can judge for themselves what accounts are credible. Although a non-aviator may not immediately grasp the implications, the evidence is undeniable: The case turns on the, in my mind, very credible statements of 14 well-placed persons, most of them government employees - Arlington Cemetary workers or Pentagon police officers - who unmistakably place the aircraft inbound to the Pentagon as being North of the CITGO gas station adjacent to the Pentagon.
The OCT is, in a sense, written indelibly on the ground, in the form of a series of light poles which were supposedly struck and knocked down by the aircraft, a generator trailer that was damaged, a hole in the fascade of the newly renovated and sparsely populated wing of the Pentagon, and a wedge of destruction leading from there to a punch-out hole in the “C” ring. Pole number 1 was alleged to have wound up sticking out of the windshield of a DC taxicab driven by one Lloyde England who was on the cloverleaf overpass, about whom more, later.
The other required point that must be understood has to do with the behavior of fixed-wing aircraft. They do not change directions instantaneously. An attempt by the pilot to do so requires violent and dramatic maneuvers that are normally not in the repertoire of airline-type aircraft. A large passenger jet inbound to the Pentagon, that is North of the CITGO station, has already missed the first light pole, cannot maneuver to strike the rest of the downed poles, and, if were to strike the Pentagon, it would create a damage trail significantly divergent from that created by the explosion and punch-out.
That is the essence of the evidence gathered by CIT. It is human, in that it is contained in the accounts of witnesses, who should be listened to in order to judge sincerity and credibility. But it is also scientific, in the sense that Aerodynamics is a special application of physical laws of motion and fluid dynamics, and calculations of what is and is not possible for an aircraft under those conditions can be made. As a pilot, I can say that it is ludicrous to consider the aircraft even attempting to get on the official flight path from the observed position. To do so would result in a spectacular midair dissassembly, as the wings come off, and the airframe plummets to earth, sparing the Pentagon.
One or two witnesses can be mistaken. When the count reaches 12-14 witnesses, all concluding that the aircraft passed North of the CITGO, chances of mistakes as to that crucial fact become virtually non-existent, assuming they are not paid agents on a mission to deceive CIT. (That, and the fact that the same story was essentially told by them to those doing the historical account.)
At least one witness to an overflight, another Pentagon policeman, is also on tape in an audio recording. CIT concluded that, since the aircraft could not possibly have created the path of destruction, it didn’t. The further conclusion that it overflew the building is a logical surmise, backed by the aforementioned witness on the record and the reported remarks of others who are identified by CIT. Most of the interviewed witnesses believed that the aircraft had struck the building. That is a reasonable conclusion from their vantage point, in the same way that audience members conclude that David Copperfield really made the tiger disappear. Scientists and engineers in the audience would probably not conclude that a living animal disappeared, but several of CIT’s detractors have attacked them for having drawn a similar conclusion about the aircraft, even though alternatives to overflight (suggested by one detractor) involve such things as a bomb that disintegrated the aircraft near the Pentagon, leaving no wreckage.
National Security Alert also has on the DVD one of the most fascinating first-person accounts about the incident I have ever seen. It is the statement of Lloyde England, the driver of the damaged DC taxi allegedly struck by light pole number 1. He makes statements that come very close to an admission of having worked with others, and that they “came across the highway together” to stage the damage, cementing the narrative for the official account. Other statements to the effect that it was too late to go back, and that (9/11) was for the wealthy, and he was just a ‘small man’ are suggestive of an attempt to justify being a co-conspiracist in a very limited role.
By any standards, CIT has done an outstanding job of documenting their work and defending it. Banning this discussion on Blogger and the insults and personal attacks on CIT are unworthy of any honest-broker forum. As with eyewitnesses, one or two banned posters are worthy of notice but may not be enough to convict. A pattern of dozens of bannings suggests something entirely different and more sinister. Taking a poll of the Blogger audience in order to determine worthiness of a body of research of publication seems odd.
Would the scientific 9/11 community subject their research on the World Trade Center dust to a vote by laymen of varying degrees of knowledge as to whether their documented results are valid? Would the Architects subject their findings to the judgment of a body of casual reviewers with no particular expertise as to whether Building 7’s collapse was just as NIST claimed? Would any of them regard a pronouncement of their work as "useless" or an allegation that they were "smoking crack" as a valid criticism?
Appeals to all the “South side witnesses”, frequently cited by CIT’s detractors, and even now being referred to without any supporting evidence, have been addressed by CIT and published. We have yet to see the equivalent of their interview records for any alternative witnesses that I am aware of.
“Controversy” implies that two or more sides have evidence that is approximately even. Some people still believe that the Earth is flat. But there is no controversy about it, because the existence of a counter belief that is against the evidence does not create a controversy except in some truly ignorant minds. To use Sherlock Holmes’ oft-quoted logic, when we have eliminated the impossible, what we are left with is the truth. That is what many very thoughtful 9/11 leaders have concluded. Those who disagree have a right to do so, but until they have produced a credible body of research to back their opinion, they, and 911 Blogger are not deserving of the attention of anyone who is committed to the cause of advancing the 9/11 Truth Movement. The “Pack Bloggerism” taking place on 9/11 Blogger as I write, in which CIT - barred from participation - is vilified, sniped at, and ridiculed, smacks of ignorant tribalism egged on by a group of petty tyrants. That they were called out by the RCFP, and not by the membership at Blogger, is a reflection on those who choose to hang out in that venue.
The link below is from Craig's record of an exchange with Justin Keogh, one of Blogger's moderators. If it isn't a petty tyrant exercising his arbitrary power, what would you call it?
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=817
this is a great write-up by Lankford
I think he articulates the situation at 911blogger perfectly.
"The tactic of Silencing opponents while allowing the forum to serve as a continuing medium for attacks on that opponent is, at best, cowardly, and in a community committed to the truth, it seems oddly out of place."
"The “Pack Bloggerism” taking place on 9/11 Blogger as I write...smacks of ignorant tribalism egged on by a group of petty tyrants."
the CIT "controversy"
Both Adam and gretavo have valid points. I don't think that the Pentagon issue should become solely, or even largely, a pro/anti-CIT issue. There are those who are certainly trying their best to do just that, and we need to vigorously and constantly oppose that effort of constructing that straw man. What is going on at 911Blogger and the other tightly controlled sites that are so obviously out of step with the mainstream truth movement is way bigger than the CIT "controversy". The fact is that Jim Hoffman and his ilk have been busy putting out disinformation on the Pentagon attack since at least as far back as 2004, years before CIT came along. Whether or not one believes that CIT have contributed to their own "controversial" status by their behavior or tactics, the fact remains that if CIT did not exist, the gang of bullies would be attacking whatever other individuals or groups were presenting any significant evidence that challenges the official story of the Pentagon attack just as viciously as they are attacking CIT now. It's only become about CIT because CIT just so happened to compile more significant and verified evidence that disproves the official story at the Pentagon than any other group or individual. And I'm not just talking about corroborated eyewitness statements, but the physical evidence that CIT has analyzed and compiled, while under-appreciated and given less significance than the eyewitnesses, is just as crucial, if not more crucial in my opinion. In some ways I agree with gretavo that eyewitnesses are often given too much importance, even when you have corroboration between a dozen or more witnesses. I mean, you can think of many scenarios in which the physical evidence that you can see and verify with your own eyes that contradicts eyewitnesses would have to be believed over an infinite number of corroborated eyewitnesses if the eyewitnesses are claiming to have seen something that is physically impossible.
But it's good that things are coming to a head on this issue. Its now time for the movement to decide what to do about 911Blogger and the clique of True Faction bullies who have been tolerated way too long. Hopefully a significant number of legitimate real truth researchers/advocates will decide that 911Blogger and the other sites controlled by the same clique no longer have a right to claim to be doing anything in our name (the mainstream 9/11 truth movement) and an alternative needs to be pursued which will actually represent the mainstream of the 9/11 truth movement.
That is what needs to happen, but it's hard to be optimistic based upon how long certain disinfo agents such as Hoffman have been able to maintain credibility capital with other researchers/advocates who are apparently too affected by groupthink to objectively look at the facts.
Physical evidence vs Eyewitness evidence
Barry Zwicker provides some excellent analysis about this issue of the importance of eyewitness evidence versus physical evidence in a phone interview with Jeff Hill "shure" (troll/useful idiot?) on July 31 2010. I recommend everyone take a listen: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/bz_073110.mp3
Some of the best quotes by Barry:
One doesn't need to look at a whole lot of research to see what you can see with your naked eyes about the damage to the front of the Pentagon, Jeff, and as far as 15 people saying that they say a plane go in, that, that likewise doesn't cut any ice with me because why isn't there any damage which is in the shape of an airplane?
[...]
If you wanted to sort of attach a weight to evidence, the evidence that there is no sign whatsoever of an airliner having smashed into the Pentagon, uh, that would weigh like a hundred tons, and other evidence such as 15 people who say they saw a plane go in would weigh one ounce. I mean there is no comparison.
"shure" is an enigma
his call to Jowenko (google it if you don't know) was genius, I don't get his no-planery (at the wtc).
Victor Thorn Interviews Jamie McIntyre
Victor Thorn Interviews Former CNN Reporter Jamie McIntyre, Who Was First on Scene at Pentagon on 9-11
By Victor Thorn
AMERICAN FREE PRESS • NOVEMBER 8, 2010
There’s an old saying: Don’t spit on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Likewise, don’t show me a photo taken only minutes after the 9-11 Pentagon "event" and insist that a Boeing 757—which is 155 feet long with a 124 foot wingspan and weighs 100 tons—crashed into America’s military nerve-center.
During an Oct. 19 interview, this writer questioned former CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre about the 200,000 pounds of missing wreckage. McIntyre was one of the first establishment reporters on the scene soon after the Pentagon event and has been cited repeatedly by researchers exploring alternative views about what happened on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
McIntyre tried to explain, "What was left of the plane broke into thousands of tiny pieces. Most of it was destroyed."
However, McIntyre’s own words delivered during a live CNN broadcast on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 betray this sentiment. "From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."
That tragic morning, he continued, "There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."
Later, as possible "damage control," McIntyre objected that his comments were taken out of context.
But were they? Pentagon officials initially excused the lack of physical wreckage by saying the plane, including its black boxes and flight data recorders, "vaporized." Yet, deceased employees and passengers were identified by DNA, fingerprints and drivers licenses. How could aluminum and high-grade steel completely disintegrate, while flesh and plastic documents remained intact?
McIntyre responded, "It’s inexplicable how some stuff survives. It’s a fluky situation what makes it through and what doesn’t. It’s not inconsistent for some fragile things to survive while other strong things don’t."
In other words, we’re supposed to believe this preposterous spin instead of our own eyes. Also, why is only one 18-foot hole visible on the Pentagon’s exterior ring? Government spokesmen said it was created by Flight 77’s fuselage, yet a Boeing’s nose is described by aviation experts as a weak eggshell, a sausage skin, or an empty beer can. Airplane mechanics cast serious doubt on whether a fuselage could penetrate three immensely strong reinforced concrete walls.
McIntyre admitted to AFP that never once did he interview any structural engineers to determine why the plane’s five-ton engines didn’t create any holes.
In fact, McIntyre never interviewed a single pilot to determine if Hani Hanjour—who could barely drive an automobile and was refused permission to rent a Cessna prop plane months before 9-11—could have commandeered the large, sophisticated, unwieldy aircraft said to have hit the Pentagon. He called the matter "immaterial."
Moreover, McIntyre failed to interview any air traffic controllers to ascertain whether a Boeing 757 could execute a 7,000-foot drop in 2.5 minutes while pulling a sharp 270-degree turn. Nor did he interview a single airline technician to verify if this aircraft could perform such top-gun maneuvers. Neither did he contact a single physician in regard to whether Hanjour would have lost consciousness in flight, due to the G-forces.
McIntyre also neglected to interview any photographic experts or search-and-rescue workers in regard to why no wreckage appeared in the initial photos.
Additionally, prof. A.K. Dewdney of Western Ontario University conducted numerous experiments which determined that cell phone calls could not have been made by passengers that morning. Such technology only became available in 2004. Pilot Russ Wittenberg confirmed to AFP that these devices couldn’t lock onto cell phone towers from the heights or speeds claimed by the government.
Inexplicably, McIntyre didn’t contact a single electronics expert to verify the authenticity of these calls.
When asked if he viewed any of the 84 confiscated videotapes that the Pentagon has refused to release under FOIA requests to this day, McIntyre responded in the negative. AFP followed-up, "Has there ever been any conclusive video footage where Flight 77 is unmistakably seen striking the Pentagon?"
McIntyre replied, "As far as we know, there is no video footage comparable to WTC 2 being struck in New York."
Despite the Pentagon’s enormous surveillance systems, the government can’t produce even one identifiable photograph of Flight 77 crashing into this highly secure facility. Moreover, McIntyre didn’t witness the crash, and only arrived on the scene 45 minutes later. Worse, he confessed to not doing any research into alternate explanations, while adding, "I’m not aware of anyone at CNN exploring these subjects in any detail."
By his own admission, McIntyre couldn’t provide evidence of interviewing a single individual whose perspective differed from the government’s official version of 9-11.
He justified this lack of intellectual and journalistic curiosity with the following mantras: (a) All evidence points in only one direction, (b) There are no plausible alternatives, (c) These aren’t relevant lines of questioning, and (d) All this might make sense if we didn’t know whether American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But we do know that for a fact, so all this other debate and analysis is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, McIntyre still does not realize that this type of lazy elitist arrogance is why a growing number of Americans don’t trust the corporate media.
He did acknowledge, "It’s good to keep an open and skeptical mind because the government doesn’t always tell the truth."
But by neglecting to investigate a single aspect of this story that contradicts the government’s version, CNN, McIntyre, and his mainstream media colleagues, epitomize lapdog journalism at its shoddiest.
True Faction/blogger's anti-CIT campaign is NOTHING new
"...to turn the complex Pentagon issue into a pro or anti-CIT debate is not helpful to the real truth movement."
While I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement, the current 911blogger anti-CIT campaign clearly popped out of the "Icky" Ashley/Hoffman/Wolsey propaganda mill over a year ago, and I suspect that the mysterious "Arabesque" initiated it (since Arabesque appears to have "disappeared" near the end of July 2009):
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/38278
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33vhrxk
It is interesting to note that both Dr. Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan have now apparently been 'hitched' to that 'team' like a couple of old mules (Roseanne Barr and "Rasputin" notwithstanding)...
True Faction has been VERY successful in turning all Pentagon research into an us/them, blue/red, Demos/Republican psychodrama though. Of course those self-appointed ( and self-styled ) "Credibility Police" are the people who initially began screaming from every treetop about a "Big Fence," "divisiveness" and "bad for the movement"- hmmm...
"Arabesque" is Jim Hoffman.
"Arabesque" is Jim Hoffman. Just a theory...
Two more banned
Lazlo Toth
wolfowitzinsheepsclothing
Blog links
Hello kam/Adam (we briefly corresponded long ago on the Amazon.com DRG "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" thread, way back when I first started getting involved in 9/11 research).
I think it would be a good idea if "The Outcasts" could archive some of their most important (or "controversial?" ;) ) work at 911blogger and save it both in HTML and PDF formats for posterity.
It would also be good to update "The Outcast" list with links to the blogs of the banned (I have linked your involuntarily-abandoned blog below):
http://911blogger.com/blogs/adam-syed
I hardly posted anything there, but I consider myself one of the "voluntarily banned" due to the pathetic shenanigans that were going on there.
mrb
truth & censorship
No wonder why the "truth" movement doesn't get anywhere when they spend all their time attacking other researchers... The truth needs no protection. So why the censorship?
This is a must-read article describing the true nature of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, and how it is becoming more and more obvious that it is organized by the same people who planned 9/11, to mislead angry Americans and make sure they are asking the wrong questions and looking in the wrong direction.
Truth and the Twin Towers - Both Bite the Dust: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61147.shtml
In Peace,
-Abe
[anonymous comments should be anonymous, sorry. -gReT]
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology
thanks but no thanks.
Just had a chance to read the article you linked to, and I'll be damned if that isn't Judy Wood you're trying to rehabilitate! You (and your link) say that people with any connections to the USG, like Steven Jones and many other of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" cannot be trusted because they are obviously the leaders of a controlled opposition. That Judy Wood is not in fact the kook she plays on the Internet but a victim of their intrigues. I see two possibilities:
1) Jones et al are in fact insincere and by you trashing them in the name of Judy Wood I am supposed to conclude that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
2) Jones et al are in fact well-connected AND sincere in their desire to defend the USG from an outside attack that included the 9/11 operation, in which foreign agents with domestic allies in and out of the government, as well as human assets based on blackmail and/or bribery, are threatening/challenging the sovereignty of the american people.
The dust samples Jones et al studied may well have been spiked with something that was in fact used. Remember when Dan Rather got in trouble for reporting the discovery of a genuine document showing that George W. Bush was AWOL from his national guard duties during Vietnam? When it was discovered that the document was a forgery (designed to be outed as such by the use of a modern typewriter, when vintage typewriters are easy to find and cheap) the public wasn't actually told that the genuine document did exist and showed the same information as the forgery.
One thing that has bothered me about the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust--the unignited nano-thermite--is how much they found. While I have no trouble believing that this very substance may have been used (nor any trouble believing that it was only ordinary thermite combined with high explosives like RDX) I do think it's strange that so much would remain unignited--if the ratio of red/gray chips to dust in the samples is consistent with the entire mass of dust then we're talking a lot of material that didn't ignite. That's odd. Unless you remember Dan Rather and realize that if and once the public learns that Jones et al's dust samples were spiked--that they were OBVIOUSLY spiked--they may not be willing to further entertain alternatives to the nonexistent official "collapse explanation."
Let's not forget our Nietzsche! The most perfidious way to harm a cause is to defend it deliberately with faulty arguments. Be on the lookout.