The idea of "no-planes" is:
intentionally spread by cointelpro disinformation artists to discredit the entire truth movement
33% (8 votes)
the product of someone (nico haupt?)'s overly active imagination
0% (0 votes)
ridiculous and offensive to the family members who received cell phone calls
0% (0 votes)
should be dropped & ignored
4% (1 vote)
all of the above
8% (2 votes)
not all, but more than one, of the above
42% (10 votes)
worthy of further consideration
13% (3 votes)
Total votes: 24
»
- Login to post comments
comments under Winter Patriot's blog got me thinking
about this topic again for the first time in quite a while [ apologies if it's a thought crime ;) ].
the comments under this article in particular:
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/lets-get-physical-technical-ar...
One thing that struck me since the last time I thought about 'no planes' is my newer attitude towards 911b suppression.
Another thing I hadn't paid very much attention to, which Winter Patriot thoroughly analyzes is this Kennebunkport warning.
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/anyone-who-ever-had-heart-kenn...
Don't we all want to find out a little more about 'col jenny'?
No thought crime What-so-ever imo.
Though I don't think it's as important, & surely much harder to convince others of, as other circumstantial & physical evidence. I admit some of the arguments are thought provoking, but I see it as a detraction / method of division.
The thing that's most blatant & also a good litmus test for so-called 911 truther's is if they're willing to accept the mountains of evidence we have for Israeli / Zionist collusion being lumped together with no-planes & exotic weaponry as 'crime think'.
Hmm, I'm going to have to get back to you with an opinion on the Kennebunkport thing. Looks intersting tho', I haven't followed it at all either. As for Ms. Sparks, well, I gotta question anyone who's buddy, buddy with an obvious Shill (Mr. "Burned any Jews lately" Gold).
what has me excited about this vein
is how relatively easy it would be to prove or disprove with repeatable experiments. Experiments that are perhaps not beyond the cost of truthers, experiments that can be videoed and sent to every newsroom & youtube-clone on the planet. Videos that could prove to every layman conclusively that what we saw on TV was not possible and was therefore a pre-planned & extensive hoax.Â
The fact that 911b doesn't want us thinking about this has to now make one curious.
Or, on the other hand, the experiments would prove that it is possible for aluminum planes to pass through steel columns of the size and dimensions of the exteriors of the WTC towers. And the "no-planers" would then be (more or less) debunked forever.Â
So either way, moving forward with such experiments could be considered a 'win-win' to those in the 911truth + NO-'no-plane' camp.Â
The Colonel
Colonel Jenny is a personal friend of mine and we have done 9/11 work together. We don't agree on everything, but she is definitely a good person. We met on 9/11 blogger and eventually realized we live in the same neighborhood, only about a five minute walk from each other. In the local truther meltdown of 2007, in which the group she and I had attended was taken over by a bunch of Fetzer-worshipping dipwads, she has been a stalwart ally not only to me, but to my close colleague Petros. She saw the Jon Gold v. casseia drama unfold up close and personal after the Arizona conference.
So I don't fault anyone for skepticism about any figure in the truth movement. In fact, you may be wondering just who is this "casseia" person, anyway? (gretavo certainly has!) Unlike Jenny, I'm pretty open and transparent. Jenny takes the opposite approach of being very self-protective of her real-life self -- hence the theatrical persona -- but if there is any question I can answer about her that wouldn't violate that confidentiality I would be happy to do so. She's one of the good guys. You won't agree with her about everything -- I don't -- but her heart is in the right place.
Appreciate your perspective Cass
and now that you've retold it, I do remember you mentioning this before.Â
glad to hear she is not, in fact, Chip Berlet.Â
More thoughts
I went and read the WP blog and its comments. I didn't realize that WP had evidently been banned from truthaction -- I think that's very strange and someone should ask cosmos about it.
One thing is true about Jenny, and that is that when she makes up her mind that someone is harming the cause of 9/11 truth as she understands it, she becomes hellbent on decisive action and is NOT tolerant of ambiguity. I think this would be much less remarked upon by others if she was a man.
Jenny Jenny who can I turn to
I don't really think WP or many of us care what sex Jenny is, beyond that it doesn't prove her to be a liar. Much more interesting are the actions taken. I suspect she means well (apologizing on behalf of 911truthers to the people who lied and then got called out by other truthers), but one never knows.
hey, any idea what's with 'colonel' - is/was she in the military?
Yes, she was in the military
just prior to the first Gulf War, but Colonel Jenny Sparks is a British comic book superhero. (pssst -- Jenny is not her real name!)
I think some people are hung up on her gender even if you are not. Bruce Marshall has made a big deal out of asserting that she is a young MALE. She spends a lot of time harassing the guys at JREF and Screw Loose Change and the issue repeatedly comes up. My point is that she is a hard-core warrior-type personality -- hard-core for a man or a woman -- and the fact that she IS a woman throws some people, although evidently not you.
ive always liked Jenny and
ive always liked Jenny and found her to be on the up and up or whatever, but the way she always posts Victoria Ashley's lists has me a bit worried about her.....
Weeeell...
She does have an authoritarian streak. She and I have been through some extreme craziness with local 9/11 activists, including obscene personal attacks on public websites, slander, and in my case, actual physical intimidation. Her response is to want to be The Enforcer -- and she has that in common with Victronix. OTOH, she doesn't think a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon.
much as i love jenny
or at least the idea of jenny, i think she has an arrogance of thought.
It goes like this - Jenny is smart. Jenny forms an opinion. Because Jenny is smart, she elevates her opinion to fact. I think most of us are guilty of this at some time or another. Sometimes you have to rein that in and temper your thoughts with humility and factuality.
Case in point is her conclusion that Winter Patriot is in collusion with Fetzer, Haupt, et al. Though I personally don't believe it, I can't say conclusively that it isn't true. But on Jenny's thin evidence (who she perceives WP as 'defending') she's reached and posted her conclusions. IMO WP is defending a what not a who - the truth, not an individual. Sometimes someone's got to stand up for the truth, even if it's ugly as hell.
its funny how Victronix
its funny how Victronix doesnt lash out at Jenny about this like she does everybody else on blogger who brings up the Pentagon :-)
i dont know, its not just the Hoffman connection that bothers me about Victoria but the fact that she seems so hell bent on telling other people how to be "good 9/11 activists". she seems like Hoffman's online hatchet-woman or something. and i have to be honest, the only time ive EVER voted Jenny down was when she felt the need to post the link to one of Victronix' nazi-esque lists on blogger.
I was hoping you'd give your input.
I'd like to clarify my comment to Tahooey. I know Gold's loving the fact that someone called him cointel that's surrounded in controversy & looks to be on the outs with the majority of truther's. I've never caught Colonel Jenny being intellectually dishonest as has Jon Gold so I don't believe lumping her in with him was correct.
I scanned winterpatriot's analysis of the Kennebunkport warning, seems he's of a differing opinion on Colonel Sparks. Guess I'll have to read the whole thing now, my interest is piqued.
winter patriot seems like a shill
judging by his fixation on an issue of "internal politics" of the truth movement, and the many shill links on his blog.... it's the drama, stupid! tnat's the best way to know if someone is a shill. they spend more time on drama within the movement than in actual truthing. Another great day today, plenty of good conversations, more and more often now with people who seem to be skeptical of the movement but willing to consider the claims we make. good sign. keep it real, and keep on truthing everyone, we're about to go supernova!
Weeeell...
My jury's out on him for the moment. However, I think you can argue that there's a subset of Truthers who aren't shills AND who are really hung up on the movement's internal politics. Jenny definitely is -- and really, it's a good thing for some percentage of us to have that bent. It's like having an immune system, but we don't all have to be white cells.
look deeper
He may have shill links on his blog, but I've been reading him for quite a while and I believe he's for real.
To my knowledge, his "fixation on an issue of "internal politics" of
the truth movement" has only really pertained to that one very
extensive post. That's the first time he's delved into such & I
think you'll find he's done some lifting for the truth movement, good
example being the 2 articles he references off his (currently) top
post, which are now linked off ae911truth.
As far as I know, he's not a "no-planer" (it was a commenter on his
site that posted the links) and I know he is a CD'er. I hope you'll
give him a chance & if you find serious flaws, help me out &
point out where he's wrong. Thanks!
(oops i wasn't logged on the first time i posted this - reposting)Â
Deeper still
The answer to the poll question is obviously number 1. The "No planes" and "space beams" theories do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny and are really more of a bad joke than anything else. The interesting thing about the individuals who promote these theories is that they spend an equal amount of time attempting to debunk the hard science of Steve Jones. If they are indeed paid disinformation artists -- which I believe some (or most) of them are -- this should not come as a surprise.
As for Winter Patriot, anyone who would spend precious minutes trying to defend Webster Tarpley and/or his pals Jim Fetzer and Nico Haupt has earned my contempt. Tarpley's behavior in the aftermath of the Bunk-port fiasco has been nothing short of outrageous. He appears to be suffering a mental breakdown of LaRouchian proportions. In fact, I would argue that his ultra-paranoid fantasies are veering dangerously close to full blown paranoid schizophrenia. The man belongs in an asylum, not at 911 truth conferences.
Ditto
Everything Danse said
agree
but I thought it should also be ignored and dropped. as for winterpatriot, I looked at his links on the right and there are so many dubious sites there like ZNet, Jim Fetzer, and many others that I can't see how he could possibly be a legit truther, regardless of whatever good he may have done. As for Tarpley, I never liked him and never saw any reason to recommend his books to anyone when DRG's are so much more to the point and unburdened by Larouchie connections.
sometimes i wonder
'The "No planes" and "space beams" theories do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny'
sometimes i wonder how the wings of the plane passed right through
the much more solid steel columns on the exterior of the WTC instead of
crumpling or breaking off outside; I promise to try to go back to not
thinking about it...
As for space beams, personally I don't see any possible way a DEW could
cause the symmetric & internal collapse, or the outward
explosiveness we saw. My opinion is there were explosives planted all
throughout those towers.
As far as 'defending Tarpley' i see WP more as laying out the facts.
The 4 ex-signatories appear by their own accounts to be lying, perhaps
understandably given the situation & ongoing Tarpley meltdown. But
I don't necessarily fault WP for presenting the information - although
stirring a divisive shit storm may be a questionable idea. As to why he
links where he links, hell, we go to 911 blogger even though we don't
trust the moderators - but there are still good people that go there
& it still is worth knowing what they're saying; so I'd imagine his
reasons are similar. He's linked to here too; in Jenny's
guilt-by-association method of reasoning, we are now all LaRouchies -
congratulations! (just a joke, sorta)
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2290
Anyway, PLEASE don't construe this as 'defending Tarpley' or 'promoting
no planes'. I AM defending WP (being a faithful reader) and I'm
personally trying to keep an open mind about things I'm not 100% sure about.
full disclosure
Not quite right. This is not my fourth post on the subject. I've never made a big deal about it at all ... and in the meantime I've been blogging about all sorts of other stuff!
I wish to thank Tahooey for linking to me here and I'm sorry to correct him in public like this ... but the truth is easy to verify, so why not tell it now and get it over with, right?
how do we identify a shill here at WTC Demolition?
Not to be divisive or anything ... but it seems to me that gretavo is a pretty quick decider!
He wrote:
And that's funny because in a much more enlightened discussion at my own blog,
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/winterpatriot/7988605765188082876/
I have been fielding criticism over what amounts to my ignorance of the "internal politics" of the truth movement. And there are several hundred topics in my topical archives, so I have no trouble admitting there that I'm not a specialist in the 9/11-truth movement, and here I can only laugh at the notion that I'm fixated on it!
I agree there are many shill links on my blog but I invite gretavo (or anyone else) to explain how that means or even implies that I myself am a shill. LOL! You should have been around a while ago when I was linking to Hannity and Limbaugh and LGF and Hot Air, Michelle Malkin and so on. I won't list any of the others because people might start to puke. My point is:
Could you have possibly spent less time looking around my site before rendering your opinion? Did you click my topical archives to verify your charge about my fixation on the subject of this one post? Did you search my site or my archives to see what -- if anything -- I had said about any of the shill sites whose links you found on my sidebar? No! of course you didn't.
For instance ... In my opinion Greg Palast had his credibility shredded by having to apologize to Steven Jones and I wrote a post about that. But I still lnk to Palast. Am I supposed to take down the link?
I don't want to get in an uproar about it. That's what shills do. I'm not into that. But I think there's a certain point at which a one-sided evaluation deserves a counter, and that line's been crossed here. I see nothing wrong with asking readers to approach the question with an open mind and that is all I propose to do, after which I promise I will never mention the subject again...
Not to be ignorant or anything... but I'm new here and I'm not sure how the GUI works ... I also want to make it easier for all the lazy people (i.e. all of us) ... so I will paste some URLs in the hope that they will be useful as links, and if that doesn't turn out then please accept my apologies.
More to the point ==> Please check out some or all of the following links before you make up your mind ...
my main blog
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/
my topical archives
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/07/topical-archives.html
my chronological archives
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2005/06/chronological-archives.html
Both of the above are hand-managed (boo!) and last updated in
August, or so. They're not complete, but they're still
pretty representative, I think.
the table of contents of my longest and most "interesting" series
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2006/09/liquid-bombers-series.html
my other blogs:
document storage and retrieval:
http://winterparking.blogspot.com/
a dynamycally generated page of news links by topic:
http://wintersurfing.blogspot.com/
a dynamically generated page of feeds from some of my favorite writers
http://dstrwg.blogspot.com/
my former other blog (now dormant)
http://psstpsstpsst.blogspot.com/
If you do that, and you still think I'm a shill, that's your call.
I'm not going to argue about it
We tend to like it when people are divisive, actually...
Yeah, gretavo doesn't hesitate to call someone a shill. However, the blog culture here also has a pretty high tolerance for those that someone has labeled "shill" -- when they post interesting material and don't back down from a (very civil) fight. K-town was a member here once, and would have continued if he would have written something -- anything! -- other than "O woe is me, some people think I'm a shill."
We like it when people are divisive
because we are a bunch of mean motherfuckersbecause the call for unity is almost always a call to shut up with constructive dissent.all apologies
Welcome to wtcd, wp! sorry for resizing your avatar, but it was a bit chunky, and we have bandwidth to think of. :)
sure i often jump to conclusions, but i am perfaectly capable of admitting i'm wrong, too. i appreciate the fact that you joined us and hope we can learn from one another (i mean all of us). so yeah, I think that if you link to shills you should explicitly warn unsuspecting newbies, sue me! :)
we like diversity here, and not all of us agree on everything. i think the folks here have a few things in common--high tolerance for non-hateful or ridiculous provocative speech being a key trait. i would love to see more disagreement and i would hope that we could keep it civil. only one person has been outright banned and that was no-planer Killtown who contributed nothing but whining about being oppressed. :)
thanks for the kind words and for the explanations too
no problem with the avatar. if you hadn't said anything I wouldn't have even noticed!
I may insert a warning on my sidebar about linking to shills but on the other hand a good look at the sidebar should be enough ... I mean, for instance, I link to Steven Jones (twice) and Richard Gage too, so it's not as if I'm ONLY linking to Fetzer and not to any his detractors ... I just like to keep an open mind and I also like to read different points of view ...
Also, and this is kind of interesting, I think, there are a lot of links on my sidebar to sites that I used to like a lot but now I'm not so sure. Seriously, if I were only prepared to link to people I trusted implicitly then I would be better off getting rid of my sidebar ... but each to his own, I guess.
I like diversity too and I love a good disagreement, as long as the disagreement is over stuff that other people said and not me. Also I think personal attacks, especially those involving profanity, are the lowest of the low, and, and, and ... if you can't respect that, then you can go Cheney yourself, you MF lowlife!
How's that for divisive? Was it ridiculous enough for you? Or do I have to insult your parents too?
Grandparents?
How about great grandparents?
;-)
regarding the subject of no planes
what do you think of this?
http://physics911.net/pearl
credible scenario. puts no planes to rest for me.
any thoughts on A. K. Dewdney?Â
will be very disappointed if there's no Cleveland/Harrisburg in the Final Cut.