Arabesque's False Unity Crusade - When it comes to ID'ing COINTELPRO, is Arabesque the New John Albanese?

gretavo's picture


Arabesque is currently riding high as an authority on what is disinformation and COINTELPRO in the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Arguments over this kind of claim to authority is one of the things that made RT persona-non-grata at 911blogger, so its resurfacing with a veneer of sober objectivity begs for some good-ol' fashioned "disunifying" critique.

First let's get one thing straight--we should not consider anyone implicitly trustworthy.  The best liars succeed because they appear to enough people to be absolutely upstanding, honest, and fair.  Were it not so, liars would never get away with their lies.  Arabesque himself acknowledges this problem by referring to "obvious disinfo" and that which is "deeper."  This cuts both ways of course--it's another way of saying what I just said in fact.  Good liars aren't obvious liars! 

There is no magic formula, provided by Arabesque or anyone including myself, to determining who is honest and who is not--what is true and what is not.  Accordingly, like life itself, so much of which involves making such determinations, deciding who and what to believe is not a science but an art.  Generally speaking there are many ways in which a liar or a lie can be sussed out, and more often than not it involves observation over a period of time with an eye to (among other things) spotting inconsistencies or contradictions.  In the case of 9/11 itself there are many such examples and we need not discuss them among truthers--we know what they are.  In the case of what passes for the truth movement it's a whole other ballgame--the factys are not as well-documented or obvious.  Most of us do not know one another personally, nor do we have much of a history to draw from to make a convincing evaluation of most people identifying as truthers.

As Arabesque points out (as many of us have for a long time) the most obvious liars are easy to spot and not really worth arguing about.  No-planes at the WTC, etc.  Most people agree that those people should be shunned.  The more interesting cases of course are those where there is controversy, and why not use Jon Gold as an example in this case. 

Few would claim that Jon Gold is obviously a disinfo agent.  Many people are taken in by his very studied portrayal of himself (the word overwrought comes to mind) as a deeply compassionate man who works tirelessly on behalf of "the victims' families" and the first responders.  I put the families in quotes because I am convinced that among those claiming to be related to 9/11 victims are people who are lying for one reason or another.  Some people (like Jon Gold) would seize on that suspicion of mine to call me a heartless sack of shit, disinfo, uncaring--whatever.  Similarly, some people have the same reaction when I question the sincerity of Jon Gold himself.  This pretense to sanctity on behalf of certain individuals, groups, or events is to me a fairly reliable red flag.  Truth is inherently immune from debunking, so why would anyone who knows that they are right feel threatened by questions, as opposed to relishing the opportunity to establish (as many times as necessary) the validity of one's position?  This is why to this day we repreat so often the words set down by Shakespeare centuries ago--Methinks they doth protest too much!  So much wisdom in so few words...

The problem with Jon Gold's shtick is that a person who sincerely feels as strongly as Jon claims to about the dignity of humanity would not be in the habit of referring to people who disagree with him in the terms that he does, or in the habit of sending psychologically manipulative private messages to people who he feels are not toeing his line stridently enough.  A contradiction wrapped in inconsistencies.  But lest Jon feel any more picked on, the point can be made with reference to someone like Amy Goodman or Bill Maher.  So sanctimonious when it comes to accusing conservatives of being blind to logic or human suffering, and yet so obviously blind themselves--deliberately or not depending on their individual ratios of intelligence to honesty. 

Contradictions like these beg for resolution and resolving them decisively is crucial to navigating one's way through a forest of deceit to find the sincere trees the forest is meant to conceal.  This I think we can all agree on--we are in the middle of a forest of deceit--and anything that we can all agree on is something worth remembering always and using as a compass of sorts.

Naturally I agree with Arabesque that COINTELPRO and disinfo are both real issues that must be acknowledged and dealt with.  But I would go a step further and point out the danger of simplifying the practice of determining who or what is and isn't.  Arabesque's thesis centers around the premise that unity is good for the movement, that divisiveness is sown to derail it, and that the disinfo crowd does the sowing.  I won't disagree, but I would say that we would be foolish to put unity above truth.  Isn't it George Bush himself who asked us--nay told us--to be united against the terrorists?  Does 9/11 Truth really need the same kind of rhetoric?  Are the democrats and republicans in any way overtly united?  No!  They mainatin their power over people's minds precisely because they appear to be divided, though we know that on a level hidden from the masses they are in fact a single unified front, and that this unity sometimes shows despite the underlying need to appear as distinct (I need not mention examples of issues on which their unity is overt, I hope... I bet a pack of cigarettes you know what I'm talking about!)

But since we're peeling onions here, let's get to a deeper layer, one that like the dems and repubs unity is something that Arabesque only dances around but hints at quite blatantly in a way I will show shortly.  One of the things that Arabesque mentions is "divisive issues".  No-planes at the WTC used to be one of those, as were directed energy weapons, or DEW.  Since these were pretty absurd claims they ceased to be divisive except in the rhetoric of folks like Killtown who claimed he was discriminated against because of his advocacy of video-fakery (the no-planes offshoot that was selected in favor of hologram planes which was very quickly discovered to be incapable of mustering any converts whatsoever.)

The slightly more plausible "divisive issue" that Arabesque mentions overtly is "no 757 at the Pentagon".  To many people, myself included, this should not be a divisive issue.  Absent any conclusive evidence of a 757 having crashed into the Pentagon, evidence that should exist in spades given the video surveillance cameras all over the Pentagon, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that a 757 did crash there (note that we need not even discuss whether the 757 in question was flight 77 or a dummy 757 until it is proved that ANY 757 crashed there.)  It is not proof of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon to ask those who do not support the assertion where then did all the passengers go, but this does not stop defenders of that part of the OCT from trying.  Since they can't prove that flight 77 even took off that day it's like me asking where the pink elephant I left at your house is, since you claim you don't have it there.

The subtext is clear--let's leave the Pentagon out of our discussions, or if we must discuss it, let's avoid making anyone look like a fool for supporting the OCT on that score.  Let's pretend that it does not raise suspicion when people seem so willing to take on faith one aspect of the OCT but not others.  I could, though Arabesque did not, mention another similar issue which is the alleged role of Pakistan and the ISI in 9/11.  This issue is considered divisive though it seems that only people like Jon Gold really put much stock in it--like in the case of the Pentagon, the most minimal proof has not been provided to take the allegations seriously--the proof offered is in fact so suspect that again, it is hard to discuss the issue without making it obvious that the person (usually Jon Gold) pushing that angle is being dishonest about finding the evidence convincing, and that the person seems fixated on a theory as substance-free as a hologram plane--LIHOP.

When Arabesque talks about "divisive issues", in other words, he seems to be referring to issues that should not be divisive.  Why is he trying to make us think that those are divisive issues then?  Certainly he doesn't think that people will stop discussing them, does he?  Surely he can't believe that confronted with indisputable evidence that we were lied to about 9/11 in such a monumental way that the existence of disagreement on certain aspects is going to cripple the movement with disunity, or does he?  Could it be that Arabesque is in fact framing a wholly different point altogether?  Methinks maybe!

THE most divisive issue in all of Truthland is of course whether or not Israel (or its partisans) was involved.  In true mainstream media form however Arabesque does not directly refer to the 800 lb. gorilla we all know is there.  He does something only slightly less subtle than omitting mention of the question of Zionist agency in 9/11 (which itslef would say a lot, but the reality is even worse!)

What Arabesque is actually saying in his piece on disinfo, though again he only dances around it so as to make his point without being seen to make it (or so he thinks) is that not only should we not risk disunity by discussing Israel's role in 9/11, but that we should not even DREAM of going near... can you hear it rumbling down the way?  The you-know-what-O-caust!

That's right.  Cleverly "hidden" in footnote 8, the source for his definition of "ad hominem" is !  Nizkor is of course a site about debating tactics.  Er, no, it's a dictionary site.  Oh wait, that's right!  The Nizkor Project is:


Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died
at the hands of
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

Gotcha.  For the definition of an ad hominem argument, Arabesque just happens to find the perfect source in a site defending the official holocaust narrative.

Huh? WTF?

At this point I don't want to get into why this is absurd, only to suggest that as far as authorities on disinfo and dishonesty go, Arabesque has just joined John Albanese in the Pantheon of Self-Referential Experts.  It's holiest of holy shrines lies (literally) at the center of the magical Forest of Deception.  Grab your axes and blue oxen, folks--t's time to start clear-cutting.

And finally, a word to Arabesque--

kiss my divisive ass,

you friggin' shill!



Comment viewing options

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


Aaah, Arabesque, I can't believe his bullshit's still being entertained. And I really can't believe the praise & lack of critique over that intellectually dishonest tripe.

Nizkor!?!? Why not just quote the ADL / JDL, afterall, it's all the same pack of lies, omissions & distortions. Weak, weak, weak, but what else do the Shills have going for them?

More & more the 'truth movement's' accepting MSM styled garbage & decrying anyone who holds reality & truth in high regard.

BTW, Arabesque, when you're done kissing G's ass, you can plant a big wet one on mine. (No tongue though.)

Chris's picture



Chris's picture

about disinfo.....

you know what they say, those who scream loudest, thou doth protest too much and all that shit...... (remember a couple years back when we got by just fine without people telling us how to think and constantly telling us what is and isnt disinfo? im suspicious of anybody who dwells on "disinfo" for too long and gives it so much airtime, expecially those that claim to be experts on it.)

casseia's picture

BTW, Albanese has decided that exposing disinfo

is "immature" and says that he will not be finishing his movie on the subject.  (This is from an interview that is the soundtrack for yet another of those freaky psy-op videos.)  He just wants people to leave him alone online.

Annoymouse's picture

I have thought J. Gold's

I have thought J. Gold's posturing with the victims/families was suspect from the get-go. It's not the fact that he was pushing for them so hard. It was the fact that he would push specific questionable issues coupled with helping them out. It's a technique for making those who might question certain issues he pushes feel bad because they wouldn't want to question someone who is helping out victims/family members.

BTW: I tried to register under "Whitey". Am I blocked or the admin's just haven't had the opportunity to assess things?

casseia's picture

You should be good to go...

The admins have completed their exhaustive due diligence process and have decided to activate your membership.


whitey's picture

Groovy! First thing I'd like

Groovy! First thing I'd like to say is is that I'm happy to have found this site. You all should consider putting the URL in your signature for 911blogger to help inform those of us who have tapered off our consumption. I can already tell this site is broaching more openly the topic of the Israeli connection which is great. I followed the whole Franklin/ AIPAC spy case years ago on antiwar(they ARE gatekeepers!) and always wondered when the hell people in the truth movement would start examining that angle more.

Annoymouse's picture

U keep us on our toes RT

Your stuff never fails to provoke thought RT!

I saw at another messageboard this video entitled "Never Seen Before 9-11 Footage: Ground Zero From Ground Zero"

description reads:
Taken from, previously unseen 9/11 footage which shows never seen before bizarre details, like a strange smoke line descending vertically from the tower. This phenomenon is visable from 1:14 to 1:21 and looks like the lines which are sometimes formed when a heavy shockwave travels through the sky. ( ) At 9:23 a red truck with the text "Radio Dispatched" and "Manhattan demolition" drives by!

This video was posted on 9/29/07 and has had 516 views at this writing. I don't know WTF about the supposed vertical smoke at 1:14, but the red "Manhattan Demolitions" truck at 9:23 is intriguing. I've never seen this before, if indeed it's not just a 'video fakery' disinfo stunt, which it may indeed be. Pass it before your eyes and see what your gray matter makes of it, plz!

PS- Okay I looked at the .GIF they point to there, and it's a nuke mushroom cloud. Between that, and not seeing anything between 1:14 to 1:21, that's fairly damning of the integrity of the video. But again plz give your impressions of the supposed red truck at 9:23.

Annoymouse's picture


Of the bijillions of places Arabesque could have sourced for a basic definition of ad hominem, granted, a "12 million holocaust victims" propaganda site was a poor and telling choice. But is there more to this story, IE more Arabesque history of dubious information dissemination which has earned him a place on your shit list?
I have seen him parrot the ADL's absurd engineered meme: holocaust DENIAL, in his writings, as opposed to using the more honest & accurate holocaust REVISIONIST. Are we all 9/11 DENIERS, after all? Of course not, and it insults the intelligence every time that dishonest DENIAL meme is trotted out. But I do also see Arabesque's articles documenting the reasons for abandoning some of the more prominent shills in the movement, being very thorough and persuasive-- IE valuable contributions. Your thoughts?
Also, I'm not too familiar with John Albanese's history, in particular why you're skeptical of him. Could you flesh that out for me and other uninitiated readers?
Yours is a valuable alternate voice in this movement RT, and I just don't want to see you go the way of DBS, who has even fallen out with Huffy as of at least a month ago (listen to DBS' 10/14 podcast). DBS notes however, that his wife and his dog still love him, :)

casseia's picture

For you and "other uninitiated readers"

all the material about Albanese is available, archived, at 911blogger.  Go over there and use the search function, and do some reading.  I know that material from this site is frequently being quoted at other sites and often taken out of context, so I think you'll agree that it's not fair to ask RT to recapitulate the whole shebang for your anonymous, easy consumption and use.

gretavo's picture

well, yeah

It just isn't worth my time to dig up eevry thread in which Arabesque was a pr*ck, nor is it really worth anyone's time to worry too much about the personalities in the "movement".   9/11 truth is about facts, not those who present them.  Of course Arabesque makes the obvious point that some of the personalities in the movement have agendas of one kind or another.  This is so obvious that it's interesting that Arabesque feels the need to expound on it.  My problem with Albanese was basically the same--people who attempt to establish a reputation as "identifier of disinfo" should be treated very skeptically, since it would be of great value to the apologists for one group of perps or another to establish credibility in this regard.  My beef with Albanese was that it was so obvious that the "video-fakery" people were deliberately buffoons that his pointing out wasn't really all that useful, except maybe, as I just outlined, so that he could later be seen as having some authority on the subject.  Indeed he did accuse me of being out to sow divisions in the movement.  this because there were certain issues that were not as straightforward as "video-fakery" or "space beams" that I took him to task on (and his friend Jon Gold) like the Pakistani angle.  When I began referring to it as Patsystan to make my point in shorthand, the sh*t started hitting the fan with the Johns (Gold and Albanese) accusing me of being divisive and downplaying what they called an "important angle".  In fact it became clear to many that there was a group of people who were trying to keep LIHOP on the table despite not being able to provide any convincing evidence for the existence or agency of any arab muslim "hijackers" except as patsies who were the objects of the official story frame-up.  These were strangely enough the same people who claimed not to find controlled demolition totally convincing, and who suggested that Larry Silverstein didn't necessarily know that his buildings were going to be demolished.  Since I was undermining the credibility of these "truthers" like Gold, who is 911blogger's first registered user (#6) who is not also an admin, I ended up being banned.  Arabesque may occasionally write something worth reading (hell even Jon Gold does) but that isn't the point.  He is apparently trying to establish credibility and apparently so as to stifle discussion of the holocaust, which much like 9/11 is a complicated issue that has been misunderstood by the public and exploited by certain interests.  To say that the holocaust issue has no bearing on 9/11 is only half-true.  One need not understand the holocaust issue to know 9/11 was a hoax, but those of us who have looked at both issues with an open mind have found many parallels that are historically quite illuminating.  Arabesque in my view has a specific agenda that lies afield of the whole truth, which is why I call him out when he tries to make himself out to be an arbiter of credibility.

Chris's picture

haha, i probably should have

haha, i probably should have just read your post first before replying to him and said-"what he said".

gretavo's picture

to your credit

you made the point more succinctly than I did.  as a mindslut, i am quite suceptible to mindfucks and i have to say that the whole  double/triple/quadro-bluff disinfo games that are played with truthers are exhausting to contemplate and leave me tongue tied to boot (but not in the good way)

casseia's picture

Check this out -- from the Colonel

Chris's picture

no offense, and i dont mean

no offense, and i dont mean to sound like an asshole, but wouldnt it make sense that a true "professional" disinfo tool would try and prop himself up and even protect himself from accusations of disinfo by going after obvious disinfo shills? im not saying Arabesque and Albanese are truly "professional" disinfo but it would make perfect sense for them to spout off about disinfo so much if in fact thats what they themselves are. Albanese was working on an entire film about "disinfo" while Arabesque seems to do nothing BUT talk about "disinfo" and combating it(when hes not pushing the OCT version of the Pentagon attack). do we really need Arabesque and others to point out what is and isnt disinfo for us all the time? how valuable are those contributions really? i would argue a lot of it is needlessly divisive diversions that add to a sense of confusion, especially for newbies. i cant imagine what it would be like reading a site like Arabesques as a new 9/11 skeptic.

gretavo's picture

i think you're right

And I know you and I disagree about Alex Jones, but I think the bottom line is that we shouldn't go by what anyone says--we have to decide for ourselves whom to trust and whom not to.  When people start talking as if they are somehow to be trusted, i.e. when they talk about who should NOT be trusted, it makes me wonder about them.  Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, and the poll here was an effort to see what happens when several opinions are added together, but I wouldn't recommend that anyone take anything they read as gospel, especially people who are just learning about the issues.  As I've said before--you can trust me, but you'd be a fool to take my word for it... :)

Chris's picture

we probably dont disagree as

we probably dont disagree as much as you might think. i criticize and disagree with Jones all the time, i just think we mainly disagree about how much sway/power he has. i can see why people would think he is some sort of gatekeeper or charlatan but i personally dont agree(i believe he gets more money from his radio show contracts than he does his DVD's etc.), i mainly just think hes good at getting people angry, which is a good thing because he gets them active. to me he seems like a guy whos gone so far down the rabbit hole that he has no real sense of perspective left hence the whole NWO/death cult elites/secret society stuff and apocalyptic outlook(which i dont completely disagree with but i agree with you that he takes it too far and puts too much emphasis on it). keep in mind how long hes been doing this kind of stuff though. who knows though, maybe im just full of shit and have a soft spot in my heart for AJ because he was one of the first to shatter my world view a few years back,haha. regardless of what you think of him, thats proof that he gets some results right? :-)

kate of the kiosk's picture

alex jones

his sensationalismic and shocking style was a big turn-off to me in the beginning, but now i take him with a grain.., and he's a libertarian, i assume, NRA dude, right? i used to despise these people back in the Dukakis days.

Hey, i like him most when he is the man on the street with the megaphone! would love to meet him some day. one big persona.

Chris's picture

i agree, hes best when

i agree, hes best when trying to motivate people and getting out in the streets. i also find his style to be counter-productive in reaching most(though there are some who respond to his style believe it or not). he has called himself a paleoconservative but really rejects all labels for the most part. i dont know if hes a huge NRA guy, i know he thinks gun rights are extremely important, and despite being a one time liberal(im still mostly liberal but the label just doesnt fit anymore) i cant help but agree with him on that. the important thing to me is that he presents very important information. i may not always like the conclusions he comes to with that info or his style of presenting it, but it cant be denied that he is at least putting some important info out there. and as much as i hate to admit it, and i dont accuse AJ of knowingly adopting the tactics of neoconservatism, but there is something to be said about the capability to motivate people through fear. and the whole NWO,KBR prison camps,Bilderberg runs the world stuff does motivate many people. fear mongering? or is there something to it? i think probably somewhere in between. our leaders should not be meeting in secret and KBR etc. should not have contracts to build camps in this country for an "emergency influx" of illegals. thats ridiculous.

casseia's picture

You know what I've been wondering?

Let's say very hypothetically that the effort to steer Pentagon discussions back toward aspects of the OCT (that it was a jumbo jet, a commercial jetliner, or AA 77 itself) is disingenuous.  What is their motivation?  Why would some people be willing to endorse the controlled demolition theory but have to get all shillicious with regard to the P?

gretavo's picture

that one has puzzled me for some time...

maybe it's because controlled demo does not necessarily mean no hijackings, but no 757 at the pentagon ABSOLUTELY means no hijackings?  And at some point maybe they plan to "reveal" the "fact" that tall buildings (or the towers anyway) have built in self-destruct sequences to ensure they don't topple?  In any case the MOST important thing for the perps is I think the creation and preservation of the Islamofascist myth.  That means preserve at all costs the myth of the hijacked planes regardless of whatever else you're forced to admit.  I think it's worth brainstorming some on this because it's not just Jim Hoffman--I had a VERY odd encounter with a very local shill (i.e. employed in a semi-undercover security capacity at Harvard) try to convince me that he had no opinion on CD but knew for a fact that 77 hit the Pentagon.  It does seem that this is somehow important...

Chris's picture

they have to endorse CD at

they have to endorse CD at this point because its so obvious, much more so than the Pentagon. to not endorse CD would be an obvious red flag(ask Jon Gold. though of course i think there are much clearer reasons for being skeptical of him). maybe the Pentagon really is a smoking gun and thats why you see some prominent "debunkers" trying to steer people away from it? just a thought.

gretavo's picture

could be

I used to put the Pentagon right there with building 7 as far as obvious giveaways, but then maybe the psyops got to me and i started to be wary of pushing the pentagon angle.  hard to say--when i introduced a loved on to the issues, the Pentagon was one of the things they thought was most obvious.  But the problem is that it gets you right into the whole "well what happened to the people, the plane, etc?" The beauty of CD is that you can profess ignorance as to the nature of the hijackings--people find it easier to take it in steps--like, sure, the hijackings were real, but someone knew the plan and took advantage of it in order to try to get away with an illegal denmolition and insurance scam.  I never tell people in the street that I think the hijackings were faked and the planes were flown by remote.  We'll get to that later--CD is incriminating enough I think--the only problem is avoiding a limited hangout scenario where they somehow admit CD and deny faking the hijackings.  Then again, the planes may have been hijacked remotely in one or more cases so we also have to be careful not to jump to conclusions based on the obvious problems with AA77 at the Pent...

Chris's picture

im in the same place

im in the same place now basically, i dont push the Pentagon info as much as i once did because of some of the problems you mention. its not my responsibility to explain what happened to the passengers etc. and it probably is better just not opening that can of worms and leaving it at-"why did ANYTHING hit it?". i must admit i do push the idea that the planes were remotely hijacked though, the Dov Zakheim connection is just too good not to mention, it ties too much together. it also shatters the "muslims did it" myth.

Annoymouse's picture


i just dont get this at all. Why do you people keep on pretending that Arabesque is pushing the official pentagon conspiracy theory that Hanjour flew the plane ??
its simply not true. He has -countless times - said he doesnt believe that. -> remote controlled boeing .. Yet you guys go on how he defends the Hanjour story. Why??
Now, let me say, i share all your other concerns about Arabesque. I too find it highly annoying (at best) that he became some sort of 'disinfo master teacher'. Very suspicious too, i agree. Also, his countless 'boeing hit the pentagon' blogs i dont find very helpful either. But , seriously, why do you people have to add something not true ('he pushes the 'real hijacker story'') to the whole Arabesque-story/view is just beyond me. Now can anyone of you show me where Arabesque speaks out in favour of the Hanjour-flew-the-plane story?? Just one?? Or any 'there were real hijackers' arguments from him? anywhere?
There are enought REAL issues that are annoying about Arabesque and co, its not needed to make the story more anti-your-view than it actually is. I dont mean to defend the guy, just to be fair...


casseia's picture

Is somebody saying he's pushing Hanjour?

I've heard him say quite a few times that he doesn't buy the idea that Hanjour was flying the plane.  The aspects of the OCT I'm referring to are about the plane itself-- so yes, this adds an additional layer of complication to trying to understand why, IF his efforts were disingenuous (and again, this is purely hypothetical) he would be doing what he does.

Annoymouse's picture


well, hes getting accused for pushing the official pentagon story around here, no?
and that story includes hanjour.

casseia's picture

I said "aspects of"

He has dismissed the possibility of Hanjour flying quite a few times.  Do you think I should characterize his support for the presence of a jumbo jet as something other than support for the OCT?


More important, though, is the motivation for really strictly limiting the bounds of acceptable discourse in this area. 

Annoymouse's picture


True, you said 'aspects of'. I wasnt so much replying to you, or anyone else in particular, or even this thread in particular. that topic (ie arabesque 'supporting the official pentagon myth') came up quite a few times in the past on here. and i can see now that in this thread, its actually not that clearly spelled out...i replied too quick, without even reading everything properly. should have....anyway, this one:

"Do you think I should characterize his support for the presence of a jumbo jet as something other than support for the OCT?"

Hm. Do you think that my support for the presence of jumbo jets at the WTC should be characterized as support for the OCT ??

"More important, though, is the motivation for really strictly limiting the bounds of acceptable discourse in this area. "

I totally agree.


casseia's picture

Well, it was an actual question -- not a rhetorical one

That being, should support for a jumbo jet be characterized as support for the OCT. 

I think it would help if jumbo jet supporters gave a clearer idea of where the original jumbo jet premise comes from for them. Most people believe they saw the planes hit the WTC on tv.  No one saw a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon (at least on tv.)  So aren't you basically starting with the official account and working from there?

Annoymouse's picture

Great observation!

"No one saw a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon (at least on tv.) So aren't you basically starting with the official account and working from there?"


Annoymouse's picture


"So aren't you basically starting with the official account and working from there?"

you can look at it like this , yes. (as long as 'you' doesnt me 'me', since i personally dont believe it was a 'normal' big jumbo jet).

"I think it would help if jumbo jet supporters gave a clearer idea of where the original jumbo jet premise comes from for them. "

NOOO, please no. Thats the last thing i really want. Another jumbojet blog by Arabesque? You know, i personally find the pentagon stuff just not very convincing , either way. maybe thats just me, but i was never convinced that a clear judgement can be made from the available 'data'.
i dont agree at all with those of you who think its the nr.1 smoking gun and therefore gets 'wiped away' by people like arabesque. i think its the nr.1 timewaster. i could be wrong, of course. but this opinion is based on my personal experience with the pentagon stuff. i was introduced to this topic years before i realised the CD of the towers, and whilest it sure made me scratch my head, it never really convinced me. Maybe it just had too many 'backdoors' that one can use to still keep the major myth up. Its never as 'straight to the point' as CD is, imo. so heres my reasons for thinking that maybe, just maybe, it was some sort of jumbo jet:
- could have been a prepared plane, probably smaller than a 747, but, not very unlike it either. prepared /'re-enforced' to 'act' more like a 'missile' , and not crash on the outer wall but 'enter' the building.
- why, just WHY, use a missile?? they obviously had a couple of remote controlled planes in the sky. How likely is it they used one of those at the pentagon too? how likely those planes were NOT normal jumbo jets, but very much specially prepared (but made to LOOK like jumbos)? sounds very likely to me too, and could maybe be a reasoun for it to look different from a 'normal crash'/from what one would expect to see.

Annoymouse's picture

If you haven't already read

If you haven't already read Dave McGowan's take on the defenders of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, I highly recommend you do so. He casts important doubt on the "witness list" and statements therefrom, which constitute the bulk of Arabesque's constantly reposted defense:

Remember, the OCT was never imagined or conceived to be invincible, any more than the 60's assassinations were; what was counted on is the complicity of the media to keep acknowledgement of damning information to such a slow leak that it can become accepted by a majority without the major revolt that would result from too large a piece being revealed at any one time. (80% of the American public thinks the JFK assassination was a conspiracy covered up by the government, but this acceptance was too late in coming to provoke citizens to storm the Bastille.) This process requires layers of fallback positions to be inserted into the research community as inconvenient facts become uncovered and accepted in the wider public realm (such as the theory that the WTC was pre-wired for demolition unrelated to 9/11).

There is no such viable fallback position for the Pentagon if Flight 77 didn't hit it. There is nothing but the revelation of outright murder of the workers inside by people within the military structure. That's why we've been slowly steered away and steered toward a LIHOPpy "Nothing SHOULD have hit the Pentagon." For many reasons, it's the true Achilles heel -- which is why McGowan asks, "If the evidence is so convincing, why the need to gild the lily?"

Annoymouse's picture

achilles heel

[quote=Annoymouse] For many reasons, it's the true Achilles heel -- which is why McGowan asks, "If the evidence is so convincing, why the need to gild the lily?"


well, i disagree. i dont think the evidence is THAT convincing. it sure is very odd and all, but, not nearly as convincing as a closer look at the demolition of the towers is.
nowhere near that, imo. too many 'but' and 'ifs' etc. Never as 'in your face'.

Annoymouse's picture

"Defender of Flight 77"

[quote=Annoymouse]If you haven't already read Dave McGowan's take on the defenders of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, I highly recommend you do so.

Defender of Flight 77 ? Who is that? Are you talking about the "debunkers"?
Is it really that hard to differentiate "between SOME plane that LOOKS like a jumbo", and Flight 77 ? Why? Doesnt seem very complicated.

bruce1337's picture

My hypothesis:

If Silverstein could somehow be painted as having had foreknowledge of an impending "islamist attack", maybe through the reported Mossad "terrorist surveillance", he'd become a prime candidate for taking the blame for the WTC demolition.

But once it comes to NORAD and guided missiles...

Annoymouse's picture

Do a Google search for ad hominem

The second result is The pages linked do not lead to obvious indications of a Holocaust site, pro or con. Arabesque was probably doing quick Google searches for supportive links. Many of us have accidently linked to Rense in simular circumstances.

This looks like a mountain/mole-hill situation.

Chris's picture

how to get banned from

just "attack" one of the preferred LIHOP/Disinfo Police Force members like Arabesque with a line like this:

Chris in response to doughnut's question about why Arabesque can use Fetzer as a source without any crap but others cant without a scolding-"thats like asking why the police get away with running red lights."

casseia's picture

Did you get banned?

I can still see your user profile over there.

Chris's picture

well, i was told i was

well, i was told i was banned but it appears im only being moderated. still the same basic effect. im convinced certain people are being protected over there now. Arabesque follows me from one thread to another so he can blatantly call me disinfo(unprovoked i might add) and doesnt get moderated and i simply make a crack about him being a cop and get the ban treatment. i guess i need to contribute more like Arab has. maybe i should start my own disinfo police blog like him.

larry horse's picture

suspected shill list for apt911B

doughnut (no doubt, and he's a total prick)

simuvac (check the blog entries if you need proof)

georgewashington (again, check his blog entries)

DBLS (actually, he's just not too bright.  i hope he's not being paid for his 'work' over there.) 

plenty more clowns on the list, but i cannot divulge the information we have at this time.  it is classified.

Hetware's picture

I'm glad someone said this

Arabesque and his ilk have done much harm to the 9/11 Truth movement.