Another Gem From "Diane the New York Activist"

Let's just jump right in...

Be that as it may, another issue that has come up is comment of yours on the WTCD site, as quoted here by Col. Jenny Sparks. That comment can be interpreted a few different ways. Do you now reject the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole, or just the demolition dogmatists? The way you refer to “the troothers,” you do come across as someone who has rejected the movement as a whole.

We adhere dogmatically to the truth, yes.

But the people on the WTCD site are a particularly repulsively dogmatic bunch.

And you are one of the most obvious disinfo tools to appear in a long time--where were you for the first 6 years of the truth movement?  And now you think you can come in and convince anyone you are legit? 

They do not represent the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole.

We don't represent the truth movement.  We ARE the truth movement.  The real one, that is, not the one created by the perps' apologists in a transparent attempt to shift blame from themselves onto any number of fal guys or patsies.

They too have been banned from the Truth Action forum, as you may or may not have noticed. (If I recall correctly, they were banned for calling just about everyone who disagreed with them “shills.”)

You do not recall correctly.  If you were right then there would be no one on that site since everyone cals everyone who doesn't agree with them shills.  the difference is that some accusations are accurate and therefore must be censored.  This happened at 911Blogger last summer after which we were ENCOURAGED to go to Truthaction (on which I was one of the first registered users, mind you.)  Back then it was Jon Gold who was crying about being disagreed with.  Now he posts on Truth action, since his critics (us) have been safely dismissed. 

And not everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement believes in the WTC demolition hypothesis. Some well-known leading figures, such as Jon Gold, don’t advocate the WTC demolition hypothesis at all.

A well known leading figure?  Ha!  A well known sycophant who is definitely NOT representative of mainstream 9/11 truthers.  "Jon Gold"  is an anagram for " JDL Goon", and that shoe fits him very well given his strident defense of Larry Silverstein. 

Anyhow, I agree with the careful, scholarly approach that you urged in that comment of yours on the WTCD site. I just don’t like the name-calling (”troothers”) and the impression that you’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater as far as the 9/11 Truth movement is concerned.

So I would appreciate a clarification as to your overall views now.

Everyone would appreciate your keeping your disinfo shtick to yourself, "Diane".

I’ll now summarize my own views at the present time.

Oh boy...

First, I would say we can be sure that both George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are, at the very least, guilty of criminal negligence. (See my posts Bush at Booker School on the morning of 9/11 and George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers: Their whereabouts on 9/11.) There are reasons to suspect they may be guilty of far worse than criminal negligence, but that is much less certain.

Criminal negligence?  Uhhh, incompetence theory, Diane?  What is this, 2002?

Another thing we can be sure of is that the 9/11 Commission was compromised by conflicts of interest. Related to that, there were whistleblowers who were not heard, who claim there was a lot more foreknowledge than has been admitted in any variant of the official story. It is clear that there was a coverup of some kind, although we don’t know what was covered up.

Foreknowledge of WHAT?  There were no hijackings.  There were planes flown by remote control into the twin towers, a bomb at the Pentagon, and three skyscrapers controlled by larry Silverstein demolished.  Where were the warnings about any of that Diane?

It is clear, too, that we’ve been lied to about air defense. However, as far as I am aware, no one has yet done the detailed research necessary to establish a baseline for expected performance of the air defense system.

You don't seem to have read any of David Griffin's books.  He shows the many problems with the official accounts of air defense performance.  He shows quite conclusively that the FAA reported all anomalous activity with time to respond to the military.  The system moreover would seem to have performed worse than it actually did since in fact only two planes were actually missed, since AA77 and UA93 were not in fact genuine flights (or planes)

So, it has not yet been definitively proven that the system performed below par, although there are strong reasons to suspect that it did perform below par. (See The lack of air defense in my post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11.)

You push the "lack of air defense" angle because it presupposes and implicitly supports the OCT on the subject of hijackings (that I will remind you never happened)

As far as the WTC buildings are concerned, I would now classify myself as a “demolition agnostic.” It seems unlikely to me that WTC 7, in particular, collapsed due just to fire and structural damage. However, what I previously thought of as the strongest evidence for the demolition hypothesis has recently been called into question. (See various recent posts.)

You can pretend to have doubts Diane, but no one cares, since you are obviously either very stupid (you don't sound it) or very dishonest (ding ding ding!)

If indeed there was government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, there was a very clear motive. (See The war in Afghanistan in my post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11.)

Not government complicity, Diane--Neocon complicity in conjunction with New York Zionist complicity in conjunction with Mossad complicity is the more likely scenario as you well know.

In any case, a new and truly independent investigation is clearly called for.

Which you should have absolutely nothing to do with since you and alleged truthers like Jon Gold do NOT have any interest in the REAL truth coming out, only a distorted and misleading version that leaves any and all Zionist agency out of the picture.  You should be ashamed of yourself--you are a very bad person.

What do you think?

I think you should stop obstructing justice for the 9/11 perps, because you will not get away with it.  Your act as an anonymous newbie who pretends to be open-minded only to find evidence "unconvincing" is as transparent as your support for the widely disliked and rightly mistrusted Jon Gold.