More on 9/11 Blogger Censorship
So, about a month and a half or so ago, 911blogger.com purged at least 4 people without explanation and the moderators greeted our many polite e-mails, in which we asked them to direct us to an offending post which violated any rules, with deafening silence.
Myself and Adam Ruff exposed the farce on Kevin Barrett's show.
Recently, Loose Nuke has attempted to PRETEND to address the mounting criticisms from the many people over there (from genuine truthers like Mike Zimmer, Dave Nehring, LillyAnn, Bruno, Alison, and others) by simply posting a blog entry reiterating the site rules, and pretending as if the people who were banned were guilty of violating the said rules.
Of course, Loose Nuke's blog entry avoided the real meat of matters, much like NIST avoided the real meat of matters when it declared that it found no evidence that the fires at the WTC had melted the steel. Of course, the real issue NIST avoided was that DUH! We KNOW that the fires could not have melted the steel, but nonetheless, the steel had melted.
And with the 911blogger issue, the real issue is that we were never pointed to any offending posts prior to being silenced --- we were quietly silenced and with no explanation. And of course, we were always mindful of the rules and were careful to never break any.
Interestingly, my account was not completely closed, but my comments go into a moderation queue and then never get published. Here are eleven examples of comments I've submitted since being put on the moderation queue, and none of these thoroughly innocuous comments have been approved. These screenshots are of the "preview" feature which allows a person to see what the comment will look like in its published form.
As I'm sure everyone can see, there is nothing divisive, offensive or in any way a violation of 911blogger.com's site rules, yet none of these comments were approved for public viewing.
Now, theoretically, isn't the purpose of the "moderation queue" to weed out the posts by some people which could be considered offensive, insulting, or spreading bad info? And then if the submitted comment checks in clean, then it should be approved?
This is proof that 911blogger engages in blatant censorship and, in a very cagey way, the moderators, Erik Larson (Loose Nuke) in particular, hide behind the mask of "civility."
I'm creating this blog entry for the record.
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
what can you do
So what does one do about obvious disinformation and censorship and the people who use their moderation power to control the debate? It's obvious these people are not trustworthy.
911blogger.com and TruthAction.org are continuations of the Gnn.tv which controlled the debate in the exact same way. Ask Reprehensor, who ever that is. He started 911Blogger after he left GNN.TV which was his home base at the time.
YT, who I became somewhat friends with at GNN, was there with me arguing that GNN should have an open moderation policy. We spoke on the phone about it many times.
GNN was doing the exact same thing as 911Blogger.com does today. I was arguing the exact same points as I am today.
Turns out good old YT had 25+ usernames which made me look a little foolish because I was constantly calling for an open moderation system and equal application of the rules to all. Mulitple usernames was / is a huge problem and a the basis of my argument about open moderation.
On one hand I feel there is the view that we should shouldn't really voice our concern too loudly because...'well, we just don't know'. But I ask you all...who else is displaying these Cass Sustein type behavior? Who has always done this? 911Blogger.com!
Who else claims they are protecting the movement from being labeled 'anti-jew' when in reality it is people like Chris Sarns and Eric Larson who who are using this tactic to label their fellow 911 Truthers.
These people, YT, Victronix, Eric Larson, Reprehensor, Danse, Arabesque, Jon Gold...should not be trusted moderating a 911 Truth website.
so wait.. did Reprehensor start 911blogger?
or did "dz" aka Roger Peters? or are they the same person? I corresponded briefly with dz, who confirmed his name was Roger Peters (a fact published by Kevin Barrett who thanked him in his 'epic struggle' book) after donating money for a dedicated server which never materialized after my account there was suspended. My money (and everyone else's, or at least Casseia's) was returned. In fact dz was always very polite, which may be why he (or the nice dz persona) had to vanish...
Stefan sums it up perfectly
A number of us, including the moderators of 911blogger, are involved in a group e-mail exchange (deafening silence from the 911blogger moderation team, as expected). Stefan, one of the other people who has been banned, sums the situation up perfectly (I can't imagine he'd be against my posting this here):
The exact moment the Adam's Syed and 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 Erik had been backed into a corner over a previous blog entry of his, which he as a moderator had put on the front page of the site as though it were "breaking news".
This entry was a reprinting of a blog by Adam Larson (who except for a similarly low standard of evidence is no relation to Erik) listing what he claimed to be witnesses to the plane flying south of Citgo.
The context to this blog posting was a recent audio debate between Craig Ranke and Jon Bursill. Jon had been tricked by people like Erik, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley into believing there were "hundreds" of SoC witnesses and hence thought he had a good chance of winning the debate. Note that Erik, Jim and Victoria resolutely REFUSE to publicly debate this issue for the precise reason that they know full well that their claims are untrue and can only stand in an environment where people pointing this out can be censored. But Jon honestly believed it to be true and had made the claim and then stuttered and stammered when asked to produce one only managing "but credible researchers say there are" (paraphrased) as a response. Jon honourably and honestly admitted defeat in the debate. The pressure was now on the originator of the "hundreds of SoC witness" lies to produce something quickly and so Erik attempted to do so.
Of course not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was rather a collection of laughably tenuous arguments as to why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story with no evidence presented that they were. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses explicitly supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who had explicitly stated the plane flew to the north of Citgo (the strength of the argument for why they were not NoC in one case was "I believe she made a mistake") and most strikingly, several had explicitly confirmed that they were not even witnesses to the Pentagon attack at all.
Naturally, all of the comments demonstrating the flimsy nature of Erik's attempt to produce SoC witnesses were voted so far below the viewing threshold that most blogger readers would not see them, but both Adams and I did not think this issue should be dropped and continued to bring it up when Erik entered a discussion thread on the issue. This was the point that was being brought to the fore of discussion and Erik was busy trying to spin this as a victory because Adam had not demonstrated that every one of his "witnesses" had not been on the scene at all(!).
Needless to say, the entire discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when - hey presto - all three of us were effectively banned (as demonstrated by the innocuous posts Adam has failed to have approved here), our comments were safely bumped below the viewing threshold and Erik, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in the full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.
Only the most naïve or biased of parties would not agree that Erik used his moderator powers to end a debate he was losing.
Larson's position on the issue of the Pentagon is an extreme minority one and is well known - he fully supports the official flight path and impact scenario. As far as I know he also supports the notion that this was actually a hijacked airliner with an Islamic extremist at the yoke. If not, surely he would understand that driving an empty remote controlled plane into the Pentagon and have its (lack of) contents spill out all over the very public lawn would not be a risk it is believable the perpetrators of this crime would take and might be more open to alternate theories.
Despite the extreme implausibility of the position Erik holds, he now appears to be the only person moderating 911 blogger, the highest traffic 911 Truth site on the internet as far as I can tell and he is now very blatantly banning any knowledgeable opponent to his view.
In a similar abuse of power, he “front-pages” attacks on CIT as though they were "news" - most notably his own attacks.
Erik visited Arlington and interviewed two parties who CIT had interviewed - the Paik brothers and Vignola. He went there hoping to prove a deception on CITs part and in fact found nothing whatsoever. He double-confirmed what CIT had already reported.
So what did he do? He came back and wrote up an article laced in a tone of voice that suggested explicitly accused CIT of “deceptive” methods and then posted the articles - each one demonstrating not one shred of evidence of any deception on CIT’s part - on the front page as "news".
Since any person on this email thread can read Erik’s articles and can then fact check them against CIT’s own presentations on these witnesses, and CIT’s responses to those articles – I am completely comfortable in saying that Erik articles are disinformation; the information he has put out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. I hope you all take the time to confirm this for yourselves.
Erik's position is indeed indefensible, but ultimately he does not need to defend it - 9/11 blogger is a private site and somehow he seems to have complete control of it.
It is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear, but it is a private one none the less.
Stefan
Debate Framing 101. What do you do when you're wrong??
Tips n tricks: Direct and limit all discussion on the topic you are weakest on to a single forum structured to favor your (incorrect/untrue) position. If questioned on the need for this, accuse the questioner of disruptive and/or offensive behavior.
obvious
What's more is that he first deleted my comment that clearly showed my concerns have nothing to do with. Jews zionism etc...
Then he writes his own comment which leaves the reader with a false view of my argument.
Jews, Israel, Zionists, Mossad?
JIZM?
Cap'n Jenny Humorless
Cap'n Jenny Humorless says-"you crypto-nazi!"
YT is on a tear!
of lying...
Did you not post a link to that site earlier?
If you didn't, then I must have confused you with another CIT promoter and I apologize. If you did, then I don't. Either way, it doesn't change the facts about that site and the fact that several of the CIT promoters here have been posting that link. The campaign that I started truthaction.org in order to promote has been responsible for inspiring hundreds if not thousands of 9/11 truth actions around the world over the past 3+ years. The forum on the site is indeed well known for posters who offer unflinching criticism of certain unsavory aspects of the movement. Unlike the site that jpass and Lilyann frequent and posted links to, contributors at truthaction.org are not allowed to smear family members, accuse activists of being agents, promote holocaust denial, etc. If you have a problem with anything specific that is posted on the forum, you should speak up. You've been lurking there for almost 3 years now without saying a word!
Submitted by YT on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 4:36am.
gee... is YT a guy you can trust?
Lemme guess, what he would say is that it's OK to accuse me of being an agent because I'm not really an activist (I'm an agent, see?) Now, is he saying that it's not similarly OK to call fake victims' family members what they are? I mean, they're fake, that's the whole point. I'm not calling anyone who genuinely lost a family member on 9/11 a fake family member--how ridiculous would that be? Not sure where the perps found this lowlife "YT" - I'd guess in prison for selling drugs to minors, where they offered him to drop all charges in exchange for his participation in a "special project"... or he's just another brainwashed zionist dope whose gotten himself in way over his head. count on him making himself scarce (like Portland, OR's ————— aka Col. Sparks) when the real truth starts to come out.
Col. Jenny Sparks
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:50 am Post subject:
---------------------------------------------------------
YT wrote:
Is that Gretardo preparing to infiltrate a new activist group? How quaint.
Rumor is this tosser has a long history with that rubbish. Seems groups who've known him have interesting stories to tell...
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
YT
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 4266
Location: California
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:00 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------
I bet they do! I'd love to hear more.
"Is YT a guy you can trust?"
No.
And by the way, Cosmos, just because you founded the 11th of Every Month campaign, it doesn't make you an unassailable darling with license to be a douchebag whenever you feel like it.
"we all know who YT is"
Um, no, John Bursill, YOU may claim to know who YT is, and we may all understand that he is the asshole with the big beard who runs True Faction, but that doesn't mean we all know who he is. In fact if anyone knows who YT is, I'd very much like to know.
Is Cosmos sad?
Is cosmos sad, is cos mos sad, is cos mossad, is cosmos sad?
I tend to think not...
One doesn't have to work directly for Mossad to be an agent for Israel--that's what sayanim are for. I have no idea if Cosmos' loyalties lie in that direction, or perhaps more narrowly as a stooge of Larry Silverstein, who clearly has enough money to keep a stable of such stooges if he wanted to. And one has to wonder where people like Cosmos and Jon Gold, who don't seem to have any real job, earn the means to support themselves.
The point is that by their deeds and words we can easily tell what kind of person they are--dishonest. Hypocritical. Manipulative. Not real truthers by any stretch. Cosmos is wise to keep his identity a secret because as far as I'm concerned he is a suspect in the cover-up of 9/11, i.e. of being an accessory after the fact to mass murder.
He is an accessory, no
He is an accessory, no doubt. Interesting theory about Silverstein having a stable of stooges. He would be dumb not to if you think about it. And Zakheim is another-lets not forget where the Pentagon was hit(or the diversion bombs went off)-the accounting area,the "missing" 2.3 he was tasked with finding, his defense ties etc. These likely 9/11 perps(I'm being very nice by saying "likely") would be very stupid NOT to try and control the debate with paid stooges. In Zakheims case he is still in the government as the Commissioner on some Afghanistan/Iraq defense contractor panel. I saw him on C-Span 3 the other day and there happened to be a US soldier seated behind him while he did his "business" as Commissioner, it was like a sick joke. Of course Silverstein still sits in NYC, a "respected business leader" still making profits off of his crime while he laughs at the gullible American public who let him(them) get away with it.
Lillyann banned at blogger ???
Well, if you guys have been following the circus at blogger since Syed, Ruff and Stefan were banned without explanation, it looks like I may be banned as well. I have tried to vote and post without success since yesterday. They removed a post where I praised the CIT Tour as well as linked to this site with DebunkingCITDebunking by Barrett. I also linked to Tales of Hoffman at Kevin's site.
I have sent an email to the moderators asking for a reason why I can't post or vote, with no response.
Funny, the recent Rules and Moderation blog by LN is phony. He professes to not ban people without "generally" a first warning, and without good reason. And the front page farce of treating CIT with newsworthy respect is exposed. In the very thread they ban a CIT supporter without a word!! Ha!
I hope to hang out here more often. I am merely a 911scholar, am pretty well read on 911, though not so good at arguing the facts! Many of you hear are well- armed. I have been at this very passionate search for about three years now.
I enjoy the sarcasm here and truth-telling. Perhaps blogger only has me in a holding queue, we shall see. I also look forward to Adam Syed's new newsite! Adam is an amazing and intelligent guy.
Lillyann
Lillyann
Thank you.
Thank you.
Slowly but surely 911Blogger and TrueFaction...
are becoming a refuge of the fakes and the not-so-bright who are unable to see through the fakes' BS, whereas WTCD has been collecting the more intelligent refugees from those sites. Welcome aboard the site for the Real Truth Movement...
Keenan you hit the nail on the head.
Here is my latest offering to the growing e-mail chain about 911Blogger for what it is worth.
Stefan,
I agree. The attitude of "if you don't like blogger start your own site" is not a tenable position. When your organization (in this case the truth movement) is corrupted from the inside it is not rational to just throw up your hands and say "oh well" and let that corruption run it's course. Your organization will be destroyed, simple as that, so I am afraid effort has to be put in to counter such corruption and ignoring the problem is like ignoring a rattle snake bite. 911Blogger is actively engaged in a particularly insidious deception of the larger truth movement here by using dirty tactics (censorship and mass purges) to create a totally false impression that CIT has been debunked or that their evidence has no merit or support.
Now Erik Larsen and Justin Keogh can do whatever they want with their privately owned site but it is irresponsible of us to let them do so without exposing the truth about their activities. I am a truther and that means I don't keep quiet about lies and dirty tricks nor do I ignore them. I don't ignore the abuse and slander of good hard working truthers such as Craig and Aldo, I speak up about it and I know all real truthers will do the same. Doesn't anyone else see the incredible irony and significance of a so called "truth" site intentionally engaging in deception to suppress 911 evidence? If that isn't important enough to shout from the rooftops and expose to the truth community at large then what prey tell is?
I do not intend to just sit back and complain however so starting from this letter I am progressively going to BCC these e-mail chains and forward some of the past ones to many more members of the truth movement so that the whole idea of containing this issue is rendered futile and useless. I will not stay silent about the censorship, the purges, or the deception being practiced by 911Blogger and to make myself absolutely crystal clear here I want EVERYONE to know exactly what is going on. Once the whole truth community knows about this instead of just us few here the readership and participation at Blogger will plummet to irrelevant levels. They deserve to be irrelevant for what they have done and I am going to do my dam best to make that happen. I advocate everyone copied on this message forward it on to all their contacts in the truth movement as well. Shame them by exposing them fully just like we all do on the streets by exposing the 911 fraud to the public. Speak loudly and boldly about it!
Sincerely,
Adam Ruff
all good points!
when i left blogger because of the special treatment jon gold was getting (at my expense) I did indeed go off and make my own site. it was never meant as a replacement for 911blogger, just an alternative where the truth about blogger could be told. and here we are now, discussing 9/11 blogger truth. now, not only do we need to expose them, but we also need to do our best to ensure that the "center" of the truth movement moves away from 911blogger and its associated shills (the true faction crowd, etc.) so that it will be clear to the world that they are marginal. oh, and i changed your avatar from the annoymouse avatar to McGruff the crime fighting dog--seemed apropos, feel free to change it...
my appreciation
Hey Gretavo, although I don't post much I am still an active reader and I wanted to express my ongoing appreciation to you for starting this site and keeping it going and growing in the right direction.
And thanks to Lillyann for seeing through the blogger BS and becoming a member here. I too was banned without warning or explanation and it's great that attention is being drawn to their practices of "disappearing" people without saying a word.
Thank you to everyone here who is making this site an important spoke in the wheel of real truth.
Ditto
Ditto
thanks to all of you
the site would be nothing without the great people from all over the world who have stuck with it, and with the real truth movement!it's bigger than any one site or any single truther--what matters is the spirit that moves us all to fight for what's right, and never give up!
Thanks!
It's all good!!
Lillyann
I love 911truth!!
Me and this 911truth, we somehow met up and we are a perfect match!! I just keep following my heart and my innate intelligence and of course I know just where to go next.
The first day that I posted a comment at blogger, I was going against Jon Gold (quite by a accident!). By day's end he had gotten mad and quit! I think he thought I was speaking for Adam Syed or that Adam was using my name as a sock puppet. Funny! He was completely wrong!
In my short time at blogger I was accused of being an agent, insulted by John Albanese "How can you say anything about Jon Gold!!". John bursill didn't regard me "kindly"!!! JBax called me crazy, a tin-foil-hat flower child. I was accused of smelling like a rat!!!"?
The day I was
banned, I was accused of brow-beating LStool!
And I loved some there. Adam Syed, AdamRuff, Stefan, Robert Rice is very cool, Influence Device, Alison, Bruno, dean Jackson, and a few others.
Thanks Tahooey for your sweet words! Back to digging into this rubble o September 11, 2001! I feel like all of this intensity only means we are all the closer, the darker before the early morning light!
Lillyann
McGruff, perfect avatar
Perfect for Adam!
Lillyann
The Avatar is great thanks for posting it Gretavo!
The plot thickens on the e-mail chain and this for what it is worth is my latest addition to it where GULP I take exception with David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan for ignoring the issue. I BCC'd quite a few people as promised.
I understand your frustration Aldo and I have to say I am baffled by the responses of Kevin Ryan and David Ray Griffin. To just brush this issue off so flippantly does not seem at all right to me and I wonder how Kevin or David would react if 911Blogger and their pack of attack dogs was purging all their supporters and suppressing all their important 911 evidence while also launching personal attacks on them and making baseless accusations about them?
I am truly disappointed with this "ignore it" attitude and you know something I have been a truther and hard core 911 researcher longer then either David or Kevin. I was a truther in early 2002 when it was REALLY unpopular and before 911Blogger even existed. I have read all of David's 911 books and even have a couple signed copies. Hell I sat next to David at the Santa Cruz Truth Emergency conference. I have really loved David and Kevin's efforts towards 911 truth and have vocally defended several of David's positions on 911Blogger when the attack dogs were trying to tear him apart about voice morphing and assorted other issues. Sadly I am no longer able to post supportive comments of David or Kevin or their work anymore on 911Blogger because I have been black bagged along with MANY others without so much as a word as to why. So if you brows 911Blogger in the future David or Kevin and find yourself under heavy attack don't be surprised if no one is there to speak up on your behalf because we have all been disappeared and you apparently have nothing you wish to say about it. As far as I can tell by your responses neither of you have time enough or concern enough to take a stand with even a brief e-mail expressing concern about censorship and blatant suppression of very important 911 evidence going on right under your noses at 911Blogger.
I have done the detailed research into the Pentagon and into CITs evidence and you know what? Aldo is absolutely correct, a North of Citgo (NOC) flight path does in fact conclusively prove a flyover. Your position that NOC does not necessarily prove flyover is not a tenable one because you clearly have not looked into the issue deeply enough to see the physical impossibilities involved with holding that position. I have looked very deeply into the issue and I know and can articulate exactly why NOC does prove flyover. I have been purged from 911Blogger however and now I assume I will be purged from your mailing lists as well for having the gaul to ask you both to take a stand against the blatant suppression of important 911 evidence and maligning of fellow 911 researchers.
I caution you Kevin and David both however to avoid engaging in debate with me, with CIT, or with CIT supporters such as Stefan or Adam Syed about the Pentagon issue because clearly neither of you are well informed about what the evidence is or what it really proves and we would expose that in a debate setting very quickly. We exposed it very clearly on Blogger many times much to the embarrassment and chagrin of Bloggers controllers which is why we were purged of course. If either of you, Kevin or David, truly understood why the still standing light poles in the path of a NOC approach prove flyover you would be hopping mad about this issue like we are. You would instantly realize the gravity of what 911Blogger is doing by suppressing this critical evidence. You don't truly understand the nuances of the evidence though which is why you both appear willing to brush off this issue so flippantly.
Unfortunately neither of you will likely even read this message so I am not going to write any more to either of you since you are too busy to concern yourselves with the suppression of 911 evidence and the McCarthy style character assassination of two honorable hard working 911 researchers by a so called "truth" site. I could not be more disappointed. Good luck to you both, I hope you recover rapidly from your back surgery David.
Sincerely,
Adam Ruff
More of the email exchange?
I'd be interested in seeing more/having it documented here.
Apparently
the CIT thread on Blogger has had 100+ posts deleted.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1357&st=0&#entry24182...
I just noticed that.
I could have sworn it had more than 400.
I wonder if some of them were the ones that suggested YT has multiple user identities and is gaming the vote system (too obviously this time, I guess).
I believe the highest number was 438
That was the highest number I saw, anyway.
They deleted virtually all of johnscriv's posts.
I don't think YT has had a single post deleted though. He's a darling "veteran of this movement." Unassailable. If he says CIT is disinfo and gets heavily upvoted for saying it, then it must be true! Cause let's face it, truth ALWAYS equals majority opinion. Without exceptions.
I really enjoyed this post yesterday by johnscriv, in response to Bursill (I'm sure this one's been deleted, I don't even remember now which page it was):
they seem to be moving the goalposts
When CIT has been discussed on this site, people had different opinions, and if I recall mine was pretty much what John Bursill is saying, that the witness testimony CIT colleced is interesting, but that they are leaping to conclusions by saying that these testimonies establish a flyover as fact. Sorry, but as I said that time, I think that's a stretch, since the eyewitnesses could all be paid to say what they said. COULD. Not WERE. But could have been, yes.
What is instead the issue is that YT and others' real problem isn't so much with that assumption, it is with the idea that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. They dance around the issue a lot but that's the crux of it. They want people to assume that it did until we can prove it didn't, whereas reasonable truthers expect the government to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon with ALL the expected evidence in spades before we accept it. Not by virtue of the fact that so many victims' families would have to be liars for it to be otherwise, not by virtue of a few pictures of what appear to be plane parts, not by virtue of a reprinted passenger list.
We want to see all videos taken in the area at the time. We want to see the collection of all the plane parts found at the Pentagon laid out in a hangar somewhere. The mere fact that these things were not done in the first place are almost enough to conclude the whole story was a lie, and if they were done now there would have to be a high degree of skepticism and verification from many parties would be needed to overcome that skepticism.
The "eyewitnesses were paid" scenario
Gretavo,
I understand that you think it's highly unlikely that the north path witnesses were paid, but still a small possibility.
But let's take out that x variable. IF the witnesses are not paid/lying, and the north path is true, THEN do you agree the flyover is proven?
Also, let's think about this for a second: if the north path witnesses were paid to give out misinformation about the flight path, what would be the point? So that the government could later release that crystal-clear video of a plane approaching from the south path and hitting the Pentagon? That's the only reason I can think of.
Furthermore, if this WERE the case, then it would make sense for the pseudo-truther operatives within the movement to PROMOTE the work of CIT, rather than vigorously oppose it. Then it would be all the more of of a "blow" once a video were to be released proving the south path correct.
It seems very clear to me that the eyewitnesses who are lying and likely WERE paid off, are the ones who the MSM showed to millions of people in the aftermath of the attack. Lloyde England's testimony, for example, is so full of both internal and external contradictions that he implicates himself.
I think it's all totally sketch...
...and that the most important aspect is that not only has neither the government nor anyone else ever satisfied the burden of proof for AA77 having hit the Pentagon, but that everything we know about the events there suggest that no large plane crashed there (I would even say that no plane crashed there, period.)
the work of CIT seems to be aimed at reconciling witnesses seeing an airplane approaching the Pentagon with the fact that said airplane doesn't seem to have hit the Pentagon. Since I put no stock whatsoever in any of those eyewitnesses, I have no personal need to reconcile those two things.
With or without CIT's collected testimonies and/or analysis of them, the official story is a non-starter. People who believe AA77 crashed into the Pentagon would seem to be people who are willing to believe an official pronouncement without evidence, and who are not going to be swayed by evidence of any kind, and I don't think CIT's work will change that.
the work of CIT seems to be
the work of CIT seems to be aimed at reconciling witnesses seeing an airplane approaching the Pentagon with the fact that said airplane doesn't seem to have hit the Pentagon.
This is not an accurate characterization of CIT's work. They have said that they went to Arlington to interview eyewitnesses to independently establish precisely what they saw and to document the flight path in order to compare it with official reports, data, and the physical damage.
Since I put no stock whatsoever in any of those eyewitnesses, I have no personal need to reconcile those two things.
What?
You put no stock whatsoever in "those" witnesses? Meaning the ones that CIT interviewed or any witnesses to the event at all? Does this extend to the "explosions" witnesses at the WTC?
Why would you possibly dismiss an entire category of evidence even if it has been independently obtained and transparently provided for you via on location video recorded interviews?
most important evidence
random person puts *some* stock in the witnesses (and yes, more in CITs), but don't you disagree with ranke when he says the pentagon evidence is as compelling as the wtc (i thought i heard him say this on the radio)?
let me clarify
maybe I should have said "CIT's flyover conclusion seems to be aimed at reconciling witnesses seeing an airplane approaching the Pentagon with the fact that said airplane doesn't seem to have hit the Pentagon."
When I say I put no stock in any Pentagon eyewitnesses I mean just that. The Pentagon eyewitnesses are not, like the WTC explosion eyewitnesses, corroborating something that we know must have happened. There HAD to have been explosions at the WTC for it to come down the way we all saw it come down--not the way 11 eyewitnesses said they saw it come down, the way we KNOW it came down. There is also video evidence of explosions taking place, and I include in this the barely ever mentioned explosion visible in the north tower as the south tower is hit by a plane that to me is a dead giveaway not just of the presence of explosives but of the intended deceptive timing. Furthermore, eyewitness accounts of explosions at the WTC were collected a few weeks, not years after the events, and by official and obviously impartial authorities (in the case of the oral histories.)
All we really need to know about the Pentagon at this point is that a) nothing should have hit it, b) no PLANE appears to have hit it, c) the eyewitnesses are contradictory to the point of irrelevance, and d) all the hard evidence we would expect (a collection of plane parts recovered, video documentation of the impact) are absent. Speaking of gilding the lily, it seems that is precisely what CIT are doing, in effect if not intent, by trying to go beyond these very obvious shortcomings in the OCT. I accept the flyover as a possible explanation of what happened, but see no need in focusing the debate on that single point, on the basis of CIT's collected eyewitness accounts.
Point C of your message above is incorrect.
Gretavo,
In point C above you say: c) the eyewitnesses are contradictory to the point of irrelevance.
I disagree and I ask what witnesses you can site that contradict the North of Citgo flight path?
that's not the point...
"what witnesses you can site that contradict the North of Citgo flight path?"
The point is that eyewitnesses have claimed so many different, contradictory things that it is clear that a number of them are lying about what they saw. Even if you can't find any whose testimony precludes a NoC flight path, what do you make, for example, of those who say it "cartwheeled" into the Pentagon as opposed to those who say it dragged its wing, etc.? Just because those accounts don't contradict a NoC flight path doesn't mean they support it.
The support for a NoC flight path comes from a group of eyewitnesses who have their own, generally corroborating accounts, but that still isn't proof. Granted, IF those NoC eyewitnesses are 100% genuine then one may well be able to reasonably conclude there was a flyover, but why bother taking that chance? What's the point? Where does it get us? To a point where people can simply decide which eyewitnesses they deem credible and use that as a basis for disagreeing with others about what actually happened?
How about we focus instead on what did NOT happen? How about we demand a public accounting and display of all the wreckage allegedly recovered from the site? How about we demand disclosure of the actual, physical flight manifest from the flight? How about we demand any and all videos that recorded the imapct be released?
I think the NoC witnesses,
I think the NoC witnesses, considered together as single body of evidence, present a far more unified conclusion on where the plane flew.
I can't down play all the NoC witness who describe generally the same thing in their video taped interviews. Also, they mostly all seem, IMO, honest about their accounts of that day.
I admit I haven't studied this issue as much as I need to. But it seems like the SoC witness pool is where the inconsistencies and obvious planted witnesses comes in to play.
sure, their accounts are part of the puzzle
but not the "key" to its solution, imo.
Johnscriv, latest hero
Coming from the war zone, 911 blogger! Even though they have deleted his posts and possibly banned him, he will be remebered for his courage, his triumphant humor and smart responses to incredible arrogance and lies! Bravo to you, Johnscriv!
Robert Rice also held up well in that CIT thread. Now I hear that Nobodyparticular may have been banned. How else can blogger deal with his great intelligent debating?
Thanks to all of these bravehearts!
Lillyann
And jpass,
You were amazing in that final curtain of a thread. Your arguments on the Pentagon were so clear, it's not at all surprising that LS banned you.
Thanks so much for your courage at blogger, I am sure it inspired many (and of course infuriated a few!)
Lillyann
Thanks Lillyann!
Thanks!
Hi Lillyann, thanks for the kudos
Yes, they did indeed delete most (but not all) of my comments, especially those relating to Cosmos' gaming of the down voting censorship system, and they have barred me.
I was relentlessly and mercilessly attacked for two days, simply because I did not join the rabid condemnation CIT. I came to the comment thread late in the piece, there were already like 280 odd comments up and I read them all before I posted my first comment.
I could not believe the tirade of invective directed at CIT, I could not comprehend it at all. But as soon as I made a minimal attempt to criticize this unwarranted, unprovoked attack, I became a target.
Immediately I was derided, dismissed, ridiculed and accused of all sorts of things, all quite unjustified, in my opinion.
When I attempted to defend myself, I was then further accused of "hate spewing" by Cosmos (YT). In response, I challenged Cosmos to provide evidence of hate speech from any of my comments or retract the assertion. Not surprisingly, he failed to deliver either.
Then, Cosmos posted a new blog entry, about an event in New Zealand. I checked it out and immediately noticed that Dean's comment, the first on the page, had already been down voted into oblivion. I checked and sure enough, there were seven down votes. Now this seemed suspicious to me, since there were only two other comments there at the time, and they had one or two up votes.
So where did these seven down votes suddenly appear from? Cosmos had obviously slipped up. As soon as I drew attention to this anomalous voting pattern, I was shut down and my comments were deleted.
I left a departing message on my page at 911Blogger.
I'm really glad I found all you guys here ... looks like we won't have to waste anymore time at 911Blogger ... thank god, I can't stand the layout of that site, this site is much more attractive.
Cheers, love you all, John S
Yes the delete key is being pressed fast and furious at Blogger.
Am I the only one who likens mass deletion of posts to the burning of books? It sounds to me like 911Blogger needs Winston Smith from the ministry of truth to spend a few days over there "adjusting" the history to a big brother approved version.
I looked at that thread several times in the past few days and the number of posts is declining rapidly.
Burn those damn books Larsen! Burn em all eh?
you're not alone
It may be worse then book burning. Book burning is akin to deleting the entire thread. In this case the book has been spared the fire but has been edited beyond recognition, it's meaning changed entirely and future audiences will be oblivious to what had actually been written.
But I say again, this is nothing new. I imagine in a few months, a year, maybe two years...the same type of cleansing will take place surrounding another topic.
Does anyone remember when Reprehensor posted a response to all the 'whining' about bannings in 2008? His first response was the image of someone's boot smashing into a face.
Well said
It may be worse then book burning. Book burning is akin to deleting the
entire thread. In this case the book has been spared the fire but has
been edited beyond recognition, it's meaning changed entirely and future
audiences will be oblivious to what had actually been written.
Bravo
911Blogger - unfair, unresponsive and unaccountable
I have written to the 911Blogger management team to complain about the behaviour of one of their contributors, Cosmos, and about the way I have been treated at 911Blogger.
I have reason to believe that Cosmos has direct control over more than one account, it seems that he is able to control at least six votes at once. This is against the rules.
Furthermore, Cosmos has been responsible for a relentless, unwarranted and unprovoked attack on the work of the Citizens Investigation Team, as evidence by his barrage of comments on the post entitled Citizen Investigation Team to tour Europe in September.
Cosmos has also provoked hostility and engaged in ad hominem attacks against other users without restraint.
He unfairly and wrongly accused me of "hate spewing", without providing any evidence or justification for that charge, and refused to retract the claim or apologize when I complained about it.
Now it seems I have been barred from making further comments at 911Blogger, while Cosmos continues his tirade unabated and unrestrained.
I have previously had two innocuous blog entries blocked or rejected by the 911Blogger moderators, without explanation, even though neither contravened the rules published on their website.
I consider this to be biased and unfair behaviour on the part of 911Blogger management team. This type of behaviour is causing harm to the reputation of 911Blogger.
YT and LooseNuke Love CIT
What I interesting is how obvious YT and Loose Nuke are. They delete, attack, moderate and bann, censor arguments against theirs...all in broad day light.
Then, anyone who points out their obvious agent-like behavior, is painted as an 'aggressive CIT supporter' who 'relentlessly supports CIT'.
I've never aggressively supported CIT anywhere. I'm pointing out obvious double standards at 911Blogger.com and that's conflated with 'aggressively supporting CIT'.
It's the same thing that happens when one asks 'why is Israel's involvement in the 911 Attacks treated differently then other evidence?'
Users at 911blogger.com quickly paint you as someone who is 'aggressively pushing for more Jew / Israeli / Zionist / Mossad coverage'.
It's almost as if YT and LooseNuke WANT people to flock to CIT.
"It's almost as if YT and LooseNuke WANT people to flock to CIT"
Yep. Contrast the way they treat CIT with the way they treat us. CIT is all over 911blogger. Everyone knows that YT and Loose Nuke "hate CIT" and consider them disinfo. WTCD on the other hand is never referred to by name. They refer to us if at all as "that other site", the "site that shall not be named", etc. Yes there are one or two exceptions to that rule, but it generally holds true. They seem not to mind giving CIT all the (no such thing as bad) publicity they can handle whereas they use code words to refer to this site.
"It's almost as if..."
Couldn't have said it better in hindsight!