David Griscom: 'All Hijacked Passengers Survived' Theory

David Griscom Promotes: 'All Hijacked Passengers Survived' Theory

By Arabesque

An article by David Griscom promotes the theory that "All Hijacked Passengers Survived." His website includes several articles with the introduction, "How could they have pulled it off? Check out Dave's carefully researched hypotheses." The first visible article is entitled, "Towards a Comprehensive 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: The 'All Hijacked Passengers Survived' Hypothesis":

...An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my earlier Pentagon model was that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy “witness protection” programs...

So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts)... the plane that actually struck WTC2 was captured on film and digital video cameras by many dozens of individuals – and widely-published frames from these films (some even appearing on magazine covers) show the impacting aircraft to have unmistakable external modifications...

For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that the passengers did die... Thus, I arrived at a quandary: I had concluded that both AA-11 and UA-175 must have been unmodified airliners that took off from Boston Logan with real (though relatively few) passengers – and I hypothesized that these passengers survived... IF what you saw in these videos was the actual UA-175, where would it have landed with its still-safe (but terribly shaken) passengers? ...In my "all passengers survive" hypothesis, it is easily surmised that AA-11 with its transponder turned off could have landed safely at Griffiss AFB after having been replaced over Amsterdam, NY, by a transponder-less drone attacker out of Griffiss.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Griscom is falling for the pod theory. Aside from this, what about these DNA reports at the World Trade Center?

Others argue plane substitution in the attacks. But then, what to make of these reports of DNA identification at the WTC?

“DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person. Of the 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.”...

Although about half of the victims at the WTC have not been accounted for... reports continue to surface to this day in which passengers from the flights that hit the World Trade Center Towers are identified...

The Screw Loose Change blog predictably highlights Griscom's paper for ridicule saying:

Dr David L. Griscom... thinks the passengers on board the four planes were all paid off and are living in Tahiti, drinking Pina Coladas.

There are a number of articles by Screw Loose Change attacking Griscom for his "all passengers survived" theory. According to the document, the current version of the "passengers survived" article dates from April 18, 2007 (update: he has since revised the article). Interestingly, the Screw Loose Change blog first noted the article on April 29, 2007, about two weeks after the current version was originally published on Griscom's website. Mr. Griscom noted to me that he does not receive many visitors to his website and that he was unaware of the comments by Screw Loose Change who have been using the theory to ridicule Griscom and the 9/11 truth movement by association ever since it was first published.

This article by Griscom can only serve to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and his judgment for writing it should be questioned. Many family members support the 9/11 truth movement but many false claims and hoaxes discredit real questions about the event itself. The 9/11 commission itself was only created after intense pressure from family members. After submitting a list of hundreds of questions, the Family Steering Committee received answers to 30% of their questions.

Update: September 28, 2008

Upon contacting Griscom, I suggested that he remove his article from circulation and offer an apology for its content. After some debate he has not retracted the article from circulation at this point in time. Instead, he has published a revised version which still contains many of the statements that I marked as objectionable above. As well, his newest version does not mention or account for the DNA reports that I have cited above.

9/11 Arlington County Police Dispatch Audio

9/11 Arlington County Police Dispatch Audio

By Arabesque

John Farmer has posted an audio file of a Arlington County Police Dispatch on 9/11. Farmer explained to me that the availability of this recording has been restricted:

It has always been available if someone wants to go [to the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center] and listen to it and do a transcript by hand (no recording permitted)... I can’t say they have never released it beyond the building before... I acquired it through the AC Police department after a great deal of advance work.

Farmer explains the content of the recording:

This is an audio segment from the Arlington County Police dispatch for 9/11 released to AAL77.COM. The Emergency Communications Center advises that the audio begins at 9:37 am and is ~3 minutes duration.

Arlington County Police Dispatch Recording (mp3 file, 6 mb)

Dispatcher - Kyra Pullian

Delta 352 - Corporal Barry Foust, located at the intersection of Walter Reed Drive and Columbia Pike

Motor 11 - Officer Alan Stone

Motor 14 - Officer Richard Cox, located at the intersection of S. Wayne Street and Columbia Pike.

This is an audio segment from the Arlington County Police dispatch for 9/11 released to AAL77.COM. The Emergency Communications Center advises that the audio begins at 9:37 am and is ~3 minutes duration.

Noteworthy is that this dispatch comes from moments after the 9/11 Pentagon attack. The dispatch is a communication of police officers who communicate the situation at 9:37 a.m.--the time of the Pentagon attack on 9/11. One of the officers describes the plane while another confirms smoke coming from the area of the Pentagon. The associated press gives us a transcript:

Officer Barry Faust: Delta three-fifty-two. Delta three-fifty-two.

Dispatcher Kyra Pulliam: Yes three-fifty-two.

Faust: I think we've just had an airplane crash, east of here, it must be in the District area.

Pulliam: OK.

Officer Richard Cox: Four-ten. It's an American Airlines plane, headed east down over the Pike, possibly toward the Pentagon.

Pulliam: Ten-four. Cruiser 50 direct.

Lt. Robert Medairos: Fifty. Ten-four.

First Unidentified Officer: This is 36. I'm en route. I see the smoke.

Pulliam: Delta 35.

Second Unidentified Officer: Delta 35. I'm en route also.

Pulliam: Any unit responding to check the area of the Pentagon, advise on channel one please, I have Delta 35, Cruiser 34 and Delta 352.

(Several units break in at once).

Pulliam: OK, one unit at a time. Motor 11.

Third Unidentified Officer: I'm direct, and there is visible smoke coming from that area, high visible smoke.

Pulliam: Motor 11 direct. Units once again ...

Pulliam: Keep all traffic on one-Adam, restricted until further notice. Units responding for the report of the plane crash advise on one-Adam one at a time. I have Motor 11, Cruiser 34, Cruiser 49, Delta 10, Delta 453, Delta 35 and Delta 352. Any other units stand by response air, like Cruiser 50, notify each other.

Fourth Unidentified Officer: Delta 23. I'm going to be carrier three-zero-four and I will be standing by for further instructions.

Pulliam: Twenty-three, ten-four, thank you. Cruiser 50?

Medairos: Indirect. In response.

Pulliam: Ten-four. Is that enough units to respond for now or do you request additional?

Medairos: No. Stand by until we see what we've got.

Pulliam: Ten-four.

Fifth Unidentified Officer: Motor 2 responding for traffic.

Pulliam: Who's that responding for traffic?

Fifth Unidentified Officer: Motor 2.

Pulliam: Copy. Motor 2 responding for traffic also.

Third Unidentified Officer: Motor 11.

Pulliam: Motor 11.

Third Unidentified Officer: I'm responding, I'm on 110, and it's a lot, it's bad.

Transcript: Associated Press, September 18, 2001

While no officers directly witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon, it is noteworthy that one of the reporting officers described the plane seconds after he witnessed the event. This would therefore be one of the first documented reports of the attack.

Kevin Ryan Writes Powerful Critique of NIST Building 7 Report

Kevin Ryan Writes Powerful Critique of NIST Building 7 Report

By Arabesque

9/11 Whistle blower Kevin Ryan has written a powerful critique of NIST's report on Building 7. As Ryan explains, NIST did not test steel samples for Building 7:

Another important lesson NIST learned from its report on the towers was this: if you perform actual physical tests to support a politically motivated conclusion, those tests had better support that conclusion. The physical tests NIST and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) performed for the investigation on the towers did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST, and its bosses at the Bush Administration, sought to maintain... NIST avoided that problem with the WTC 7 investigation by simply not performing any physical tests to support its theory. Instead of throwing a few beams and columns together and heating them to see what might happen, NIST built its final story on nothing but computer models that it said took excruciatingly long periods of time to process ("…a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete.") In other words, for NIST, avoiding problems means avoiding reality.

In a particularly amusing passage, Ryan explains the use of misleading Math as exploited by defenders of the official story:

For years, we were also told that WTC 7 fell because 25% of the building was "scooped out" by falling debris from the towers... Sunder claimed that "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom -- approximately 10 stories -- about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."... Of course, one third of one quarter only makes one twelfth, not 25%...

Ryan concludes:

No failure of imagination here... The 9/11 Commission told us that the attacks on September 11th succeeded ultimately because of a "failure of imagination." NIST will never be accused of that kind of failure, as its new WTC 7 report is nothing but imaginary tripe. This new story contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most important of the existing evidence, produces no scientific test results to support itself, and is so obviously false on its face that not even a fictional character from another planet would believe it. Fires that could only last 20 to 30 minutes lasted 4 hours (what was burning?). Imaginary temperatures that, according to NIST would have easily weakened the same steel in the towers, left beams fully rigid so that they could push one girder a full 2.2 inches, somehow breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison, as well as buckling the girder, before the beams themselves were affected in any way. Suddenly this one girder failure caused numerous floors to collapse, one hair-trigger "switch" column to buckle, and the whole building to fall in a total of 8 seconds. NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything. Of course, they have absolutely no evidence for any of these things happening in the real world. But by now we know that it doesn't matter. The Bush scientists only need to keep their bosses' sadistic political story viable for a few more months.

It's September 11th, 2008: Why Not Make Your 9/11 Resolution to Start a Blog to Expose the Cover-up?

It's September 11th, 2008: Why Not Make Your 9/11 Resolution to Start a Blog to Expose the Cover-up?

By Arabesque

Today is September 11th, 2008. Why not mark the occasion by starting your own 9/11 blog to expose the 9/11 cover-up? As I wrote:

9/11 truth activists often complain about the Corporate sponsored media (MSM) and their collective silence when it comes to explosive 9/11 information. As just one example, Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story was listed at #18 in the top 25 censored stories of 2007, by Project Censored.But Jenny Sparks points out this surprising fact: 91% of the users of the Total911TruthNOW website do not have a blog. Does this hold true for other 9/11 forums? Think about this for a second: if you are serious about exposing the 9/11 cover-up, this means you are going to have to get your voice heard by effectively promoting 9/11 information... if you are tired about the MSM not reporting 9/11 information, why not do something about it by starting your own blog? ...Along with participating in the 11th Day of the Month Campaign and other types of activism, all of these things will all add up together and the MSM censorship blockade and gatekeepers will be completely irrelevant.

As I also explained in another post, simply creating a blog and linking to 9/11 news stories and websites makes a difference:

The variety and number of websites is what will increase page rank, visitors, and exposure for 9/11 truth. In other words, if we all just hanged out at 911blogger and didn't make our own blogs, we would have limited exposure. By creating separate sites we are significantly increasing exposure for not only sites like 911blogger, but for 9/11 awareness, which is what really matters.

A short tutorial demonstrates how easy it is to set up a blog.

Don't know how to blog? I explain setting up a blog and important features in more detail. For example, you can promote the latest news stories from 911blogger.com as soon as they appear automatically on your own blog.

In another post, I explained that blogging can be combined with virtually any 9/11 activism:

When it comes to 9/11 activism, you are only limited by your imagination. Anyone can get involved by blogging about 9/11 information, making transcripts of 9/11 media, reporting your own activism, making your own 9/11 research, and making your own critical reviews of 9/11 news, research, and other media.

Finally, I explain the importance of citing sources and fact checking.

As I concluded in my original article:

Don't wait for someone else to expose the 9/11 cover-up. Get involved by reporting and promoting 9/11 information. Every person who speaks out by spreading credible information, 9/11 truth websites, and films will make a difference. If the MSM is not going to report 9/11 information, are you just going to keep waiting for them to do this, or are you going to take action and do something about it? Instead of passively reading information and listening to radio shows, why not get involved by spreading this information by promoting it on a blog?... Why not make your 9/11/2008 resolution to start a 9/11 blog and become part of the alternative media to expose the 9/11 cover-up?

Joe Lauria explains the power of bloggers:

Your first question about the internet and its role, there's only one thing that will move the mainstream media, and that's business, whether it starts to hurt their business, and it is, it has, they're terrified of the bloggers, and they're terrified of the internet, because they realize that it is taking business away from them, people are reading them... they're playing around with having their own reporters do blogs to try to co-opt the thing and it's not working very well, and there's a lot of crap on the internet - I would think that a large percent of what bloggers write is absolutely nonsense, and opinion without any fact, they're not trained as journalists... a lot of it is anonymous, but there are a lot of important bloggers who are doing better work than mainstream journalists, they're doing it without pay! They're doing it because they want to show anywhere where the press is not doing its job, and they are feeling that pressure... And the blogosphere is showing that there are... who are really starting to lead the way. And they aren't professionals in the same sense of the training, but they are filling in where the mainstream press is failing - we've seen government run amok because of that, as you know - eight years of the Bush administration.

Joe Lauria, Sibel Edmonds Case: FBI Files "Formal Complaint" With Sunday Times

A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!

• Part 1: A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!
• Part 2: Why Should You Start a 9/11 Blog or Website? Understanding Page Rank
• Part 3: Don't Know How to Blog? Explaining Some Blog Features on Blogger.com
• Part 4: How Can You Expose the 9/11 Cover-up by Starting a Blog?
• Part 5: Exposing the 9/11 Cover-Up by Citing Credible 9/11 Information

Pentagon Physical Evidence Confirmed: Radio Tower was Damaged and Repaired Following the 9/11 Attack

Pentagon Physical Evidence Confirmed: Radio Tower was Damaged and Repaired Following the 9/11 Attack--Confirms South Approach

By Arabesque

We now have compelling evidence that this Virginia Department of Transportation Tower was damaged by the plane alleged to hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

John Farmer informs me:

I have several accounts on audio which I will upload over the next few days. The most significant finding thus far is that I confirmed with people in the VDOT area that the plane did clip the VDOT antenna... the antenna being bent over seems to be common knowledgehere in Arlington. I... found it easy to verify the flight path. This... is perhaps the most important finding in recent years (that the VDOT antenna was clipped).

I will update this post with additional information soon.

An Open Letter about the Subject of Disinformation and Disruption within the 9/11 Truth Movement

An Open Letter about the Subject of Disinformation and Disruption within the 9/11 Truth Movement

By Arabesque

September 7, 2008

In my humble opinion, the issue of disinformation and disruption is of critical importance to the success of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, as I have argued, the official story of 9/11 itself is disinformation; a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the truth about 9/11. As I have said:

“The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.”

As controversial 9/11 researcher Jim Fetzer explains:

“One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’) is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true… I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. That creates an exaggerated version of the situation as I see it that makes it easy to satirize. I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. But there are ample grounds based upon past experience to believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research... On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate. Their function appears to me to be obfuscation... There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the work of those they attack to be too good to ignore. Disinformation… is the major obstacle to the search for truth about the death of JFK.”

Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation

First of all, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not endorse or approve of allegations or speculation that cannot be proven. As I have written:

FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, in a letter entitled Disruption of the New Left explained that activist groups would be neutralized through various means including “the instigating of or the taking advantage of personal conflicts or animosities existing between New Left leaders… hostility should be exploited wherever possible…” According to Brian Glick, this would be partly achieved through infiltration, “[agents] and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt… set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents.”… False and misleading accusations are frequently and effectively used by agent provocateurs. The most common accusation within the 9/11 truth movement is that a 9/11 researcher or activist is an “agent” working for the US government… 9/11 activists should be wary of any and all accusations that are not readily supported by credible evidence, facts, or documentation. Ultimately, false and misleading accusations create divisiveness and encourage hostility.

As I concluded in elsewhere the end result of disinformation or misinformation is the same, regardless of intent:

Those who care about the truth about 9/11 should also care about disinformation and misinformation. All 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that the 9/11 commission report consists of substantial disinformation… The truth about 9/11 is of primary importance. If we accept this to be true, then it is also true that all misleading arguments are harmful to this cause. Therefore, the intent involved in promoting misleading arguments is irrelevant. Arguments based on disinformation and misinformation will almost always result in false, incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading conclusions.

In summary, there is a clear distinction between criticizing the actions of an individual and making allegations or accusations that can not be verified or proven. As well, we do not need to understand “intent” to understand that a statement itself is false or misleading. Following this premise, we do not need to understand “intent” to understand that promoting misleading claims or divisive behavior discredits and divides the 9/11 truth movement. As Jim Hoffman has explained:

“The scientific method depends on critique (peer review)… A culture hostile to critique is antagonistic to science and to the development of a persuasive, actionable case for investigation of the crimes of 9/11/01… Such a culture supports stereotypes of challenges to the official story as irrational and faith-based.”

I believe that the 9/11 truth movement not only has a right to be critical—it has a responsibility. First of all, while I do not endorse any claim that a 9/11 activists is an “agent” (as I explained above quite clearly), I believe that we have the responsibility as a truth movement to be critical. Furthermore, as I have established, it is indeed possible to be critical without making accusations.

One of the 9/11 researchers most criticized for promoting false and misleading information about 9/11 is Jim Fetzer. A co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Fetzer has been harshly criticized for promoting information and theories about 9/11 widely regarded as disinformation.

It didn't start out that way. In fact, as Victoria Ashley explains, “James Fetzer started off appearing to support the work of Dr. Steven Jones and offered to help form a scholars group with Jones and a handful of others. Fetzer ran the website for the group, but within months Fetzer's increasingly speculative, bizarre and one-sided posts began to earn criticism from other researchers... By the end of about one year, the situation had gotten so dire that some of the members, including Steven Jones, decided they could no longer allow Fetzer to control the website, and decided to take a vote on what to do, since Fetzer refused to remove the offending posts."

9/11 blogger George Washington described the situation:

”...people hostile to rationality and the scientific method are close to completely taking over Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Such people claim that "space beams" destroyed the World Trade Center, that no planes hit the Twin Towers, and that the Twin Towers fell faster than free-fall speed. None of the scientists in the Scholars' group buy these theories. These people throw out false arguments and then -- when caught in an untruth -- start calling anyone who raises contrary facts names and attempts to bully them into submission.”

Was this an example of 9/11 disinformation? Some of these “theories” were supported by surprisingly sophisticated, but misleading interpretations of evidence. Many are extensively and exhaustively critiqued in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Fetzer wrote an open letter, and posted it on the Scholars website he controlled claiming:

"[Steven Jones] is now planning to take control of the web site from me. I have raised objections on moral, legal and intellectual grounds and I am categorically opposed to it. But he appears to be persisting in what might be described as a "hostile take over" to control Scholars. Because this is going on behind the scenes and you would otherwise be unaware of this scheme, I am publishing this open letter on st911.org."

Was this true? Ashley explains that, "Eventually, after several weeks involving hundreds of emails attempting to resolve the situation, a poll and subsequent vote was taken of the membership via email. All but ten of the more than two hundred members who participated in the vote voted to leave Fetzer's original group and form a new group." In other words, what Fetzer called a "hostile takeover" involving only Dr. Jones, was in reality the vast majority of the Scholars group wrestling over control of a website that Fetzer solely controlled. The "hostile takeover" claim was deliberately misleading; an obvious example of disinformation.

What is striking about the Scholars for 9/11 truth site is its uncritical approach to 9/11; every possible theory, no matter how implausible is pursued as valid inquiry. No possibilities are eliminated as Ashley explains, "Jim Fetzer is the primary force behind publicity and press releases for the claims of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, advocating endless investigation into every possible scenario imaginable: '...once [Fetzer] had become convinced that thermite/thermate could not explain the extent and character of the destruction, he began encouraging investigation of alternative hypotheses, including lasers, masers, and plasmoids." What is even more striking is that every possible theory about 9/11 was encouraged on this website—with one interesting exception: a hit piece by Wood and Reynolds targeted Jones’ thermite evidence.

In summary, Fetzer co-founded scholars for 9/11 truth, but his actions eventually became so divisive and disruptive that only 10 people out of 200 decided to not leave Fetzer's group. It is worth asking if many of these scholars would have joined the original group in the first place if Fetzer had acted this way all along. Of course, this is extremely doubtful. Was this a "controlled demolition" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

Having established the above, I now turn to the subject of Kevin Barrett, a member of the “dynamic duo” radio show with Jim Fetzer. I will suggest it is past time to critically examine some of the statements that Kevin Barrett has made on behalf of the 9/11 truth movement. But before I do so, I will quote the Political Director of the Libertarian party who I think understands the issue quite clearly:

“In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett. I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called "9/11 Truther." I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:

1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.

2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers….

I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.

Yours in liberty - Sean Haugh Political Director”

Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/23483

I will now quote Jim Hoffman’s 9/11 research website:

“MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. Barrett's public statements suggestive of violence are in stark contrast with 9-11 Research's policy stressing civility, verifiable information, and rational analysis. In 2007 Barrett's support for 9/11 junk science presented as 9/11 Truth typified by postings on James Fetzer’s website became increasingly obvious.”

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/activism.html

I have also been critical of Kevin Barrett for many of these statements. Let it be confirmed that nowhere do I call Kevin Barrett “an agent”. I know that many leaders in the 9/11 truth movement consider him a personal friend. I also understand that Kevin Barrett has helped spread awareness of the 9/11 truth movement. However, this does not mean that we cannot be critical of anything that he does. “Peer review” depends on the concept of being critical of our peers.

Now, what you may or not be aware about and might find interesting is Kevin Barrett’s apparent response to my criticism. Did he give an explanation for these statements? Did he apologize for them and say that he would discontinue making statements such as these? No—in fact his response is very interesting. Here is what he said about me on his radio show. I want to be clear that he does not say my name directly, but he is nevertheless referring to me personally:

“I know Tarpley was being sort of tongue in cheek [calling 9/11 truth activists Michael Wolsey, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Col. Jenny Sparks COINTELPRO agents]... but no. 1 that's just not a not a smart thing to do [Barrett proceeds to ignore his own good advice]--no. 2 even though I agree that two of the four people he named---that is the ones who had aliases who are afraid to operate under their own names--[disgusted voice] these people are obviously frauds and plants, bogus… those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue... throwing them in with these two false names--COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that.”

Let’s be clear about this: The only thing that I have done is report direct statements by Kevin Barrett himself. I have quoted his own words and I have provided links to the original sources. The apparent response to this was for Barrett to call me “COINTELPRO”—a serious allegation without any substance or evidence whatsoever on his radio show. Kevin Barrett is a “leader” of the 9/11 truth movement. His response to what I think is valid criticism (in fact, quoting his own words)—is to call me a COINTELPRO operative. This is obvious nonsense and this is slander. I do not feel it is necessary for me to defend myself, because many in the 9/11 truth movement have openly supported my work and in fact link to my blog as a credible resource. These sites include 911truth.org, 911research, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

This accusation is simply unacceptable in my humble opinion, coming from someone who is considered a “leader” of the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately, this is not unprecedented behavior as seen from some of our so-called “leaders” of the 9/11 truth movement. The obvious example for this is the Kennebunkport Warning controversy. Note that Mr. Barrett said above that 9/11 activists were “Maybe misguided on this particular issue”. Well, I would like to humbly disagree with Mr. Barrett here. What I and others repeatedly said in this context was that “divisive behavior is destructive and counterproductive to the 9/11 truth movement.” Who can honestly disagree that this is “misguided”? I would like to emphasize that our charges of incivility were completely ignored by many involved in the controversy or who claimed that we “opposed the warning” itself. I find this last charge particularly ridiculous because I posted my own research to support the warning. Ironically enough, we were accused of being “divisive” for pointing out divisive attacks, not to mention attacked viciously with copious amounts of slander. 9/11 activists were even targeted by a Youtube harassment campaign in which literally over a hundred youtube videos spread personal information including phone numbers and addresses along with encouragement of harassment. These videos even included accusations that members of the 9/11 truth movement were “Al Qaeda” members and even “perpetrators” of the 9/11 attacks. One of the individuals spreading these videos belonged to Captain May’s Ghost troop. Captain May himself for his part accused me and others of being COINTELPRO professionals during this controversy. All of my claims above are verifiable and I have taken the care to verify them.

I will quote Martin Luther King who said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” I would thank people like Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Jon Gold, and others who did speak out in support of the 9/11 activists were obviously and transparently being slandered and attacked. In retrospect, I found it very striking and surprising that such obvious attacks such as the above could occur and the response would be mostly indifference. Or instead, the entire controversy was framed as a “personal” or “equal dispute”. Is it an “equal dispute” when a country is invaded without provocation? Is it a “personal dispute” when Bill O’Reilly attacks 9/11 truth activists and calls them dangerous? It is a “personal dispute” when protesters are attacked at a peaceful protest? No, it is not—it is simply a one-sided and unprovoked attack.

Regarding “controversial theories”, it can be observed that there is “disagreement” and then there is “ignoring criticism”. Remember, peer review depends on critique of our “peers”. Let me quote the words of Dr. Judy Wood who when questioned about the Directed Energy Weapon Theory stated:

“I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions.”

In other words, Judy Wood's response to the extensive and thorough criticism of her theory is essentially a non-response. Dr. Jenkins observed with irony, "Amazingly, [Wood] explicitly claims that her research has now moved beyond the original claims that were so suspect in the first place, thus neutralizing all past and present scientific scrutiny... [however,] Wood has repeated the same points in contention.” This is also strikingly similar to the approach taken by defenders of the official story of 9/11 itself who might say, “We simply disagree and we respect those who have differing opinions” while refusing to directly respond to those questioning the official story of 9/11. Does this mean that we should simply go home since the U.S. government will not address our concerns? Unfortunately, I think we know the answer to this rhetorical question. As someone who has actually taken the time to “debate” and examine the “theories” of “Directed Energy Weapons” and “TV fakery”, I can tell you that they are not only complete nonsense, but that the theorists themselves completely refuse to even acknowledge or respond to serious criticism of these theories. This is not a question of “open mind”, it is a question of a “closed one”—a refusal to discuss or acknowledge counterarguments. This is no longer simply “disagreement” but willful and deliberate avoidance of debate or criticism.

Here is an excerpt from a radio interview with Jim Fetzer interviewing Judy Wood while discussing the aforementioned "directed energy weapon theory":

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”

Fetzer: “Planes?”

Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.”

Reprehensor explains that, “the DEW proponents only plow ahead, indifferent to reason… What has support of this idea by a handful of people done for 9/11 Truth? By far (to date) the most damaging thing has been that Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood attempted to take their ideas to court. United States District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed their complaints, with prejudice.” Quoting Jim Fetzer who says, “It’s obvious to me that you have to consider all the possible alternatives,” Reprehensor responds, “Yes, you CAN exclude some. The most improbable, the most unlikely, the impossible, the absurd ... grossly obvious disinformation, you CAN exclude this nonsense from your 9/11 horizons.”

It is true that the corporate sponsored media will ridicule the 9/11 truth movement regardless of what it promotes. However, this does not therefore mean that we should give them as much ammunition as possible to discredit by association the real questions and contradictions of the 9/11 "official story". This is a disservice to the family members who wanted their real questions answered in the first place. As explained by Thomas Pynchon, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” I believe that the 9/11 truth movement has to be aware of how it can be discredited instead of simply taking a passive approach to dealing with the issue of disinformation and misinformation. Otherwise, we are playing right into the hands of those who wish to discredit the 9/11 truth movement itself.

This issue is not simply limited to the problem of “controversial theories”. Ad hominem attacks and disruption are an equally important issue. Should members of 9/11 truth movement demand accountability from its leaders when they engage in destructive behavior and promote damaging information or speculation? I think the answer is clear: we cannot afford not to.

CIT "Happy to Oblige" when Asked to Provide "Gossip" to Future Author of Hit Piece Against the 9/11 Truth Movement

CIT "Happy to Oblige" when Asked to Provide "Gossip" to Future Author of Hit Piece Against the 9/11 Truth Movement

By Arabesque

Anyone who has even paid remote attention to the way that the Mainstream Media (MSM) portrays the 9/11 truth movement is sure to notice that it is portrayed in a certain way. Certain issues are ignored in favor of bogus theories and disinformation. A good example of this is exposed in Jim Hoffman's article, Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man. Hit pieces that rely on attacking obviously suspect "theories" instead of addressing much of the compelling 9/11 evidence as mentioned by Jim Hoffman are frequently seen from the mainstream media. In another obvious attack piece smearing the 9/11 truth movement with the tactic known as "guilt by association", Nick Schou focuses on controversial 9/11 researcher/theorists Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. Ranke explains:

When he arrived at Aldo's residence, Nick seemed affable enough. From the beginning, he expressed his intention to focus on our personal back-stories and involvement with personalities within the 9/11 truth movement first in the article. He would get into the evidence later, he said.

What makes this hit piece particularly striking is the fact that it appears that Ranke and Marquis actively offered damaging "gossip" to this reporter. Ranke explains that:

We understood how some of this was necessary for an interesting article and were happy to oblige.

Source: thepentacon.com/NickSchou.htm

In other words, Ranke and Marquis willingly gave "gossip" to a reporter who proceeded to use this information in his hit piece:

Their relationship quickly soured. E-mails posted on conspiracy chat rooms show that what started as a professional disagreement about how to prove that the U.S. government was behind 9/11 had become a highly personal grudge match. Here's a typical e-mail from Ranke to Pickering:

"You are irrelevant, Pickering. . . . You can keep on sucking official
story dick, and we'll keep proving 9/11 was an inside job."

And from Pickering to Ranke: "You are a mentally ill little man, and
until you get some help, you always will be. A disgrace to truth . . . Fuck
yourself. . . . Fuck you."

Even more striking is that I could not find the comment from Pickering on any online sources apart from this article. This meant that it was directly provided to Schou by Ranke himself. Ranke acknowledged this saying that part of the private email exchange was posted online (it is unknown if it was done with permission by Ranke):

It's all right here (although I did take out the quote...)

Ranke admitted he did not publish the quote online, saying, "Schou wanted proof that Pickering really did quit the movement and spiral out of control so yes I forwarded him the exchange." Now, the obvious thing to do would have been to refuse to discuss 9/11 truth member "gossip" in the first place. After all, if CIT was sincerely interested in discussing their theory about what happened on 9/11, they should have stuck to their theory and nothing else. As Ranke explains:

However, despite our desire to delve into the evidence itself, Nick skillfully kept the conversation on a superficial level. In retrospect, his main interest did not seem to be the evidence, but rather juicy gossip or controversial quotes which, taken out of context, could be construed as outrageous claims on our part (with the release of his article, this has proven to have been the case).

Does Ranke think that the mainstream media is on the same side of the 9/11 truth movement and reports 9/11 information fairly? Does Ranke believe that by reporting this "gossip" to the reporter, that he would not cover it? That this information would reflect favorably on the 9/11 truth movement? Does Ranke believe that after the fact, he has the right to complain about a hit piece in which material that he provided was used against him? Apparently, the answer to the last question is "yes":

There can now be no question that Schou went into this article with an agenda and a clear desire to portray us a certain way. It's rather apparent he was unwilling to put in the necessary effort to validate, refute, or even understand the evidence and preferred to focus on gossip instead.

Apparently, Ranke could only figure out this was a hit piece in which a reporter was asking for "gossip" after the article was published. In fact, no one can force anyone to talk about something that they do not wish to discuss. Ranke admitted he was "happy to oblige" in reporting this gossip to this reporter. Clearly, this hit piece was a self-inflicted wound.

Exposing the 9/11 Cover-Up by Citing Credible 9/11 Information

Exposing the 9/11 Cover-Up by Citing Credible 9/11 Information

By Arabesque

• Part 1: A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!
• Part 2: Why Should You Start a 9/11 Blog or Website? Understanding Page Rank
• Part 3: Don't Know How to Blog? Explaining Some Blog Features on Blogger.com
• Part 4: How Can You Expose the 9/11 Cover-up by Starting a Blog?
• Part 5: Exposing the 9/11 Cover-Up by Citing Credible 9/11 Information

How does one tell the difference between good and bad information? The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website describes misinformation as, “information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.” On the other hand, disinformation is the deliberate promotion of misleading, false, or inaccurate information. I believe that understanding disinformation and misinformation is of critical importance to the 9/11 truth movement. Why? Because, the official story of 9/11 itself is an example of disinformation.

The most common technique of disinformation by far is omission. The MSM has turned omission into an art form. They would have you believe that because they don't report something, it doesn't exist or it never happened. For example, the MSM is more than happy to pretend that there are not hundreds of architects questioning the official story of the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7. They are curiously silent when whistleblowers such as Kevin Ryan, Sibel Edmonds, and many others speak out. What are they hiding from? Incriminating information that the MSM does publish is mostly sent to the memory-hole straight out of Orwell's 1984. There comes a time when silence is betrayal and the MSM has betrayed its citizens by not reporting or citing information that contradicts or challenges the official narrative of 9/11.

What can you do about this betrayal? The answer is simple, obvious, and effective: You can report the information that the MSM refuses to talk about by starting a 9/11 blog. If you are up for the challenge, you can take part in breaking the imposed silence of the corporate sponsored media simply by starting a blog.

“Your first question about the internet and its role, there's only one thing that will move the mainstream media, and that's business, whether it starts to hurt their business, and it is, it has, they're terrified of the bloggers, and they're terrified of the internet, because they realize that it is taking business away from them, people are reading them... they're playing around with having their own reporters do blogs to try to co-opt the thing and it's not working very well, and there's a lot of crap on the internet - I would think that a large percent of what bloggers write is absolutely nonsense, and opinion without any fact, they're not trained as journalists… but there are a lot of important bloggers who are doing better work than mainstream journalists, they're doing it without pay! They're doing it because they want to show anywhere where the press is not doing its job… And the blogosphere is showing that there are people… who are really starting to lead the way. And they aren’t professionals in the same sense of the training, but they are filling in where the mainstream press is failing - we've seen government run amok because of that, as you know - eight years of the Bush administration.”

Joe Lauria, Sibel Edmonds Case: FBI Files "Formal Complaint" With Sunday Times

Anyone can start a 9/11 blog, but the question is how can you make the most effective use of your time and resources? Obviously, writing blogs that mistakenly reported bad information or promoted attacks, slander, and gossip about other 9/11 activists would be counterproductive to forwarding the visibility of the 9/11 truth movement. So how does one tell the difference between good and bad information? There are several steps that you can take to make sure the information you promote is credible and accurate.

Fact Checking

There are two kinds of sources; primary and secondary:

“Primary sources have been described as those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study… Primary sources have been said to provide researchers with ‘direct, unmediated information about the object of study.’... In scholarly writing, the objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources.”

Anyone who has read a newspaper article will see quotations that the reporter has collected to add context and relevant information. In this case the primary source is the "quotation" and the secondary source is the reporter:

“In library and information science, historiography and other areas of scholarship, a secondary source… is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.”

For example, if you encounter an article about 9/11 where the author claims that "X happened", or "this person said X", or "I conclude X because of this source", it is important to go back to the original source (when possible) to confirm that the reporter is correctly citing the information because mistakes in reporting can happen. Instead of simply assuming that a secondary source is reporting correct information, by checking the original source you are taking steps to avoid spreading misinformation. This is particularly true when the secondary source is known to be not reliable or credible. What if there is no way to confirm the original source of any given information?

Fact Corroboration

Corroboration is defined as “to make more certain; confirm: He corroborated my account of the accident.” A claim or report is more credible when it can be supported and confirmed by additional sources. For example, take the example of the attack on the WTC. Corroborating information for this event would include:

1. Video Evidence
2. Photographs
3. Witness Statements

All of the available evidence can corroborate an event. The more times an event is corroborated with sources, the more certain and credible the claim. As Ray McGovern explains in the film 9/11 Press for Truth, “The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”

There are many misleading claims presented to explain both the official story and "disprove" it. There are false statements, misleading statements and everything in between. Often, disinformation is supported by flimsy arguments that can be easily exposed by collecting and analyzing as many sources as possible. It is noteworthy that the Scientific Method demands that all information must be accounted for when reaching a conclusion. In contrast, disinformation largely depends on omission.

Fact Citing

Citing sources is also important because without doing this, readers can get the false impression that you are simply “making things up”. If you cite your information, the facts of 9/11 can be less easily dismissed. It is a good idea to develop the habit of always posting references (such as an internet link) whenever a claim is made. By doing so, you reduce the chance that you are promoting misinformation. This is helpful for readers so that they can confirm anything you say. By making this a habit, you are in effect training yourself to avoid promoting information without first fact checking and corroborating your sources. By doing this you are far less likely to promote misinformation.

The facts about 9/11 are out there. If the MSM chooses not to report them there is something that you can do about it. By starting a blog and citing your information the 9/11 cover-up will be exposed.