A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate

By Arabesque

It has come to my attention that several misleading arguments and claims have been made about my commentary on CIT. A witness at the Pentagon saw the light poles on the ground after the attack. Later in an interview, he gave the incorrect location of where they were placed. Completely ignoring this fact, it is alleged that:

“Arabesque deliberately omitted Lagasse’s explicit statement that he didn’t the see light poles hit.”

This statement is misleading as I have never claimed Lagasse saw the poles get hit. The relevant point that I made is the fact that he got the location of the poles on the ground wrong. Is this fact not relevant to CIT and their defenders? Apparently, it is not because they seem to completely ignore this while accusing "me" of being "deliberately" misleading. A simple question: If a witness gets the location of the light poles (and taxi cab) at the Pentagon wrong, is it relevant whether or not he saw the plane hit them to figure out the testimony he gave is factually wrong? Amazingly, for some people this is a really hard one to figure out.

On the truthaction forum, "Stefan" quotes CIT while making his point:

CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?

Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.

This most important piece of testimony Arabesque first omits, then denies, then accuses the people who refer to it of making misleading statements.. The implications of Lagasse's testimony is self-evident to anyone who has heard what he actually says in context, rather than just the cherry picked quotes Arabesque feeds his readers.

Stefan "cherrypicks" and distorts:

1. I did not quote Ranke's words "out of context". Ranke clearly states, "Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES?" The word "where" denotes "location".
2. The question of whether or not Lagasse saw the "plane" hit the poles is completely irrelevant to the issue that he misplaced their location.
3. I never "claimed" that Lagasse saw the plane hit the light poles, and yet Stefan is accusing me of "omitting" this fact. How could I "omit" information when it is completely irrelevant to the claim I am making?

If you have followed CIT and their debating tactics on forums, this kind of absurdly infuriating straw-man argumentation is frequently what you encounter. CIT and many of their defenders have never clearly acknowledged that Lagasse's statement that he got the location of the light poles wrong affects the credibility of his testimony, preferring to distract with the irrelevant point that he never saw them get hit by the plane. Well that's "interesting" because I never said that he saw the plane hit the light poles. I said that he got their location on the ground wrong.

Let's examine the original quotation by Craig Ranke in its original context:

“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”

Note that Ranke says, "remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES." As I explained above, "where" is a word used to describe "location". Lagasse did indeed remember "where" the light poles were knocked down, although Ranke claims above that he does not. For additional context, if you click the link on that quotation, you will see that Ranke was responding to a forum user who pointed out that Lagasse got the location of the poles wrong. Ranke's answer is clearly in response to this.

However, on the Truthaction forum, Stefan ridiculously attempts to claim that Ranke really meant, "see the 'plane hit' the light poles", but given the complete context of the full statement above (and the post that it was in response to), this would make Ranke's statement (i.e. "where the light poles were knocked down") completely nonsensical:

[Stefan claims Ranke meant:] "[Why would Lagasse] remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE [the plane hit the] LIGHT POLES."

Oddly enough, Stefan accuses "me" of taking words out of context, when in fact, this is exactly what he is doing. Again, "plane hit the poles" is completely unrelated to "where" they "were knocked down". Even if the meaning is changed to what Stefan claims Ranke meant, he still used the word "where" which is describing the location of the poles, and is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not the plane hit them.

Clearly, Ranke's statement is deceptive as I have explained above. I am not claiming that Lagasse saw the light poles get hit by the plane. I am claiming that he placed them in the wrong location. In the diagram below, Lagasse got the location of the taxi cab and light poles wrong, placing them in the same location saying:

“there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”

Not only did Lagasse get the light poles wrong, he was adamant that the light poles knocked down on 9/11 were not knocked down! He also misplaced the location of the Taxi cab which can be seen in the illustration above. This hasn't stopped CIT from repeating the claim that this witness is part of the "smoking gun" evidence that the plane flew North of the CITGO. CIT has refused to acknowledge in any clear way that Lagasse's testimony is not credible based on the mistaken testimony he has given.

It is important to note that CIT and Stefan do NOT acknowledge the fact that Lagasse's mistaken testimony affects the credibility of his flight path. In fact, CIT and Stefan bizarrely claim that the fact that Lagasse got the location of the poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.” Stefan supports this absurd position, writing:

[Legasse] incorrectly states that the light poles were in the same place as where he knew the plane was. It’s just logical deduction and all it does is speak to Laggasse’s unshakable certainty that the plane flew where he said it did.

This is a ridiculous claim on so many levels that it barely needs explanation. When a witness gives mistaken testimony, it does not make their testimony "more" credible, it makes it less so. And yet, CIT and their supporters absurdly claim against all reason that in fact, the opposite is true. And this is where CIT and their supporters tip their hand and reveal that they are not interested in a rational discussion of the Pentagon witnesses. They are going to claim that if a witness is mistaken about important details, it only proves how certain the witness was of the flight path. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

To the outside observer, it should rightfully seem bizarre that I would have to clarify these issues at all. That is, until you have observed a repeated pattern of deceptive argumentation from certain quarters of the 9/11 "truth" movement.

William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"

William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) distort and promote unreliable witness statements as “smoking gun” evidence of "mass hallucination" at the Pentagon on 9/11

In this post I expose the following distortions and misleading claims:

• CIT claims that Lagasse, a witness who misplaced the location of the light poles, taxi cab, and even his own location is "smoking gun" proof
• CIT insinuate that the witness "did not see the light poles" when confronted with the fact that the witness misplaced the location of the light poles
• CIT claims that the fact that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane."
• CIT and their supporters confuse and obfuscate Lagasse's testimony that the "plane did not hit the light poles" with his statement that he "saw the light poles [on the ground]"
• CIT misleadingly claim that Lagasse could "not" have seen the plane on the "south" side of the station because "[Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all," when in reality, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view "at all".
  

By Arabesque

In their first documentary, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis interviewed William Lagasse, a police officer and witness to the attack on the Pentagon. William Lagasse has always maintained that the plane struck the Pentagon on 9/11:

William Lagasse: “[The plane] flew into the building.”

In his recorded statements, Lagasse claims that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station. Craig Ranke has always maintained that his eyewitness account is “credible” and part of the “smoking gun” evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. In fact, Lagasse’s testimony is not credible. As I pointed out in my original review, Lagasse misplaced the location of the light poles and the taxi cab:

[Ranke] then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:

“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here… none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”

This statement is factually inaccurate. In the statement above, William Lagasse denied that light poles knocked down on 9/11 were knocked down. He claims that they were knocked down in an alternate location. He also claimed that the taxi cab struck by the light poles were in an alternate location. Early on in the interview, Lagasse even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. When this is pointed out and he is shown the video, he later corrects his account to match what is in the video. Even more striking, he places the plane where he mistakenly placed the taxi cab and light poles. Logic dictates, that if Lagasse saw the plane fly where the light poles were actually located, not where he mistakenly thought they were, he would have actually observed the plane on the south side of the CITGO gas station.

What has been Craig Ranke’s response to these facts which cast grave doubt on the reliability of Lagasse’s testimony? When pointed out by a user on the forum Above Top Secret that “The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well. As he had trouble remembering what pump he was at”, Craig Ranke deceptively responded:

Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.

This statement is deceptive for several reasons:

1. It is deceptive because Lagasse did indeed see the light poles as I quoted him describing their placement above.
2. It is deceptive because Lagasse did not see the "plane" hit the light poles, which Craig Ranke is conflating with Lagasse’s statement that they were placed in the wrong location.

In other words, instead of acknowledging that Lagasse gave inaccurate testimony, Craig Ranke distorts the eyewitness statement by implying that he "didn’t see the light poles", when in fact, the witness only said he didn’t see the "plane" strike them. In fact, Ranke contradicted himself in that very same thread, when he wrote: "[Brooks,] like Lagasse, did NOT see any poles get clipped and merely deduced this after the fact from seeing the poles on the ground." So much for "not" seeing the light poles. In the statement above, Craig clearly denies that Lagasse saw the light poles, and yet in the very same thread, he contradicts himself.

This is not the only example of this. On 911blogger, after I wrote that that Lagasse "didn't even know where the light poles were actually knocked down", Aldo responded:

"WE HAVE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES. You can't see the poles from there... You are a joke and we're coming for you..."

This is an additional denial that the witness saw the light poles, despite his description of their placement that I quoted above. Instead of acknowledging that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong, Aldo deceptively claims that he "couldn't see the light poles from there." This is obviously misleading as Lagasse explains in CIT's own interview:

CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?

Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.

Clearly, CIT has engaged in a pattern of deceptively implying that the witness "could not see the poles" when in fact, he did see them and misremembered their actual location.

Similarly, I have been attacked by supporters of CIT who conflate and "confuse" Lagasse's statement that he did not see the "plane" hit the poles with the issue that he misplaced their location.

When it is pointed out that Lagasse could have been facing in the wrong direction, he responded that “I do not have eyes in the back of my head!” As I pointed out in my original review, we know that Lagasse got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong. We also know he even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. It is not much of a stretch to point out that Lagasse could have misremembered which direction he was facing? In addition, Lagasse did not need "eyes in the back of his head" at all, since he only needed to be facing a slightly different direction to observe the plane on the "south" side of the CITGO gas station.

Ranke also implies that Lagasse could not have seen the plane on the "south" end of the station, writing:

"Obviously whether or not [Lagasse] was at the back or front pump has what he described as 'no bearing' as to his placement of the plane on the north side which is obviously true. [Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all."

This is another obviously deceptive claim. It is certainly true that in general, people can not see through opaque objects obstructing their view. However, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view, and even if it did, it would not block your view of the plane as it passed over and by the CITGO station towards the Pentagon.

Despite these issues, CIT would outrageously have you believe that Lagasse is part of their "smoking gun" evidence when his testimony is filled with errors. As I have demonstrated, Lagasse's testimony is not credible.

1. He misplaces his own location
2. He misplaces the location of the light poles
3. He misplaces the location of the cab which was damaged by these light poles.
4. He claims the plane struck the Pentagon which directly contradicts his flight path and the theory that the plane flew over the Pentagon

Has this prevented CIT from promoting Legasse testimony about the flight path as a reliable? In fact, the opposite. When it is pointed out to CIT that Lagasse got the location of the taxicab and light poles wrong, they deceptively and repeatedly imply that Lagasse “did not see the light poles” or "could not see them", when in fact, Lagasse stated that they were in the wrong location and that he did not see the "plane" strike them. Despite these issues and the fact that this witness is adamant the plane struck the Pentagon, CIT has continued to promote this witness as a “credible” report of the flight path of the plane and that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Clearly, this is blatantly deceptive and misleading and these distortions and misrepresentations by Craig Ranke should cast grave doubt on the credibility of "CIT" and their research.

CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?

CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?

By Arabesque


A Simple question for CIT and their supporters:

When a witness says the plane hit the Pentagon, is that part of the "flight path" or is it not? How could the question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon not be relevant to the flight path?

The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the "mass hallucination theory") largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts, and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence evidence of the "flight path".

This should be blatantly obvious, but apparently it is not to CIT and their supporters: When witnesses describe the plane striking the Pentagon, that is in fact part of the "flight path". There is a name for this logical fallacy and it is called "Special Pleading".

"The plane hit the Pentagon" is in fact the most important and significant claim regarding the "flight path", although CIT and their supporters would have you believe that it is not relevant, even when many of the various witnesses that CIT cite as evidence themselves claim the plane hit the Pentagon while completely hand waving away the fact that there are no credible reports of a flyover:

“We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.”

In other words, according to CIT and those who support their work, the Pentagon attack was a "mass hallucination" event in which any witness who claims that the plane hit the Pentagon was either deceived by an illusion or a government operative.

I have a difficult time explaining why this claim is taken seriously at all.

Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members

Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members

By Arabesque

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has published a press release in response to an article posted at OpEdNews. According to this OpEdNews article, the authors included:

[Three] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: Barry Ball, Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D., and Warren Pease... Their draft bill took months of research, discussion, and writing before the final draft was sent for review and changes to Hirschhorn and 22 nationally recognized experts either on the 9/11 event or renown in the scientific and technological fields about the collapses.

The OpEdNews article is noteworthy due to its inclusion of discredited 9/11 theories in a draft bill sent to 8 house members. In fact, according to a prominent member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, he was previously contacted about the draft of the bill but declined supporting the bill because it, "[Called] for investigation into a number of long-discredited theories including DEW, pods, mini-nukes, pancaking and steel 'dustification.'" The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice press release explains:

...On October 18, 2008, an OpEdNews article titled, "8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses," was published by four members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (STJ911.org). The authors of the article and draft bill are not spokespersons for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and therefore are individually responsible for it.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice does not endorse the draft bill due to the inclusion of numerous unscientific claims and misrepresentations, and condemns in the strongest of terms any associations between the organization and the claims presented by the authors of this bill. As stated at the front page of their website, Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice "take[s] care to present the strongest, most credible research available..."

While in agreement with the authors of this bill that a new investigation into the tragic events of September 11, 2001 is warranted, representatives of the Scholars group note that the draft bill and article lack basic scientific rigor and credibility, with statements such as, "the entire WTC [complex] was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW)," and the ideas that "nuclear materials, missiles or DEW weapons were used." The sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/), has numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting such claims.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice believes that a much better bill can be crafted using the strong analysis in articles by its members, several of which are recently published in scientific journals, including The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories (UL) manager who was fired in 2004 for publicly questioning the NIST report, and a committee member of the Scholars' group, says the bill is harmful to the cause of exposing the truth. "Basically," he said, "asking Congress to investigate many poorly defined, and highly implausible hypotheses minimizes the chances that Congress would be willing or able to investigate the actual evidence for the demolition of three WTC buildings." In fact, the bill also omits any mention of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, which provided hundreds of questions left unanswered by the 9/11 Commission.

Scholars' member Dr. Steven E. Jones, a Professor of Physics, also notes that statements attributed to him in the bill are "errors . . . misrepresenting my published statements." Dr. Jones goes on to say, "It is unacceptable to misrepresent my views, as is done in this document by Ellis et al., and to ignore my published technical papers in established journals."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 500 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.

Clearly, the bill in its present form can only serve to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and its research; including writings published in peer reviewed journals. The inclusion of theories that have been exhaustively critiqued in the Journal of 9/11 studies and widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement can only serve to discredit. However, a more credible bill could be conceivably crafted to detail the research of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, as well as inclusion of the unanswered questions by the Family Steering Committee.

This is not the first time that discredited theories widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement have been presented to represent the 9/11 truth movement by association to U.S. government officials. For example, a 2007 press release by attorney Jerry Leaphart discussing a return for correction to NIST explained:

"Prof. Morgan Reynolds, with various evidence, challenges the assumption that large jet planes hit the towers... Dr. Wood, concludes from her study, that some type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings."

Reynolds' document entitled "What Planes?" asserts that video footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center were "simply based on impossible physics, rather like a 'Road Runner' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon". As already mentioned, many of these claims have been exhaustively discredited in the Journal of 9/11 studies, but these authors persist in their promotion of these discrediting claims. James Gourley explains:

"It's called discrediting by association... You've got these people saying that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers at all in their submission... That only discredits the rest of us, regardless of what the real motive behind it is."

What was particularly noteworthy about the NIST return for correction by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds is that it shortly preceded a submission by a "group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members" which challenged official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, with "a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)." When NIST finally replied to this request for correction, they stated that they were "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

This latest article which associates discredited claims with the 9/11 truth movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has the similar function of discrediting by association, regardless of intent.

National Post: '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' and "Conspiracy Theories"

National Post: '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' and "Conspiracy Theories"

By Arabesque

I came across an October 20, 2008 article entitled '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' from a link posted by a user at 911blogger.com. In this article, Adrian Humphreys of the National Post writes:

While the 9/11 election scandals were short-lived, soon buried by the stock market meltdown, it served to ignite-- or perhaps reinvigorate -- a cross-country campaign to get 9/11 conspiracy theories on to the Canadian public's agenda. On newspapers' letters pages, on Web sites and in blogs, 9/11 skeptics burst out of the closet and urged others to follow suit, apparently convinced they formed a silenced majority.

I would like to ask the National Post: is it a "conspiracy theory" that not one single person within the FAA, NORAD, FBI, CIA, etc was fired or reprimanded after the events of 9/11? Is it a "conspiracy theory" that those most responsible for preventing the attacks were promoted? It is a "conspiracy theory" that investigations into the 9/11 attacks were blocked by the Bush administration for more than a year, or that evidence was destroyed or is being withheld? National Post, were the 9/11 war games involving hijacked airliners on 9/11 as reported by credible news sources a "conspiracy theory"? Shouldn't this information be something that the National Post should be educating their readers about? Is it also a "conspiracy theory" that NORAD intercepts aircraft hundreds of times a year, but on 9/11 we are told... well actually we were told three contradictory stories by NORAD! So when NORAD tells us three contradictory stories in an attempt to explain why they couldn't intercept any planes on 9/11, is that a "conspiracy theory" too? Senator Mark Dayton said in testimony during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that NORAD officials "lied".



Clearly, we can dismiss this without examination as simply another one of those "conspiracy theories". Members of the 9/11 Commission told the Washington Post that, "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." Of course we know that instead, key officials were promoted and never charged. Clearly, it was just some of those nutty conspiracy theorists in the 9/11 commission.

Please tell me National Post: is it also a "conspiracy theory" that the Family Member Steering Committee got 30% out of hundreds questions answered by the 9/11 Commission?

The "esteemed" mainstream media continuously fails to report on any of these facts in any serious way; instead producing a copious number of vapid and insulting (to our intelligence) attack pieces that ridicule fringe claims while ignoring any serious and unanswered questions about 9/11, such as questions from the family members which never got answered. The bankrupt use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" clearly indicates bias and lack of honest examination into the facts of 9/11. In retrospect, the embarrassing and shameful coverage of 9/11 by the mainstream media will be judged harshly by history.

9/11 Disinformation: NORAD "only" defended U.S. airspace from "outside threats"

9/11 Disinformation: NORAD "only" defended U.S. airspace from "outside threats"

By Arabesque

Why did NORAD fail to intercept any planes on 9/11? There have been many explanations, but one is that "Norad's radars were spread around the periphery of the U.S., looking outward for potential invaders," claimed a 2002 Aviation Week article.

This false claim has since been spread by defenders of the official story to explain why NORAD failed to intercept any planes on 9/11. For example, Jefferson Flanders defending the 9/11 official story repeats the false claim:

"To the question of our air defenses, U.S. air defenses were faced outwards. We were not looking for internal threats. There was no direct link between our FAA and the military. They had to pick up a phone and call. I think we need to remember the pre-9/11 environment."

During a U.K. 9/11 Debate, Nick Pope also repeated the false claim that:

"There were clearly failures... none of this makes it an inside job... this was a totally new threat. All the training manuals, all the mindset of all the air traffic controllers, the officials was configured on a threat from outside. This was new to them. It was beyond their experience and some parts of the system didn't work."

Similarly, Popular Mechanics repeats the false claim that:

"...NORAD's sophisticated radar... ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

The claim that NORAD only was only prepared to reasonably defend against "outside threats" was repeated by General Richard Myers who said to the 9/11 commission:

"...we were directed to posture, looking outward, those were the orders that NORAD had, and it's had for, ever since the end of the Soviet Union when we had, at that time... So we were clearly looking outward. We did not have the situational awareness inward because we did not have the radar coverage."

But this claim is disinformation. In fact, in the very same interview with Richard Myers quoted above, Jamie Gorelick, a 9/11 commissioner debunked the claim:

"General Myers, if you listened to the Staff Statement this morning, I think that the question that has to be on the minds of the American people is, where was our military when it should have been defending us, and I think that is a fair question from a layman's point of view. And the response of NORAD, which you used to command, and which General Eberhart now commands, is that NORAD was not postured to defend us domestically unless someone was coming at us from abroad, and that has lots of implications. It has implications for where our fighters were to dispatch, how much we cared about the internal radars which didn't function particularly well, which you were, at NORAD, dependent on. It had implications for whether you can communicate with your fighter pilots when they're up in the air in the interior of the country. It has implications for how you quickly get authorities to the pilots. And so I want to explore very briefly this question with you, because for years the Department of Defense did, in fact, resist having a domestic mission. And, with all due respect, said this was a law enforcement function, we do not have a domestic role. It was very uncomfortable with that role, and I think it's important to address that. That's why I come back to this word posture, we were postured against an external threat. In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job."

As Dean Jackson confirms, the claim that NORAD was "directed to posture... looking outward" is "[Utterly] false.... NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked to monitor and intercept aircraft flying over American and Canadian air space seven days a week, 24 hours a day." A CNN article confims that NORAD, "is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders." Michael Ruppert explains in his book Crossing the Rubicon that "NORAD radar INCLUDES all FAA civil radar in the country and has added passive tracking abilities and the ability to determine altitude. The two systems are and were plugged in together on 9/11."

According to NORAD's own mission statement, the role of NORAD is to defend against both foreign and domestic threats. Interceptions are standard operating procedure occurring hundreds of times a year. As well, NORAD gave three contradictory time lines and key officials most responsible for preventing the 9/11 attacks received promotions. Senator Mark Dayton stated that NORAD officials:

“[Lied] to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”

In summary, the claim that NORAD's posture was against "outward threats" is a clear example of disinformation designed to mislead the public about NORAD's failure to defend the skies on 9/11. It is contradicted by NORAD's own mission statement and by the blatant fact that NORAD regularly intercepted aircraft hundreds of time a year.

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.

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.

Kevin Barrett: "Not a single Israeli was killed" in the World Trade Center on 9/11

Kevin Barrett: "Not a single Israeli was killed" in the World Trade Center on 9/11

By Arabesque

Shortly before Kevin Barrett was banned from 911blogger.com, he made the following statement on April 17, 2008:

One of the "very good" things about 9/11, from an Israeli perspective, was the miracle of the Twin Towers. Somehow all the Israelis just didn't happen to be there that day. The vile rumor that "no Jews died in the Towers" was probably spread by Mossad as a pre-emptive strike against people noticing that no ISRAELIS died in the Towers. This is what Ahmadinejad should be harping on!

It is an amazing fact that citizens of more than 100 nations died in the Twin Towers, but not a single Israeli was killed, despite the well-known heavy presence of Israelis in the World Trade Center. China lost 20 people, Columbia lost 18, the Dominican Republic lost 25, India lost 34, Ecuador and Italy both lost 13, the Phillipines lost 16, Japan and Jamaica both lost 21, Trinidad and Tobago lost 15, the UK lost 68, and indeed the majority of nations on earth lost people in the World Trade Center... and Israel lost exactly ZERO, zilch, nada... While the USA lost 2,464 people.

After posting this false information, 911blogger.com administrator Reprehensor saved a copy of the post after deleting it from 911blogger.com, saying:

Removed Kevin's comment... the comments associated with the original comment are gone too. The comment that "no Israelis" died at the WTC is just plain wrong. (I saved a text file if anyone needs their comments sent to them)...

9/11 blogger loose nuke posted a rebuttal, citing an article that listed the deaths of 5 Israeli citizens on 9/11:

President Moshe Katsav, US Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert, the families of five Israelis killed on September 11, and others gathered outside the Israel Museum in Jerusalem yesterday to remember the nearly 3,000 who died in the attacks a year ago.

Greer Fay Cashman, Five Israeli victims remembered in capital, The Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2002.

The US Department of state website cites mainstream media articles which indicate that there were many Jews who died in the 9/11 attacks:

Shortly after September 11, 2001, false rumors began to circulate claiming that 4,000 Jews, or 4,000 Israelis, had failed to report for work at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, supposedly because they had been warned to stay away by Israeli secret services, which were allegedly responsible for the attack. The claim is totally false....

Vague conspiracy theories blaming Israel began to appear within 24 hours of the attacks. Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim. According to U.S. embassy reporting, its September 15th edition falsely claimed "four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions."

The 4,000 figure apparently came from an article entitled "Hundreds of Israelis missing in WTC attack" which appeared in the September 12th internet edition of the Jerusalem Post. It stated, "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks." ...

According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%.

This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.