I'm endlessly baffled why so few here post on 911 threads or start their own. I and Jack White are the main posters on 9-11 Truth topics. There used to be others - some were expelled or put on moderation, others just ceased posting. Two person on the Forum are IMO here only to post against 911 Truth topics, but pose as here for other purposes. I don't say that lightly and am willing to offer statistics and proofs, details. They post a response to my 9-11 posts as soon as they see them - sometimes within minutes. They NEVER let one of my posts go unsanswered. Telling, IMO. But why do others not post more. Ron does on occassion - but not often. A few others at rare moments. Do you think Dallas is more important? More interesting? Less dangerous? I once believed in the 911 official myth [for a short few months...until I started to do research. Then the lies fell like the towers did.... I'm curious as to why on such a Forum as this so few post on the 9-11 threads, and less with time. Are there other Forums better suited for such? Tell me. I want to know. I think Dallas is essential, but 911 was a copy-cat op [in different form - same motives - same general entities and goals, IMO]. I' d really like to know - except from you two who will do your obligatory end-every-post on this thread [for which Gratz was eventually removed, I'll remind you...]

More unsupported accusations that once again demonstrate Lemkin's unfitness as a moderator. You say you got evidence Peter? Bring it on!

What's the basis for your asumption that "truthers" are less likely to post than "debunkers"? The was a poll on the topic and even adding 3 votes for the "truthers" who couldn't figure out how to vote only a minority supported the "inside job" theory.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12795

I don't post much on 9/11 because there's really nothing new that hasn't been kicked around (nanothermite, anyone?). There's not that much to work with, when you compare a 600-page paperback official report to the WC 26 volumes, with most of the 9/11 commission background documents locked up in the archives). And there's not much to be done about what's old. The crooks are firmly in control as usual. I have a couple of articles online on 9/11, with sufficient info IMO to demonstrate that there are important questions about 9/11 that need to be answered. What else am I supposed to do? Post repetitive rants? I think I've done my little part. Fact is, I'm pretty fatalistic about America and its sheep of a people. Things were bad enough with the crooks who run this country, but now our "leaders" are hellbent on breaking it financially, burying us in obscene debt from which we can never recover. Their motto might as well be Nikita Khruschev's old warning, "We will bury you." I'm just waiting for my life savings to be wiped out by hyperinflation as the nation continues to go down the tubes, in what amounts to a Project for the New Chinese Century.

Gee, I should have voted for McCain and Sarah! No wait, I haven't voted since 1964, when I got duped into voting for LBJ. Voting in this country would mean something only if the people would vote out every incumbent without exception till things changed, and if we had term limits, depriving the crooks in DC of so much time to build careers of corruption while serving the special interests that feed them. I'm going to stop here before my blood pressure gets any higher.

Peter,

Ron said much of what I wanted to say. You and Jack cover all the pertinent points. I will try to post more often, if for nothing else than to show you my support.

I think it's clear that at least half the people in this country, despite the official blackout from the mainstream media, doubt the official story about what happened on 9/11. This is pretty amazing, considering how politically clueless and brainwashed so much of the population otherwise appears to be.

Much as the big lie about November 22, 1963 bred distrust and cynicism in so many of us, the big lie about 9/11 put the final finishing touches on the simmering American police state. The Cold War was nothing compared to this perpetual "war on terror," in terms of justifying any and all draconian, unconstitutional policies. No matter how many of us object to the misrule and corruption of our leaders, until some men and women from truly outside the system penetrate the halls of power, it will be hard to pass reforms and change anything.

I do appreciate the points you (and Jack) make here, and certainly agree with most everything you say.

Thanks, Don...we appreciate the support of intelligent people!

Jack

Don, Ron, Jack, Much appreciated. If anyone else would like to add a comment, please do. All are appreciated. I agree Ron that we have fewer details and documents to work with than we do with Dallas, but there are enough - more than enough - to keep one busy, I think. I also agree that for many there is a degree of fatigue setting in that they did it once and they did it again [if not again and again and again] - and there was no general outcry for a total change of leadership and governance - only a deep, sad sigh and [for many] resignation that America has been 'lost' and it was only a matter of time and the exact manner.

I'm not so sure we can't make a change. I too am not overly optimistic, but we must try. The internet is our only hope, I see. The MSM is totally controlled and doesn't even let most Americans know three WTC towers fell or that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and even Bush had to admit that. The MSM and the CIA et al., Military and now private 'military' work for the Oligarchy, not the People - in fact against the People - and increasingly so - though they've been doing that for a long time. You know who and you know who would like us to believe that coincidence can explain 911, as it can Dallas - and all is right as rain in the USA and World and we should trust authority and go back to sleep....back to sheep. 

Personally, I believe either Dallas or 911 can be used as 'a fulcrum and lever' to pry open the mostly closed American minds - to show they what magic shows, lies, propaganda, control and trickle-up [socialism for the rich; free-market capitalism for the rest of us] tricks, etc. we've been subjected to; and all the criminal actions we have perpetrated to assure the rule of the elites at the expense of the average person in the US and even more so - especially in the past - outside of it.

Dallas makes a clearer/cleaner picture in some ways...after all the time and evidence; but 911 also is clearly nothing but a Big Lie Magic Show,IMO, and is more recent and was much wider attack -both on persons and constitutional democracy. As Don points-out it didn't fool most Americans, despite the density of most to things historic and political. Most are still numb and confused and I admit it infuriates me there are persons with enough gall to come on this Forum and try to further numb and confuse them about what happened - but then we have persons here still doing that on Dallas too. 

I think we still have a chance to turn this all around, but not by inaction or silence.

...but time is certainly getting slim...on the economic and environmental fronts alone, as well as the political moves toward police-state. All the brances of government are the best Big money can buy and the MSM is owned outright. But we have the internet and we have the truth - and look what is at stake - everything - everyone - the future and even knowledge of the past. For the children and for what is right.....don't give up. Look at the Margret Mead quote in my signiture ["Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."]. Its true!!!! - it is also true that most of the evil has only be caused by a small determined group [the Oligarchy]. Our future [and of all humanity] will be decided by which group prevails. We can't win if we don't enter the fray and fight!! As I've said we have the truth on our side - as we know in our hearts and minds. They have only greed, lies, mythology, power, and their praetorian guards.

As for the 911 threads on the Forum, never once have I made a post [or Jack, for that matter] that wasn't immediately followed by a debunk by you know who and you know who - often within minutes - but without fail. If more of you who believe in 9-11 truth would post on those threads as well, or at least tell you know who and you know who to cut it out with the endless reflexive debunks and attempts to kill the messenger when they can't the message; they just might [quite a few LNs have abandoned this ship] - and more watching from outside [non-members] might have some perspective that this forum is not so evenly divided on the issue, and aware that some are [IMO] trying to stifle/bury information with more of the official propaganda - not expose and enhance it with citizen researcher truth - [as in the Dallas matter - as in 9-11]. In choosing a side on these, I feel one is choosing sides on the ultimate meaning, fate, and morality of human civilization. Nothing less. These events are only the more visible part of the Secret Government/Oligarchy 'iceberg'. Some choose not to look, and instead re-arrange the deck chairs on the 'Titanic' Gaia, while we all head straight for 'it'. Some point toward the back of the ship at the dolphins or wake, trying to distract anyone from looking at what is coming [and thinking about what horrors have already come!]

When it comes to 9/11 truthers there are no intelligent people....just more slaves to a very warped worldview.

No one was expelled from this forum.

I might just as well ask why, when in the past i have started threads on The Falklands, The British Miners strike and Kent state, topics that I believe have a much more demonstrable conspiracy element than 911, virtually nobody bothered to respond. Just wasn't their cup of tea I suppose.

Depends on what you mean by “doubt the official story" the most recent applicable poll I know of was a 2007 Zogby poll sponsered by “truthers”. It indicated that only 4.6% of likely voters supported the MIHOP theory while 26.4 supported LIHOP (total “truthers” 31%), 63.6% said “oficial story” and 5.4% had no opinion. Despite your association of accepting the official story with ignorance, the opposite is true is was supported by 36.9% of those who hadn’t completed high school, 48.8% of those who had but didn’t go to college, 61.8% of those who didn’t finish college and 72.1% of college graduates, there was a corresponding drop in support of the MIHOP and LIHOP theories with educational level. People with passports were less likely to support MINOP or LIHOP indicating that familiarity with the rest of the world decreeses your likelihood to believe them.

http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf ed. level pg. 5 passport pg 7

Despite being asked a leading question:

Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that the nation needs a new independent investigation of the attacks, including whether any US government
officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is
absurd. Who are you more likely to agree with?

Only 36.7% of respondents to the same poll said they thought there should be a “new investigation” while 56.8% said they were “thoroughly investigated” Obviously a more neutral wording would have resulted in less people giving the response truthers wanted and once again support of their position dropped with educational level and holding a passport.

Idid pages 15 & 17

Despite asking another leading question:

In October 2006, a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of Americans believe they have been told the whole truth about this administration's foreknowledge of
the September 11 attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events, do you agree or disagree that the Congress should investigate the executive branch's conduct prior
to, during and following the September 11 attacks?

Only 50.7% of respondants agreed. Though less pronounced once again support dropped with educational level and passport ownership. There was an overlap of more than 14% with people who backed the official story, thus approximatte that percentage of “likely voters” believe OBL/AQ carried out 9/11 without the knowledge or aquience of the government but have doubts over issues like intelligence failures

Pgs 9 & 11

As we’ve come to expect Peter simply doesn’t have his facts straight, just in the 1st 4 of the 111 pages of this forum’s index there are about 26 9/11 threads in 11 of them Peter. or Terry Mauro were the last person to post, When Peter wrote his post truthers were the last people to have responded to two others (this one and the one w/the poll). Thus “truthers” had the last word in half the threads despite as the poll indicated they are less than half the people who participate in this part of the forum. I just as accurately say that nearly every post by a “debunker” is quickly followed up by a “truther”, normally Peter, normally spam.

The threads were truthers as of now have had the last word are:

1] Pinned: IMPORTANT NOTICE - 9/11 THREADS
Reorganisation

2] Loss Of US Civil Liberties Timeline Since 9-11-01

3] Timeline of Events On 9-11 Moment by Moment

4] If You Work For Peace, Justice, Against Corporate Abuse
Reject Propaganda On 911 Etc. You're Likely Being Spied Upon

5] Best Single Book On 9-11 Available Now Online
Hidden History Of 9-11 Edited by Zarembka

6] Outside Of The USA Official Version Of 9-11 Mostly A Joke

7] 911 Cover Blown

8] Ptech, 9-11, Cyberterrorism & Official Silence On Connections

9] British MPs May Even Get To Hear and Debate 911

10] New Problematic Witness For The Official Version Of 9/11

11] Hidden HIstory Of 9/11 - Book & Interview w/Editor

I'm not one for being pedantic about posts...however

The quote from Peter Lemkins post (above) has little bearing on the response. Peter's assertion that when he or Jack post a new 911 topic, the immediate response is from Len and Evan (if I read the subtelty and identity hints in Peter's post correctly) is indeed far more correct than not, from a quick review of 911 posts in the first 2 pages of the forum.

The reply (quoted above) deals with the notion of 'having the last word' and is evidenced by the painstaking research and results presented as the core filler in reply - none of which is indicated in the quoted portion of Peter's post,

The reply then conflates this 'last word' element with a specific one line reference to and criticism of the 'immediate follow up' posts (the core essence of the quote from Peter). I can't accept that this legitimises either the use of the quote from Peter or the response, as a whole.

Sharp practice, selective quoting, simple human error, wrong quote selected etc. are a few perfectly acceptable reasons for this to occur. The veracity of the presented argument and attendant criticisms within the response, however, should lead one to be more careful, considerate and diligent in reply, lest they want their posts viewed as dishonourable.

edit:formatting

I fail to grasp the substance of your post here, either of you. In fact, LC is IMO such a flagrant provocateur and specifically targeted at me, I have him on ignore and can't see most of what he posts in 'response'. Sometimes I do see when others quote him. He has refused to respond to many important and I think substantive allegations about a family member deeply involved in a conspiracy - that would have relevance to why he posts what he posts IMO; targets posters and 911 witnesses for character assassination, when the facts can't be, and has been to my satisfaction shown to be a composit [not one person posting, although I do believe LC likely posts them, whereas others compose/contribute parts and feed him information and urls etc.]. On a few occassions, rather than add tat for every tit of my or Jack's posts on 911, he self-styles his own obverse-of-the-inverse versions. Usually few, if any posts are garnerned in response. Very telling, and the reason why he resorts to his making sure he is at the bottom of every of my threads - something I'll remind everyone JS found annoying and pernicious enough to put Gratz on moderation for. Sadly, JS has no interest in 911, or I think certain persons would long ago have been 'history'. IMO. He has also done certain actions against me off Forum that are beyond the pale IMO. Whether professional or amateur and self-trained, it doesn't matter. Provacateur, IMO, he is - and wants to be - acts as and tries to be - takes pride in. He taunts many, and handles himself in a very provocative manner, only thinly veiled under a gossimer veil of [IMO] mock-civility and 'research'. Few Forum's would tolerate his behavior, which has even caused a large group to leave this Forum; and many who have not stated so on posts, but have told me privately, to stop posting or even reading it. Sad.

To the one point of your post Gary I do understand, I read and vet and research and heartily believe in all the 911-related posts I post. Each reader will have to evaluate them v. the official versioners for themselves. As I've pointed out many times methinks they [the official versioners] doth protesteth too much....giving themselves away, IMO. For, if we are wrong, we are just delusional - so why all the energy expended?; But if they are wrong......and we are correct.....[as with Dallas] we've had another coup and America is not America, and there is no Constitutional/legal basis for the current 'polity', nor any legitimate branches of government, etc......and past is prelude!

Lemkin tells a GLARING untruth about Len Colby:

QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Aug 4 2009, 08:35 PM)

Very telling, and the reason why he resorts to his making sure he is at the bottom of every of my threads - something I'll remind everyone JS found annoying and pernicious enough to put Gratz on moderation for.

A review of the last 15 pages of posts show us Lemkin started 57 threads and he had the LAST post in 27 threads.

Of those 57 thread, Colby had the last post 14 times.

Burton had the last post 5 times.

Others shared the last post 10 times.

Clearly Lemkin has told a WHOPPER of an untruth. "EVERY ONE" of his threads? ROFLMAO!

OK, I've re-read my post above and agree it's borderline gibberish where a decent enough point has been lost. I've submitted an application for a course in writing plain English to my employer. Anyway, allow me to explain...

Peter's assertion that when he or Jack post a new 911 topic, the immediate response is from Len and Evan is far more correct than not, from a quick review of 911 posts in the first 2 pages of the forum. In these 12 or so topics where the first post is by Peter/Jack the response is, in a vast majority of occasions, by Len/Evan. Exactly as Peter states.

Why, then, does Len use a quote from Peter, which is for all intents and purposes, a factual statement - and subsequently begin his reply with "As we’ve come to expect Peter simply doesn’t have his facts straight"?

Len then produces evidence for a completely different assertion. There is probably some fancy latin term for this.

The crux of why I posted. I simply didn't like the eagerness to impugn Peter when Len hadn't the good grace to diligently review his post, assuring its correctness, in terms of context, of attributable quotes etc., lest one could come away with the impression, the intention was purely to attack Peter for the sake of it and to create circumstances which didn't exist, as a pretext.

I give Len the benefit of the doubt - it might just as easy be sharp practice as it could be simple human error ...for Peter does mention the 'last word' issue a fair bit in previous posts. I could accept that Len simply used the wrong portion of Peter's post to quote from.

I hope this makes a little more sense now.

The problem is LEMKIN simply CAN'T tell the truth.

He says:

"They NEVER let one of my posts go unsanswered."

In the first 10 pages of posts there are 15 threads that were started by LEMKIN that whet unanswered.

It's quite clear if LEMKIN says it, there is a pretty good chance it might not be true!

There is a word that is not allowed to be used here, and thats really too bad because it fits LEMKIN to a tee.

(my bolding)

I'm getting close to an area where I might intrude upon rules here, but this comment provokes me to ask: Peter in your... let's say 10 posts on the subject of 9/11, did you actually research the facts on the claims made in the various posts you made? It would appear that you have found a website, read some of the claims, found you agree with them / find them persuasive, and subsequently post the content, the link, or both in a post.

How is that different from what Len has done? He has found pages that support his arguments, or contradict what others say, and he uses them.

How can you possibly say OTHERS have 'fed' him this information? How would you know?

How can you possibly say OTHERS have composed part of his posts (except the areas which are quotes, of course)? How would you know?

Can you say you have NEVER posted a quote / URL / etc that someone else drew your attention to? That you yourself did not independently find?

I think your quote above is at best a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

Many here seem to acknowledge that the 9/11 Report was a myth, just as the WCR was, but then disagree on what actually occurred. Since there is not much evidence available it is difficult to come to some sort of consensus on what actually happened.

Ironically, what we know but may not be perceiving as such, is that W sat and read a book on goats to students and abrogated his responsibilities as Commander in Chief of our armed forces until at least after the second plane hit the WTC. Then he took off in AF1 and flew around the country, virtually abandoning the citizens he swore to protect, and turned the govt over to Cheney. Of course, he was not brought up on charges for doing this and impeachment was not even suggested. That this behavior was not unacceptable and/or treasonous is the most important lie the 9/11 report is designed to enable.

So perhaps what is needed here is a book or article comparable to the early works of the WCR critics, such as RUSH TO JUDGMENT, which would cause everyone to join together to combat the myth of the 9/11 report.

You have not looked. Reynolds, Tarpley, Fetzer, Griffin, many others. Google any of these and add 911.

Jack

I think we just have a basic philosophical difference here. Some of us have grown to distrust those who run government agencies like the CIA and FBI. Speaking only for myself, I don't have any confidence in any of our political leaders (with the possible exception of Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney, who are both marginalized and hardly in positions of true power). Because we are certain the government and the mainstream media lied relentlessly about the assassination of a sitting president of the US in 1963, we don't believe it is beyond them to lie about anything, including the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Others here, and elsewhere in our society, have an instinctive distrust of "conspiracy theories" and tend to believe that, while some politicians are corrupt, our institutions are generally run by people who would never conspire to commit crimes against their fellow citizens. It's an easy stretch for them to chuckle at us, call us "nuts" or "wackos," claim we all wear "tin foil hats" or are looking for "black helicopters," and all we can do is retaliate by insinuating they are agents of disinformation.

The reason I don't get into extended debates about subjects like 9/11 or the moon landings is because it just turns into an endless battle of sources; I can state how impressed I am by the research of some truther and Len, Evan or Craig will counter with some official "facts" from some official source, in government or the mainstream media. Since I don't trust the government or the mainstream media (and I think Jack, Peter and others don't either), we are not likely to be persuaded by the "facts" that purport to "debunk" the claims of truthers.

Putting it as simply as possible; we have spent zillions of dollars over the decades on national defense. One would think that, in the unlikely event of someone attempting to attack the heart of that national defense system (the Pentagon), we would have something set in place to repel that attack. Especially if there were other, obviously related attacks that happened first and thus served plenty of notice that we were under attack. It is just simply not believable that our monstrous defense system didn't even attempt to defend its epicenter. Of course, it is also not believable that, with the kind of security that exists throughout the Pentagon, there was nothing videotaped of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I'm sorry, that's just too ridiculous to even discuss. I have lived in the Washington, D.C. area all my life, and have known many, many people who worked at the Pentagon (and coached soccer in the same league with one who lost his life there on 9/11). Everyone I've talked to about this has verified that there are security cameras everywhere at the Pentagon, as one would expect. There is no question that, whatever hit the Pentagon was recorded on tape, probably from several angles. Any "facts" Len or anyone else can produce cannot counter that. With all the claims that truthers have made about the plane being too big for the entrance hole in the building, there is no way that the government wouldn't relish releasing clear film of said plane making impact. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes about what really happened there.

As for the World Trade Center attacks, again we can have never ending debates about the temperature steel will melt at, the obvious similiarity between the collapse of the twin towers and your average controlled demolition, but we aren't likely to change each other's minds. Again, speaking only for myself, I could not believe then, and cannot believe now, that an airplane brought down those mammoth buildings. It's that simple. You can quote the FBI, or Popular Mechanics, or Mythbusters, until you're blue in the face, but remember- we don't trust what the government has to say about this because we believe they were involved. Is that hard to understand? We also don't trust what any organ of the establishment press reports about it, because we think they're a mouthpiece for that corrupt government, and not an independent media voice.

Until we have some uncontrolled representatives in Congress, who don't come from the wealthiest 20% of our population, and thus benefit tremendously from the present corrupt system, then we will have trouble accomplishing much of anything, including exposing the truth about 9/11 of any other political event. I'd love to feel otherwise, but it's very hard to be a political optimist.

I'd agree that being a political optimist - or optimist about the fate of humanity at all, at this point, is not easy....but I believe we must give it all we've got and say we tried our best. Pointing out [as you do well above] some of the utter absurdities of the events of 911 is IMO one of the best places to start. As I've mentioned, I have LC on 'ignore' so don't see most of his posts and thus can't and wouldn't bother for the most part to try to battle with him on sources. He quotes the government and the governmental defenders; those that try to denegrate any whistleblower or witness that doesn't fit the scenario [prepared IMO before the attacks and modified only slightly by events]. What I do is mostly provide information and a logical look at the events [as I think Jack does in his own pictorial way] for those who've not examined this matter closely; don't know what to think (though they smell a rat in the official version); often dare not 'go there' - as the implications are SO IMMENSE - more so than Dallas, perhaps and they are HUGE! On occassion - to counter Evan - I have engaged people on both sides in detailed discussion and debate on individual issues involved, whether it be the anti-aircraft protection that didn't respond at the Pentagon; the failure for the government to show us the images or the wreckage of any of the planes (sic) and their serial numbered parts; the debris and the planted debris and 'evidence'; the removal of the steel; the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC buildings and explosions in more than 3 of them; the timely coincidence of the drills - that took needed assets far away; put confusing false blips on radar, AND mimicked the actual events [ditto 7/7]; the nanothermite residue - both exploded and not; the freefall speeds of the buildings and excess energy that physics says the official version cannot exist in this Universe, etc.


They counter with official pronouncments; cooked-investigations; and coincidence upon coincidence. It had to happen they way they said...it just had to. Just like Dallas and Tonkin and Savings and Loan and the current Bankster heist, just like all the lies on Chile and Iran '53...and I could go on for 1000 more. The government is not one of the People - it and its institutions are of the Elite few and the propaganda and mythology are used to fool some people into believing their vote and input count...not much. It is one dollar one vote - not one person one vote - at best. We've been a conquered nation IMO since 11/22/63 and nothing has changed that - in fact only made that more so - 9/11/01 was to me an almost final death blow to American democracy and polity as a Republic. It is an Oligarchy and rapidly becoming an ugly policestate. It is an emergency situation and we must do what we can. We see this website and JS attacked from a CIA asset and I and others have long claimed some of the undermining is also from the inside. Just as they tried to destroy the JFK Assassination critics, they are trying to destroy the 911 critics - for the exact same reasons. I don't suggest a witchunt - only a vigilent awareness and caution. More so to those non-members who watch here without participation. I've even noted a new phenomenon of 'registered members' who I see lurking, but who no longer post - sad - and I wonder what is behind that.

Similar diametrically divergent points of view on Dallas make discussion almost impossible at times. So be it. I actually like to discuss and debate, when someone seems reasonable and open. I admitted that for some time I 'bought' the lies of the offical version of 911. Now, I only believe the day they occured - and even there, I believe many of the the same people [patsies and inside-perpetrators, moles, disinformationists, and others] were involved in the first WTC attack and even in Oklahoma City. This is IMO a well orchestrated and longterm project from WW2 through Dallas through many other events and through 911 and beyond to destroy what little democratic and representative polity we had and put all power into the hands of a few - who's names are known and who's hands can be seen [if you dare to look]. To many this is an outrageous concept and flies in the face of their image of America and their TV newscast. So be it. Such conspiracies have existed before and this one can be documented - and more so with every day. Some are in denial, some are complicit, some are just unwilling to think the unthinkable about the unspeakable. Personally, I was destroyed and nearly didn't survive in America at a certain time for working on things related to this. People can tell me I'm crazy, but that voice that called every night at about 1:30 am was not my imagination - nor my landlord's admission in court that he had bugged my phone - and a lot of other things I'd rather not list here, now or ever. 

I'm going to fight because it is the right thing to do, I feel it my duty [knowledge implies responsibility], and I refuse to see my species destroyed by the selfish and brutish few. We may not prevail, but we must fight as best we can. The other side often to usually uses dirty tricks and has most of the levers of power. But, I believe it is possible to prevail and am personally determined to do so - no matter what the costs - and I know, believe me I know, what they can be! We each have a moral choice and a personal choice of commitment and how much of our time, energy and resources we put into that commitment. It is nothing less than the battle, IMO between good [altrusism/truth] and evil [greed/lies]; some on the evil side are themselves victims of the propaganda and must be considered as potential allies. Most of the whistleblowers, who certain here try to denegrate at every turn, prove my point exactly. Best to target the entities and powerstructures and not the individuals, though it is sometimes hard when they are trying to denegrate one on a Forum such as this. I have learned much here on this Forum. I've disagreed with much on this Forum. I even understand why some of my friends left and formed another Forum. There are enlightened/informed and very wise word-weavers here and foul-mouthed knownothing fools Most are just interested souls. The project is not complete and the battle or revolution not yet won. I say carry-on and ignore where needed, and where possible thwart, those who would/will try to defeat us. Don't give up and don't be silent. The internet is just about the only media not under the control of the forces who seek to make us all serfs again.

Don, but it isn't that strange. Firstly, it would be expenditure against an arguably unlikely threat. People complain about defence expenditure and providing a level of security which, some would have argued, is unnecessary, would have been hard to justify. It's still hard to justify. Think about the multitude of complaints from people with respect to airport security, a measure taken to specifically negate a threat which was shown to be real.

Next, could I share with you an Australian example. Over the last couple of days the papers have been full of the reports of the arrest of numerous people who were accused of plotting a jihad-type suicide attack against one of our Army bases. A base that housed a Blackhawk squadron, specifically trained in counter-terrorist ops. What gate security was there? Civilian security guards, unarmed. Why? Money. We do not have the personnel to be spared for gate guard duties. We cannot afford to have more civilian security guards maintaining a perimeter, and the public generally dislikes the idea of those security guards being armed. If they were armed, what do you think they would be armed with? Probably .38 pistols or 9mm pistols. Certainly not automatic weapons.

Yet if there had been a successful attack against this base, how many people would claim it 'absurd' that such a base had that level of protection?

I think too many people put spin on what was not an unusual situation.



Can you provide any document, diagramme, etc, that shows us where all these cameras were? Anyone who can proved they worked at the Pentagon and claims that there were cameras other than what we have been told? Any installers who put these other cameras in? reports or photographs of these cameras being removed just prior to, or after the attack?

Don, what you are doing is speculating. Nothing wrong with that but without supporting evidence it carries no weight at all.

Evan,

You're right- I am speculating. That's really all any of us can do, unless we were either part of the plot or actually on the airplanes that day. However, I think it's reasoned speculation, based on what my intellect tells me. I don't know about Australia, but in America there are security cameras throughout almost every work place. This has greatly increased, of course, since 9/11, but there is no place in the country (outside perhaps, of CIA headquarters) where there are more security cameras than at the Pentagon. As I said, I've been told this by people who worked there. However, even if I hadn't been told this, it's only logical. It's the heart of the military industrial complex, after all.

I don't quite understand your response to my contention that we had a right to expect our national defense system to respond to an attack, especially when the attack was launched upon its very epicenter. While many taxpayers have complained about the tremendous cost of government, including military spending, that spending was approved nonetheless. So, an unimaginable amount of money was given to the Pentagon over the years, for "defense" purposes. How, then, did the heart of that system (the Pentagon) remain literally defenseless that day, while our leaders knew that hijacked planes had already crashed into the World Trade Center and another was flying unauthorized in Washington, D.C.? Exactly what would it take for them to launch "defense" missiles? I maintain that, if this was a simple case of incredible bureaucratic incompetence, then no more funds should ever be allocated for missile "defense," since those who receive that funding have proven themselves entirely incapable of utilizing it.

Whether it's the JFK assassination, the Apollo program or the events of 9/11, one will often see what one wants to see in photographs, and interpret witness testimony in a way that suits their particular perspective. What followed 9/11 told me that our corrupt leaders were anxious to use this "war on terror" to institute odious measures like the Patriot Act, and create another Orwellian government agency in the department of Homeland Security. Even if I believed there were countless terrorists walking amongst us, it wouldn't be worth giving up what little remains of our civil liberties in order to be "protected" from them.

There is really no way to honestly investigate what happened on 9/11, because any commission created to do so (like the previous one) would be stacked with establishment figures certain to support the official story and just as certain to be fiercely distrusted by truthers. Any Congressional committee would be just as stacked with establishment figures (since almost all members of Congress support all "official" theories about everything) and would not be likely to reasonably consider any question of conspiracy. There is a strong philosophical difference between those, like Jack, Peter, myself and others who distrust our leaders and hold to a "conspiracy" view of history versus those, like you, Len and all mainstream historians, politicians and journalists, who accept the standard, textbook view of history.

I disagree on one point Don. There IS a way to investigate these events. Even the faux-controlled-'investigations' give some clues and show inconsistancies and cover-ups; next we have whistleblowers, photos, a few documents, tapes, witnesses, pieces of evidence. Most importantly, as with Dallas we have independant citizen-researchers willing to do this hard work. I think a fair look at history shows one conspiracy throughout - that only manifests itself differently at different times in different places. That is the conspiracy of the few rich and powerful against all others - to control, use, deceive, and often kill them for their own power and profit. False-flag is a common technique, but not the only one. Control of information and the government always has been. Since the French Revolution and Enlightenment there were certain gains of of the bottom-up variety [as opposed to the top-down], but this has been countered by various means of leading the People to believe they had more voice and control/vote than they actually do. The big rollback came at the end of WW2, IMO, as the American Military and Intelligence never 'stood-down' [Eisenhower even warned us!]....and proceeded to consolidate for their Corporate and Banking/Finance masters the world that Stalin and Hitler, Japan, British Empire, even they themselves wanted before - now all for themselves - its even documented. They never opposed fascism [defined by the coiner of the term as Corporatism] - many loved it - they just didn't like Nazism or Hitler taking more than his share of their pie. Kennedy was enough of a danger to their plans at the end of his short life [read Douglass!] for them to 'off' him in a public execution. 911 was just a big Magic Show to roll-out the Constitutional Rights and Liberties and roll-in the neo-fascist policestate run by the Corporate/Financial elite. It is almost complete now. Those that don't see it or want to see it will soon enough, but likely too late to do anything about it, IMO. What happened in Nazi Germany and how the average person refused to really look at what was happening and work to reverse it is almost a model for what is playing-out now. Reichstag Fire = 9/11; Enabling Acts = Patriot Act; Leibensrum = Middle-Eastern Oil+; International Jewish Threat = International Terrorist Threat; SS/Gestapo = NSA/CIA/FBI/Special Forces/HS, et al....etc. Those who do not learn the lessons of history.....but this will be the FINAL lesson!....on the environmental, political, military, and social levels all at once. IMO

Gary I expect such flawed logic from Peter and Jack but not from you who I have found to normally be quite rational. For a newspaper man you missed the obvious:

1) Peter has repeatedly harped on the “having the last word” and touched on a similar point in the post I was discussing and harped on it again

2) Even more relevantly he claimed that:

“As for the 911 threads on the Forum, never once have I made a post [or Jack, for that matter] that wasn't immediately followed by a debunk by you know who and you know who - often within minutes - but without fail.”

Obviously the last post on a thread wasn't “followed by a debunk” let alone “immediately… often within minutes”. His claim was absolute and reiterated, he said there were no excepts, I easily found over half a dozen just for the last few days Craig found more. There were numerous other posts by Jack and Peter on 9/11 threads that weren’t “immediately followed by a debunk by you know who and you know who - often within minutes” for a recent example I only replied to Peter’s opening post in “Bin Laden Had Close Relationship With US Govt. Until 9/11” over two days after he started the thread. It is more laborious however to find examples which aren´t the terminal posts of threads, which brings us to my 3rd point.

3) My “research” was hardly “painstaking” all I did was count and note down the number of 9/11 threads on the 1st page they copy and paste the ones a “truther” had made the last post on into Word then repeat the process on pages 2 – 4, I don’t think it took much more than 5 minutes if that.

4) Peter’s real problem is that he doesn’t like information which contradicts his pet theories ‘intruding’ on threads here as he made clear when suggested to Evan that “Maybe you and Len should start your own Forum”.

5) He didn’t specify as you did replies to initial posts on new threads but even then he’s wrong. Many have no replies at all, some only were replied to after several days others after several hours. You seem to be accepting his premise that there is something untoward about Evan, others or I rebutting Jack or him when we disagree with their posts. There are forums that only permit people with a particular view point to post, John has made it clear he doesn’t want this forum to be one. He also asked members to be careful with the accuracy of their posts, something Peter routinely ignores, but I digress.

6) Peter’s complaint is especially absurd because he and Jack aren’t in the least shy about replying to our posts.

In fact, LC is IMO such a flagrant provocateur and specifically targeted at me,

Translation from Lemkinese, “Len flagrantly provokes me by correcting me when I’m wrong”. There is a word for people who think people are out to get them.

Peter if you care to cite any occasions when I’ve personally attacked you, not in response to an attack on me go ahead.



BS you’ve recently replied to posts I made that no one else quoted.



Despite the fact that what my father did is irrelevant to the issues I post about here I have replied to questions raised. No one has shown that he was involved in any conspiracies.



When have I ever targeted a poster here “for character assassination”? I find many (most) of the “witnesses” truthers cite to be not credible; some are crazy, some are liars some don’t have the relevant expertise to reach the conclusions they do, many are some combination of the above, nothing wrong with me saying so since I back up my claims. Lear IS a nut and ISN’T certified to fly any EFIS jetliners, Rodriguez HAS repeatedly contradicted himself, Stubblebine admits he tried to walk through walls and stare goats to death.

And speaking of character you on the otherhand don’t shy away from accusing people of complicity in mass murder on the flimsiest of evidence. I'm not just talking about people from PNAC and the government but the employees of construction and maintainence companies



Exemplary of the thought processes that got you elected most paranoid member of a CT forum both years the award was given.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11967
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11739

On a few occassions, rather than add tat for every tit of my or Jack's posts on 911, he self-styles his own obverse-of-the-inverse versions. Usually few, if any posts are garnerned in response. Very telling…

The list of the threads I started totals 3 pages only 3 (threads) got no replies and one of those I intentionally started on the least active part of the forum. It true that many of my post don’t get replies and I agree that it’s “very telling”. This normally happens when I ask Jack or you to produce evidence in support of your claims.


Sadly, JS has no interest in 911, or I think certain persons would long ago have been 'history'.

Ironic coming from a member who missed being put on moderation by 1 vote on several occasions for repeatedly making personal attacks against other members including calling them “brown shirt” and “capo”.

He has also done certain actions against me off Forum that are beyond the pale IMO.

To Peter verifying his claims = “actions against (him) that are beyond the pale”

He taunts many, and handles himself in a very provocative manner,

Translation from Lemkinese “He asks people he disagrees with to substantiate their claims”

Care to cite any examples Peter? (There I go again, “taunting” and “provoking” him.

*

And yet, HERE YOU ARE, posting a reply to one of Len Colby's posts....simply amazing...do you ever tell the truth?

You are unfit to be a moderator!

Have any of these people been able to create the cohesiveness in the dissenters that occurred after the WCR came out? With the WCR it seems to have been simpler in that the claim that LHO acted alone was simply unlikely, if not impossible. In the case of 9/11, there seems to be a need to unify around a central issue that everyone can not only agree to but be passionate about.

This is epitomized by the behavior of the head of that system, the Secretary of Defense, who simply sat in his office, following daily routine, after both towers were hit. Some of his subordinates such as Victoria Clarke at least had the basic human curiosity to walk down to the "war room" to find out exactly what was happening or what was known. How did Rumsfeld get away with this in-your-face "negligence"? How did he keep his job? Why did the media or anyone else not demand to know the reason for his seemingly brain-dead behavior? I think it was because the answer was too obvious, when coupled with the equally inexplicable behavior of the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, holed up in a meeting with a senator on Capitol Hill and not even informed, so he claimed, that America was under attack. Who on his staff failed to inform him? How did such a person keep his job? And the Acting Chairman passed confirmation as Chairman only a few days later, after lying to the faces of the committee members about the lack of response to the attacks. Only Bush had an excuse for his inaction, reading his pet goat story after being informed that America was under attack. The excuse is, I don't think conspirators would trust anyone as stupid as Bush with foreknowledge of the attacks. But the behavior of Rumsfeld and Myers during the attacks speaks volumes about what was going on, i.e. high-level government complicity in the attacks, whether LIHOP or MIHOP, with those complicit held totally unaccountable for their mind-boggling "incompetent" behavior.

If such behavior can in some conceivable way be justified, I'm sure that Evan or Len will promptly do it. (The usual non-answer I've heard on this: "There's nothing they could have done.")

Pamela, I agree with Jack. Look at some of these books and I could name a few more - I'm very impressed with The Hidden History of 9-11 edited by Zarembka, but the others and that of Peter Dale Scott and Griffin as well - and more. 9-11 was in some ways more complex, but in some ways just a mirror-image magic show [on a larger scale] as Dallas. Same stand-down; same faux-investigations; same witholding or destruction of evidence; now even threatening or killing witnesses and so forth. Just as those who believe there was a conspiracy in Dallas, those who don't for a second buy the fairy tale of 9-11 have differences - some genuine and some [IMO] created by the very masters of the Big Lie and Mockingbird, etc. - and they play us off one another on this forum and out in cyberspace, as is their way. We can all get past a few things we might differ on and agree on a few points. It was LIHOP or MIHOP and the 19 terrorists [so-called] were the patsies - and like our Dallas patsy had intel connections and training. The WTC towers didn't fall due to the planes and it looks as if now what happened is slowly falling into place. Some [like in Dallas] had preknowledge and some made a bundle of money on the event and what was to follow. Qui buono? The MIC and the Bankers, Investers, Hawks, Oil Men [hmmmm...like Dallas again], etc. Read some of those books. The first WTC bombing was a practice run, IMO and involved many of the same elements. OBL was one of ours - as were his 'boys' and they were paid by the ISI [Pakistani Intel] which is ours. Same Op, different day and scenario......Same coup d'etat encore un fois!

Hi Len,

I stand by my interpretations and remain convinced the logic used is and was sound. I've no interest in debating the semantics or other nuances of language which support your assertions, this is not to say they are wholly without merit...merely to say I've no interest in the deabte. I hope you understand.

The 'painstaking research' bit was tongue in cheek, as I suspect you knew.

My reason for this reply is to say that I absolutely do not believe there is anything untoward in Evan or others rebutting Jack, Peter or anyone else. I don't have to justify myself in this regard and, so, won't. I, also, agree with the values John attempts to attribute to the forums, and again, I suspect you know this.

Take Care

Gary

You beat me to it Craig, I’m thinking of nicknaming him “Tommy” due to his ability to react to posts he can’t see. If true it might well be the biggest miracle since the immaculate conception!

He has repeatedly claimed over the years to have me on ignore and only be able to see my posts when quoted by others but he regularly responds to my “unquoted” posts. Reminds me of suspects in cop shows further implicating themselves by talking about details of the crime only the perpetrator would know.

Seemingly either he

• Puts me on and off ignore
• Logs in and out OR
• Reads the forum with different browsers or computers

In any case his assertion is clearly false.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Stephen I just dont see the comparison between911 and the minor things you mentioned: 911 has BEEN THE excuse for the creation of technocratic facism here three wars not one single body killed by an american soldier on us tv in eight years: nsa in everyother Senators phone ,how would we know; eradication of even frigin magna charta in favor of a corpse named Harry Reid; expansion of intelligence to beyond east pale; expansion or military up bunghole of space ALL EXCUSED BY THE deliberately amorphous war on terror; then when it comes to an investigation EVEN THE FRIGGIN NYT REPORTER PHILLIP P LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE WHOLE FAKE INVESTIGATION RUN OUR OF THE WHITEHOUSE.

I think it IS a reasonable request to ask of those who have written so very very very very very much about the fake JFK investigation to humble themsemves with just dabble of an explanation as to why they think it is entirely unremarkable that Bill Clintons 1 friend got a 60_100 million dollar investigation, while the cause of what any barely conscious animal currently living in the US MUST CALL TECHNOCHRATIC FACISM. and that stated cause is 911 NO WAY ROUND IT. RECEIVES NO INVESTIGATION AT ALL

Steven was the British Minors Strike used as the pretext of three international wars Was it used to shred judicial process for an entire country: I know for a fact that I cannot stand in Union Square and have a political speak out without it being broken up by cops and I KNOW UNEQUIV THAT ITS BECAUSE OF 911 AND THE EXCUSE FOR FACISM THAT IT BECAME WHEN IT PASSED ENTIRELY WITHOUT INVESTIGATION Go back and look at your comparison again, now look at the bodies in Iraq; are you alloeed to see one or two over there WE ARE NOT Since 911 OUR PRESS HAS HERNIATED ITSELF BENDING OVER AND ONLY EMITS POOLS OF WHITE HOUSE JELLO/ Please reconsider your comparison its actually painfull

by the way am typing on q french keyboard if ,y spelling seems é percent worse thqn usual

John Simkin would like to hear why you think 9 11 investigation is so entirely without merrit.

You may agree with Jack and also miss the point I am making.

Whatever has been published so far about 9/11 has not yet had the ability to unify the dissenters and create momentum. Your post makes my point -- there does not seem to be one central issue that all the dissenters can agree upon as being the most important. Until that happens the response will probably continue to lack cohesiveness.

Well, you either missed my point or choose not to agree with it. This simple: 911 was a false-flag Op, complete with patsies [like Dallas]; run like a magic-show [like Dallas]; with built-in false trails and disinformation/cover-up [like Dallas]; it was a coup d'etat by an elite few [like Dallas]; sham-investigations with intelligence control [like Dallas]; destruction of evidence [like Dallas]; the official version has elements that defy logic and physics [like Dallas]; planted false 'evidence' support the official version [like Dallas]. From there we can [like Dallas] run with it and still argue and refine the small points. As Nathanial points-out above there is an atmosphere of fear caused by the Patriot Act et al that stifles some of the debate and I think others are so heart-broken and broken in spirt that another Dallas was 'allowed' before we put those responsible for the first one in prison - or to acccount, they are despondant. Dare we allow yet another by inaction?! There was much confusion in the JFK research community - much officially sewn - but a few got it nearly on the mark from day one. I think there are those who have done the same with 911. Jack and I have mentioned them. Or choose your own.

Here are some online to read or download:
http://books.google.com/books?id=o9jo_In37...t&resnum=11

http://www.torrentportal.com/details/75723...3+NWO).pdf.html

Hi Nat, err I dont think I was claiming that my examples were as BIG as 911, Just trying to give a reason why some might shy away from the topic. But I think you arer wrong to claim that either The Falklands war, or the Miners strike were minor(pun intended) not so much for the events themselves, but to what they helped usher in, a corruption and duplicity that we still live with today. Sorry for taking this off topic, please carry on.

Let’s see: 1) Afghanistan
2) Iraq
3) ???? – crap did I sleep through one?

Also WMD’s rather than the WoT was never one of the direct justification used by the Bush junta for the war



?????



Any evidence the NSA or any other intel service spied on members of congress



That’s not really what he said only your spin on it





Translation “None of the investigations reached conclusions that conform with my beliefs. Though I agree with you that the Whitewater/Lewinsky was absurdly expensive, costing taxpayers about $ 70 million (only about a quarter of which was spent on Monivagate) the total spent on 9/11 is comparable $15 Million for the 9/11 Commission, $16 million for NIST on thrade center, $ 4 million for the FBI for Penttbom, $ 600,000 FEMA/ASCE (just on the Trade center), plus the money spent by the FAA, NTSB by FEMA and NIST on their Pentagon investigations, by the various congressional committee etc



Any evidence this was due to 9/11? In 2006 you said “I sometimes speak out at Union Square at the Free Speach Speak Out, which has unfortunately been nearly destroyed by the police, although musicians can blather quite democratically while not being bothered at all by the police.” Which makes it sound like the crackdown started about 4 years after the attacks



John is obviously quite able to speak for himself, did he send you a PM or e-mail telling you this or are you psychic?

Nothing yet?

To answer the question the Peter posts, because I haven't seen any alleged facts which convince me that the 9-11 attacks were a US government conspiracy.

I do believe that there has been a governmental cover-up to absolve people of culpability for letting the attacks happen.

Specifically, Sandy Berger didn't risk his career to steal and destroy original notes of his meetings with WJC because they were benign notes. No, people take those kinds of risks because what they are stealing is very problematic to someone.

I similarly don't think that the 9-11 Commission or Congress adequately investigated and reported on the Able Danger program.

Lastly, in the richest tradition of "bi-partisan commissions", the 9-11 Commission did little more than negotiate the manner and extent to which blame for 9-11 would be allocated between the WJC and GWB administrations and make the Commission members insufferable windbags of authority for the talk show circuit(I can't believe people actually watch this nonsense) and for the NYT bestseller list.

SO THEN WHY ARE YOU PRESUMING TO SPEAK FOR HIM?

I might offer an explanation. It's more in regard to the Apollo misconceptions, but equally can apply to 9-11.

My first aim is to try and point out where some people are wrong in their reasoning, or sometimes (as is the case often with some people) just plain wrong.

I'll try to point them in the direction of various sources, get them to investigate matters for themselves, conduct experiments for themselves when able, and speak to experts when they cannot. The ultimate aim is for people to investigate the claims on BOTH sides of an argument, and decide for themselves what is correct.

In some cases people refuse to acknowledge the possibility of an alternative, and so I try to at least show the lurkers the alternative to what has been said. I want people to investigate ALL the information, consult experts where they themselves do not have the expertise to make an evaluation of a claim, and to decide for themselves what is true and what should be disregarded.

Brief tirade clarification.

I meant to write John Simkin coma would like to hear why you think 9 11 investigation is so entirely without merrit

or in other words I want to know.

Hence my last comment to Len would also be a mistake BUT NOT THE OTHERS AND I WOULD LIKE IT IF MODERATORS COULD CONSIDER THE POINTS ADDRESSED ABOUT MODERATION. I think I am a person who has proven through lots and lots of actions that he has best interests of the forum as a whole in mind.

This moderator has read and thought about your words seriously, and considered and expressed similar concerns myself before. I think it would take some support from the Forum members to get most of the more passive moderators to even consider this matter. I'll consider bringing up the ideas if such Forum support is forthcoming - which need slightly more exacting formulation [so as to easily and fairly implement] and even-handed application, of course. They would likely need Administration approval, as well. But thanks for the input on that. Within the current rules, I will do what I can. I agree that some on the Forum do not appear to have the best interests of the Forum in mind - some quite the opposite, and a long pattern of such behavior could be used to document such. I'm sure I'll receive a tirade from a certain sector [as will you] for even breaching this topic. So be it. This Forum is not as active, fewer post and we have lost many important members. This might not be a coincidence. Whatever it is, it is sad, IMO.

Peter I think that the loss of participation in especially this section of the forum is by no means a coincidence. I for one have entirely stopped looking at this section until yesterday. Just thicket of bickering and name calling, and to many of the people who once carried threads forward AS OPPOSED TO COMMENTING WITH FINALITY THAT THE INITIAL POST WAS INHERENTLY RIDICULOUS AS IF THE MATTER WAS ENTIRELY CLOSED have left.

If moderators have judged that loss to be the natral exfoliation of a living organism, I can only wonder how many cells are left of such a being.

The problem is Peter Lemkin is the 09/11 bully.

Peter how many times have you seen this tactic used in public discourse

EXAMPLE "well Bill Maher speaks his mind on ANYTHING, nothing reigns him in and if EVEN HE thinks that 9 11
folk are wingnuts then IT MUST BE SO...


Point not about Maher just using an example of a rhetorical technique used in media psyops.


Well along those lines, might there be an attempt to divide on the other side of the soccar ball so to speak. By this I mean cultivate an audience that is YES on for example JFK but among this potentially very important strategic BRIDGE AUDIENCE that might be made to see connections to 9 11 ... just for this audience to protest just the opposite. ie that there are no comparisons whatsoever, its not even thinkable et al.

Where I doing paid psyops this would seem simple logic. Make you achiles heal a margarine line. It falls in line with preventing large enough groups with common denominators from forming.