The 9/11 Forum

I have been a member of AE911 Truth and STJ911 almost since their inception.

I was banned the Let's Roll forum yesterday after my first post. I was ostensibly banned for "spaming" which apparently includes a polite request for another forum member to consider an article that I have written regarding critical loading in WTC1. No warning was given.

A while back I was banned by the TruthAction forum after three posts. There I suggested that people consider my "Open Letter to Richard Gage". No warning was given.

At 911Blogger my posts are often not approved. Recently my post regarding Dr. Grenning's excellent criticism of the new NIST WTC7 drafts was removed from the News page, not because the criticism was considered unfounded but rather because Dr. Greening is not liked by the editor there.

At the STJ911 forum I am not permitted to reference what I consider to be valid analyses on the Scientific Analysis subforum based on which authors I reference, without regard to the validity of the analyses. This means that potentially valid work is not being considered.

Keep in mind that I am talking about discussion forums and a blog site. What is the purpose of these sites, if not for individuals to express and discuss their thoughts and beliefs regarding 9/11 issues?

Is the so called truth movement actually interested in the truth?

Hambone:

Nice post!

I know what you mean about the censorship that prevails on many "Truth" sites. However, so-called "Debunking" sites are generally not much better, just more subtle in their approach. Thus problems with the NIST Reports on Buildings 1, 2 & 7 are frequently glossed over or totally ignored by supporters of the official story on sites such as JREF. After all, 200 government scientists and engineers cannot posibly be wrong about anything, .... can they?

Debunkers are also very adept at putting their own spin on eyewitness accounts - showing a level of condescension that knows no bounds! Thus a favorite line from debunkers is to say that most 9/11 eyewitness accounts are coming from the likes of janitors, first responders, security personel or lay people who are simply mistaken, confused, or out-right lying..... Thus this type of evidence is conveniently dismissed by debunkers as totally unreliable.

Anyway, this is why this forum is so refreshing and should be used by researchers of every "stripe" as a way to escape the bias and bigotry displayed by many on both sides in this great 9/11 debate!

Hambone:

It is distressing to hear your account. To answer your final question, from what I see and what you've said, no.

As Dr. G says, it goes both ways.

Anyway, this is why this forum is so refreshing and should be used by researchers of every "stripe" as a way to escape the bias and bigotry displayed by many on both sides in this great 9/11 debate!

I wholeheartedly agree.

Hambone wrote:Is the so called truth movement actually interested in the truth?

Gregory, the truth is that 9/11 and apparently most acts of modern terrorism are in fact sponsored by governments like the USA & UK. This is an extremely serious problem, people are being killed as we speak because of it. We are primarily interested in exposing this fact, not debating it.

While your ambiguities may be sincere, we have good reason to find them suspicious. Frankly, I am being to question whether you should be a member of AE911Truth.

bofors wrote:

Hambone wrote:Is the so called truth movement actually interested in the truth?

Gregory, the truth is that 9/11 and apparently most acts of modern terrorism are in fact sponsored by governments like the USA & UK. This is an extremely serious problem, people are being killed as we speak because of it. We are primarily interested in exposing this fact, not debating it.

While your ambiguities may be sincere, we have good reason to find them suspicious. Frankly, I am being to question whether you should be a member of AE911Truth.

The "truth" you give above is for me, a suspicion, and I am unsure of the extent of involvement. This is why I support AE911Truth and the truth movement in general, because I believe we have a right to know.

Who are the "we" in "we have good reason to find them suspicious"?

If you have a problem with my arguments or criticisms I'm willing to discuss it openly and honestly. Honestly, I don't know if WTC1 + 2 were CD, but my current conclusion is no CD. I may be wrong.

I experianced similar treatment, as described by Hambone, it is the sadd trueth.

I am actually not surprized at the behavior of some of the well-known branches of the so-called truth movement - I am speaking of the "Architects and Engineers" group or the "Scholars" group in particular.

These organizations are like typical political parties: they do not want 90 % adherance to the party line; not even 99 %; no, they want 100 % full unquestioning support. This is standard operating procedure for such political entities: conform or be cast out!

This behavior is generally justified by the party/organization leaders as necessary for "the good of the cause". But it also usually means that the leaders are tyrants/ego-maniacs who expect everyone to "toe the party line" defined by them.

Thus these organizations are invariably anti-democratic. This also means that the independent thinkers within the organization eventually leave of their own accord or, if they try to stay in the hope of changing things, are sooner or later booted out!

I find it sad that i as a so called truther have to say this but.
Such behavior, for whatever reasson it is, is hurting the case.
and i really start to ask myself what this is all about.

You got called Shill and liar just for pointing out that non of the towers fell at freefallspeed.
I mean i even agreed on a CD of the towers, but pointing out where others might be wrong is not allowed.

I dont demand that the TM agrees on my impression of collapse times or other things, but one should atleast be allowed to talk about it.

While i keep defending the TM on JREF for example, i also try to distance myself from it, because of stupid false information that some of them are spreading.

the TM really has to work over their Information and get it corrected. Or it will really die.
get quit the strawmans pls. Remember, the Debunkers want just to find your weak spots, your errors. and the TM is doing a great job in delivering them stuff they easy can debunk and claim the whole case / theory is debunked.

A question for Gregory Urich

I think this is probably the right thread to post this. I see from a recent check on the Journal of 9/11 Studies that they published issues for June, July and October of this year, each containing a single paper. Gregory, I understand that you received a reply in June to your submitted paper on collapse times, and that this reply essentially stated that no further issues of the journal were to be published. Have you received any communication from the editors concerning the rather obvious contradiction here? I'll be perfectly honest here and admit that I believe that they have simply chosen not to publish your paper because it doesn't support their agenda, and the suspension of publication was simply a convenient excuse. However, I'd be happy to abandon that opinion if you have evidence to the contrary.

Dave

Dave Rogers wrote:A question for Gregory Urich

I think this is probably the right thread to post this. I see from a recent check on the Journal of 9/11 Studies that they published issues for June, July and October of this year, each containing a single paper. Gregory, I understand that you received a reply in June to your submitted paper on collapse times, and that this reply essentially stated that no further issues of the journal were to be published. Have you received any communication from the editors concerning the rather obvious contradiction here? I'll be perfectly honest here and admit that I believe that they have simply chosen not to publish your paper because it doesn't support their agenda, and the suspension of publication was simply a convenient excuse. However, I'd be happy to abandon that opinion if you have evidence to the contrary.

Dave

Hi Dave,

At this point, I share your opinion regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I consider both my "Open Letter to Richard Gage" and the paper on the meaning of the collapse times to be valid contributions to the discussion of controlled demolition. They have also ignored my paper on load distribution in WTC1. The journal's explanation is that these are not sufficiently ground breaking to spend their time on reviewing. I understand that the journal is understaffed and has no budget, but somehow they found time to review my 43 page paper on the Mass of WTC1 when they were publishing several papers a month. The three papers which they have refused to consider are short and simple and would together require much less effort than the mass paper. I no longer consider the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a scientific journal but rather a propaganda outlet for a group of activists that has reached erroneous conclusions based on poor science. Maybe it's time to start a more open journal?

/Greg

Is the so called truth movement actually interested in the truth?

There is no "truth movement" that can be labelled as such.

What you mean is that STJ911, 9-11 Blogger, AE911T and 9-11 Research are all controlled by the same small mindset: The "official " branch of the 9-11 truth movement.

So Hambone, you are actually referring to a rather small nucleus and not to any "Truth Movement".
\
Hambone, as you recall, I have been sending out messages for a long time, especially in the STJ911 forum, that this rather small nucleus is not who they claim to be.

Do you recall Max speaking of MILDEC? Welcome to MILDEC. You have been strung along all this time. Fooled. You have acually been watching a puppet show, not an honest debate.

I am sure you recall when I started to attack Steven Jones (his work, that is) on the STJ911 forum.

It was through his responses to my posts that I was able to verify for myself that he is an imposter.

This small nucleus advances easily debunkable arguments under a scientific guise with the actual intention of discrediting millions of people who can smell the presence of a big fat rat behind the events of 9-11-01.

Those millions of people, in a loose sense, are the actual "truth movement".

The small nucleus feeding lies to the world and especially to this truth movement are acutlly trying to set up the truth movement for failure, and rather successfully.

If a person was unable to recognize that both Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are most probably imposters (a much more obvious case of disinfo), they will most probably never recognize that Steven Jones is, too.

Very few people will be able to recognize that Steven Jones is presenting false, flimsy arguments for CD KNOWINGLY.

I already know that very few people will be able to understand what I am talking about even on this forum.

That shows how well the game is played.

I'll be perfectly honest here and admit that I believe that they have simply chosen not to publish your paper because it doesn't support their agenda, and the suspension of publication was simply a convenient excuse.

Gregory would spoil the show. The Greening info on microspheres would spoil the show.

Proper falltime would spoil the show for AE911T.

People would break out of their temporary hypnosis and peel the onion a bit further.

The plan is to lock the truth movement (many millions of your fellow human beings who no longer trust the official information channels, and for a very good reason) into taking an "official stand" based on false and easily debunkable arguments. Then by debunking these false, superficial arguments the illusion is cast that all 9-11 questions were solved by "science" and "rational minds" and points the criminal blame, once again, to.....Al Qaida (the Bogey Man).

Major Tom,

A few questions:

If there is any basis at all for some of the concerns raised by the so-called "Truth Movement", why has it been so self destructive in its actions, especially over the past two years? Or do you think some self-proclaimed "Truthers" are deliberately out to discredit those who make valid statements about 9/11? And how can anyone ever sort out the real motives of some of the key players such as Steven Jones, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin et al.?

And how can anyone ever sort out the real motives of some of the key players such as Steven Jones, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin et al.?

It is a question of honesty.

Steven Jones is being dishonest on a fundamental level. The only way to "break the hypnotic spell" is to verify that for yourself.

Steven builds a wall around himself so it is difficult to put him to the honesty test. I guess I poked him at just the right time and was able to engage him in a rather lengthy and revealing discussion.

He was forced to defend the use of falsified photos and some outrageous claims about "angle cuts" which were embarrassingly easy to debunk. Yet he still defended them right there on the STJ911 forum.

He just kept digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. It was then he wised up and quit responding to me. They then kicked me out of their forum for bringing up your microspheres arguments.

Hambone has also probably verified that that their moderator/dictator Vic (the wife of Jim Hoffman? small world, small controlling nucleus) clearly has something going on that has nothing to do with pursuing the truth.

Max Photon was kicked out with no warning. The forum was clearly being driven by an agenda which has nothing to do with peeling the onion further. They want to stop the peeling.

They want the onion to rot.

MT,

I'm much more inclined to blame the people and their personalities than any organized Mildec operation. I think in many cases issues similar to believing in religion are at work here. Also, once an individual has taken a public stance it is very difficult to back down. In some cases, it may be that people are so sure of a conspiracy that they are willing to use superficially convincing arguments to win support. I am convinced this is already back-firing and will continue to do so.

/Greg