Profiles in Infamy: Identifying those who have helped conceal the truth about 9/11
Please suggest additions, or submit pictures or info in comments!
|
|
|
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.
User loginNavigationFeatured Content WTCD Wiki WTCD Compendium WTCD Podcasts Glossary 9/11 TV News Archive 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud David Chandler's YouTube Channel Council for the National Interest Popular Mechanics: Money Masters Orwell Rolls in His Grave Reel Bad Arabs Recent blog posts
WTCD User Comments
|
Profiles in Infamy: Identifying those who have helped conceal the truth about 9/11Please suggest additions, or submit pictures or info in comments! |
PollWho destroyed the WTC on 9/11? Al Qaeda 0% The Guy who made billions from its destruction 100% Total votes: 1 Disqus Comments |
Hi G, Can you assemble a
Hi G,
Can you assemble a compendium for censor slimeballs like this guy and Huffington and Kos? They should be shamed publicly for controlling the information that reaches the public.
sure, how about some nominations?
There are a lot of obvious ones, like the well known "debunkers", but probably a lot like this wikipedia guy who are flying under the radar. Can people come up with as many names as they can think of and post in comments? I can then start working on a standard format for their profiles...
I dont consider A Huffington
I dont consider A Huffington a debunker per se, but she has admitted that her site maintains a policy to censor 9-11 posts and comments. I think the same holds at Kos. I will post info on them which is easy enough to find.
You can throw John Amato of
You can throw John Amato of Crooksandliars.com into that phony liberal gatekeeper pool. I was banned years ago for posting 9/11 comments on that site, along with many other people. He actually used the-"I know somebody who died on 9/11" excuse to engage in rampant censorship of all 9/11 comments. Pathetic.
excellent, keep em coming!
I should like to emphasize that the purpose of compiling such a list is absolutely not to encourage any kind of harassment or other mistreatment of the people who will be included. It is instead intended to provide an accurate historical record for posterity so that even if it is not realistic to hold them accountable in a legal sense, the fact that they were so wrong and caused so much harm intentionally or not will be public knowledge and will hopefully encourage people to take anything they say in the future with a grain of salt.
Penn & Teller
Candidates for top 10 position on the list are Penn & Teller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Video watched 1,295,684 times!
As a reminder, P & T financially supported Debunker Central, a.k.a. the James Randi JREF-forum.
DEFINITELY Penn and Teller
yes.
chris matthews
remember the 911-was-an-inside-job  bullhorn crowd seen and heard right behind him during the dem convention?
CNN's Paula Zahn and Larry King
9/11 classic: http://www.youtube.com/v/bB6nDk_FEBs&hl=nl&fs=1
Pure propaganda.
agree
n/t
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky do not care about who was behind 9/
Howard Zinn in Montreal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WXU4eir-i8
Noam Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFtHEP_fyyg
Chomsky yes, but Zinn?
I think Zinn deserves a break because he did endorse DRG's books, even if he backpedaled that surely helped us reach a lot of people...
I think Zinn deserves it.....
Chomksy yes and Zinn yes, based on in my opinion that he more than backtracked, he outright said-"it doesnt matter even if it is" a la Chomsky didnt he? Its almost like Chomsky or one of his acolytes got to him he sounded so similar. He also of course went with the Chomsky favorite that it-"distracts" from other issues. Because Chomsky has gotten so much done and has really slowed down the empire he and Zinn oppose so much right? I regret ever buying "A Peoples History of the US" because of his statements on 9/11 as of late(among other reasons).
Jon Gold: WTC demolition denier
Jon announced his departure from 911blogger a few days ago... to return today:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20098
ehhhh...
Jon Gold is not a demolition denier as much as he is a demolition detractor. And however much I dislike his brand of truthing I don't think he deserves to be on this particular list...
O'Reilly compares 9/11 truth to Nazi's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbCgCT09JU
O'Reilly Calls Willie Nelson a Pinhead Over 9/11 Remarks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSByug87_gY
Geraldo Rivera gave the "9/11 Truth" The Finger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_l1LvSoD48
FOX: GERALDO MOCKS 9/11 TRUTH PROTESTERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx9YPi6bcjg
yeah and he also insinuated we are domestic terrorists
and he's just so slimy all around...
I agree(I was the one who
I agree(I was the one who gave the example of Amato and C&L by the way-I think I set a record for number of times banned from that site before I just gave up on it), people shouldnt misconstrue this as some sort of "witch hunt" or anything, but they should know that what they say, if they have any kind of prominence in media and political circles(even online) matters and people like us will take notice. And so will the historical record.
 About Penn and Teller, I obviously couldnt agree more based on pretending Hufschmid was about all the 9/11 movement had(and regardless of his obvious faults and likely status as a "professional", they were completely unnfair), but damn, I didnt know they helped to fund JREF, thats interesting.Â
Ben Chertoff (Popular Mechanics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlurmJzQmzE
Interview Ben Chertoff with Alex Jones.
Intro Bollyn met Jones.
'Could not remember' that he was a nephew of Michael Chertoff.
An old hoax living on. It's
An old hoax living on. It's clear that this whole bit just arose over Bollyn playing on different usages of the word "cousin." One definition that is sometimes used identifies people as cousins of the nth order if they share a common ancestor removed from each of them by n + 1 generations. A stricter defintion uses the word "cousin" only in relation to what the broader definition would label as "first-cousins," i.e., the sharing of a common grandparent. Obviously Bollyn got this woman to say something which involved the word "cousin" without ever clarifying whether this meant "first-cousin," second-cousin or something else. If they are really related I haven't been able to track it in the genealogy records yet:
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/mordcher/html/dat0.htm
Bollyn was being irresponsible by failing to ask Judy "are they actually cousins first removed?" and simply running off with the "cousin" quote.
It's also very misleading for Bollyn to repeat the "senior researcher" claim as if that were some type of title. He was the research editor of the PM magazine at the time, but he was one of 9 reporters on the story.
no one, including Popular Mechanics, has been willing (or able)
...to simply say flat out "THEY ARE NOT RELATED". If they could, they already would have. Ergo, when Ben's mom said they were cousins, she meant they were family, whichever way you define cousins. Also, how long before he served as the senior researcher on the 9/11 story had Ben Chertoff been employed by Popular Mechanics? You may want people to believe this is yet another innocent and meaningless coincidence of the kind of which there are so many in the story of 9/11 and its cover up, but of course you would, wouldn't you.
Of course they're probably
Of course they're probably distantly related. Benjamin Chertoff has suggested that himself quite openly. The point is they've not first-cousins, have never had any personal relations and don't know each other. Benjamin Chertoff's paternal grandfather was Moishe Chertoff
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/andrewch/html/dat0.htm
and Michael Chertoff's paternal grandfather was Paul Chertoff:
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/mordcher/html/dat0.htm
They come out of different branches of the Chertoff family
http://chertoff.netfirms.com/chertoff_name_index.htm
since Benjamin Chertoff comes from the Andrew Elan Chertoff branch and Michael Chertoff from the Mordechai Chertoff branch, but there is probably is a common connection somewhere back there. But it's clear that their common name does not originate from a shared grandfather.
It's really lame of Bollyn to pull a hoax like this. You know that if a normal woman is called up and asked whether her son is related to someone who works around the President's office she's going to have an incentive to want to hype the "yes, my boy has relatives in big places" without first thinking that it might be interpreted in an incriminating way. That's a real reporter's job is supposed to involve calmly following up the question by seeking to clarify such things as "Now, ma'am, I'd just like to clarify if they're actually first-cousins who have known each other in the past or not." There's no reason to give away anything more about who he is or what his goal as a reporter may be. Just ironing out the details in a professional way would be good enough.
B. Chertoff joined PM in September 2004 and the famous issue came out in March 2005. Nothing odd about that. Remember, contrary to another hoax made up by Bollyn, he was not the "senior researcher" on the March 2005 piece. He was one of 9 reporters on the story, along with a bunch of other copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, and what not. The six-month gap between his joining PM and the later publication only sounds noteworthy if you imagine B. Chertoff as having some supreme authority over the contents of what went into the March 2005 article. Since he did not possess any such supreme editorial jurisdiction the whole thing is meaningless.
This is another good example of how Bollyn uses leading questions in a way that is altogether unprofessional for a reporter. The way Bollyn led into this was he asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" and B. Chertoff just said "I guess so." He probably wasn't sure what Bollyn was driving at. A professional way of approaching the matter would have been for Bollyn to simply ask for clarification of B. Chertoff's exact duties on the job as described in his own words, inquiring as to whether or not he held any special titles in his capacity. As it is Bollyn just made up the phrase "senior researcher" and after getting B. Chertoff to utter "I guess so" he passed it along to his readers as if this were a genuinely verified official position when it clearly is not. Just another example of how dishonest Bollyn can be.
The supercars.net forum mods
The supercars.net forum mods locked my account when I posted 9-11 info in a thread that somebody else started. I don't know which mod locked my account.
A filairsoft.com forum mod threatened me with bodily injury when I posted 9-11 info in response to several moderator's questions about 9-11. I have this particular thread saved up in a screen print to file before the whole thread was deleted.
Bill Maher 10/19/07 - 9/11 conspiracy nuts get manhandled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3F5duZvjvg
Bill Maher kicks 9/11 Truthers off his show - 10/19/ ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUFFpGcsDW8
How dare you Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton threatens student for 911 comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWSQI13Us4&feature=PlayList&p=3A34DA4E54...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtTccXcThE&feature=PlayList&p=7C2EEBF82C...
Bill Clinton owns a crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorist
many more...
yeah, but he's probably being blackmailed...
Clintons Contra
Clintons Contra connection:
 http://www.ncoic.com.clinton.htm
 You can see why Bush Sr. wasnt so worried about losing his re-election bid in light of the fact that his skeletons would be safe no matter who won.Â
At the left-leaning
At the left-leaning HuffingtonPost.com, which got 600,000 comments last month, the site has a paid staff of 30 full-time and part-time moderators who work in shifts around-the-clock to filter each blog comment. They also “post-moderate†the comments attached to news stories appearing on the site.
While there are certain computer technologies that can flag inappropriate comments based on key words, Huff Post Editor in Chief Arianna Huffington says that it still requires a human eye to keep the comments in line with her site’s posting policies.
“There are certain obvious things we have, certain specific things,†says Huffington. “Conspiracy theories — we don’t allow conspiracy theories. If you thought Sept. 11 was caused by the Bush administration, your comment is not going to appear unless it is a mistake.â€
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11890_Page3.html
The blog does allow selective info on 9-11 (lihop) to be posted:
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2163
from DailyKos
from DailyKos FAQ
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#Diaries
Controversial 9/11 Diaries
DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:
1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.
his name is Markos Moulitsas...
and yes, he is in. top ten, imho... we should probably include the usual suspects from all the forums... Kos has "Mia Dolan" among many others, Alternet has "EncinoM", "GuitarBill", et al, my fave at Amazon is "Suetonius", and I have to look up to remember the guy on the Dawkins skeptoid forum... [edit: he is "Econ41", also added link -gReT] Oh, and speaking of skeptoids--Michael Shermer! And Jim Meigs. And Davin Coburn.
Then there's the "professional" debunkers like Mark Roberts, etc...
David Corn, formerly of CIA
David Corn, formerly of CIA fake left rag The Nation, currently Washington Editor of Mother Jones(yet another magazine i was forced to stop buying).
And Micheal Shermer might be the single most annoying person on the planet with his shit eating grin thats always plastered on his smug know it all face while he spews his "conventional wisdom". God I hate that man, almost as much as I hate Gerald Posner. Add him too,haha.
A recent event at DailyKos
A recent event at DailyKos underlines the policy to ban 9-11 discussion. Markos personally banned a longtime contributor for suggesting a LIHOP angle on 9-11. Another contributor started a poll on who wanted the banned diarist to be reinstated with the following results:
Should Tocquedeville be unbanned?
Yes 67% 5588 votes
No 32% 2741 votes
total 8329 votes
This is as clear a message as any that Markos is controlling 9-11 info against the wishes of his site's users.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/17/732564/-Daily-Kos-diarist,-Tocqu...
he is so fucked
his own users are rebelling against him - he will answer for his actions.
Matt Taibbi.
Matt Taibbi.
Yeah baby.
Then can we make them a collective Keyboard Cat video? ("You've made an ass of yourself for ALL ETERNITY!")
HA!
I love cats. That kid should probably consider punching his dad in the face though.
Fatso passed away in 1987...
So in fact the keyboard cat video is over 20 years old! Weird, huh?
Fatso the cat or the mean
Fatso the cat or the mean annoying loud guy? sorry, bad joke...
related article from indymedia.org
Taken from
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/129068.php
NYC IMC's censorship of 9/11 Truth movement
by 9/11 Truth seeker Monday, Jun. 13, 2005 at 3:12 PM
Copied and pasted from http://www.nyc.indymedia.org and is no longer viewable to the public.
As an anarchist, it concerns me that the New York City Independent Media Center has been consistently removing any posts (OR EVEN COMMENTS!) regarding issues pertaining to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
As someone who has frequented the IMC network since almost its inception during the Seattle WTO uprisings, it pains me to see how an IMC site can censor the most crucial topic of our time: discovering the hidden truths about what took place on 9/11 and how the Commission's final report omitted and distorted much of the credible evidence that was available.
Why is the NYC IMC consistently removing any article having to do with this topic? Please prove me wrong by NOT removing this post. Otherwise, I will post this very article on every IMC site in the nation as a call to keep a hawk's eye-view on the NYC IMC and how it relates (by not accepting) any posts OR EVEN REPLIES that openly question the reality of 9/11/01. It appears as though the NYC IMC is attempting to black this issue out, making one wonder if those who now run this site are responsible, having insider knowledge about U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If so, you are now marked.
Come forward and tell the truth instead of running from it. The first and fourth amendments are at stake. And with the Patriot Act, we cannot afford to silence dissent, especially on a forum with the stated goal of opposing the suppression of free speech. This isn't intended to be spam or trolling, this is a legitimate concern from someone who's been actively involved in the Global Justice movement almost since its North American inception.
This article has been saved and is pending the outcome of what happens to this post as to whether it'll be posted on every U.S. IMC site, and perhaps others. The 9/11 Truth movement is about to make a huge "coming out" party and if this does indeed occur, the NYC IMC will have a very bright light cast onto it...
(I found this while googling around, no endorsement of this website implied)
more of the same in a business forum
http://www.ewealth.com/archive/index.php/t-3454.html
Richard Roeper
remember his book?
http://books.google.com/books?id=rEJp00sYu7AC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=roeper+9...
oooo, yes. obscure but very nasty!
He's got those tell tale close-set eyes of a criminal, what's more...
yes, of course, and George Monbiot
for some reason they remind me of each other--I think Monbiot's hit piece was run in Cockburn's Counterpunch (in addition to Le Monde...)
Charlie Brooker
Horrible, and horribly popular in the UK, pseudo-sceptic Charlie Brooker gets my nomination for this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa
Jim Hoffman. And his hatchet
Jim Hoffman. And his hatchet woman Victoria"Victronix"Ashley. And Arabesque. And Reprehensor. I could go on.
I think we should distinguish...
...between active deniers and "fake truthers", at least for now. maybe it's my love of categories but I really think that they are worth keeping on separate lists...
True, though in some ways
True, though in some ways they are sort of one in the same.
John R Moffett
Was it Nanotech-Thermite or Phasers that took down the WTC?
by John R Moffett
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Nanotech-Thermite--by-John-R-Mof...
This hit piece was responded to by Michael Green here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pardon-Our-Dust-or-Why-t-by-Michael-Gre...
>bump<
this list needs to be updated periodically--suggestions for additions? Thanks!
Fenton, Kevin
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2631
Description of his book 'Disconnecting the dots'...
"Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States."
good catch, thx!
I'm actually surprised that this list is as short as it is... For the benefit of posterity I should stress that there are lots of people not on the list who have passively been quite supportive of the 9/11 lies. This list shows those who have done actively and deliberately in support of the cover-up (not the crime per se).
Keogh, Justin needs to be added to this list
n/t
done
n/t
Chandler, David
n/t
not ready to commit to that yet
sorry. i still believe he's just getting manipulated, and it's precisely because he has so much potential to do good for the movement. I'm sure that they won't be able to fool him for long.
Peter Lance.
Peter Lance.
YES
big miss on my part, thx! check out the Democracy Now interview where he says he worked closely with Paul Thompson on the Terror Timeline at cooperativedisinfo.org! :)
Ashley, Victoria
n/t
The hardest working disinfo
The hardest working disinfo shill in the biz.
What do I have to do to get on this list?
Joke
You guys are hilarious, but really, what? is the jury still out? I hope so, as mine is always out (lunch anyone?)
Hope you are all out having a GREaT 4th of July, yes even you spooks, and YOU know who you are.
Don't forget the AVOcados, either.
Cheers!
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
"What do I have to do to get on this list?"
Continue to stand by the disproven claim that the 36+ people who were purged from blogger were violating the rules.
yeah, sorry man!
I don't like putting people on this list who I'm not pretty darn sure are up to no good. Otherwise it wouldn't mean much, no? If it makes you feel better consider yourself yellow carded? :)
Thanks for generally keeping things positive, for being willing to engage in dialogue here once in a while, etc. etc. And assuming I'm not misjudging you, please do make every effort to prevent 911blogger.com from becoming just another of the many outlets for the defamation of arabs and muslims.
Too late on that last note I
Too late on that last note I think.
spooks
Hey LW, what can I say, you got us--this whole site has been an op since day one. If only we at Langley could figure out how to infiltrate the REAL 9/11 truth sites like Truthaction and 911blogger we wouldn't be wasting our time on this site that no one reads or cites or anything. But alas, all our attempts to crack the most popular sites have been thwarted. Every time we try to create a new sockpuppet over there we are caught red handed AND with our pants down--you can imagine how embarrassing that is the first time, let alone when it keeps happening. I guess we'd be more convincing if more of us here were unemployed or "self" employed like most credible 9/11 researchers. In all fairness, and in the hope that you have a shred of residual patriotism left over from the 4th of July, how can we be a better op? Was it a mistake to focus on the WTC demolitions? We wanted our focus to be something that would really turn people off and be easily dismissed as kookery--I mean the towers blown up from the inside? Hel-LO, everyone SAW the planes hit them, right?! Anything to keep people away from the damned parade of USG whistleblowers like Michael Springmann (State), Sibel Edmonds (FBI), Bob Graham (Senate), and the most damaging yet, "Iron Man" (military intelligence) who just will not shut up about how we let al Qaeda attack us. But no, YOU had to come along, LW! We'd have gotten away with it, maybe, if we hadn't overlooked the huge potential for the aforementioned traitors to work with mild-mannered soccer dads in revealing the REAL truth.
Oh well.
and WIKILEAKS!!
My god, if only we could find a super WIKIPLUMBER! But no! Our secrets are flooding the world's basements and nothing we do to try to discredit Julian Assange seems to work!
I spent the 4th with my pops, who is also a truther
How's yours?
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
oh, that's nice!
He's well, thanks for asking. He's also become a bit of a truther thanks to me. I've left him with little stacks of Architects and Engineers flyers that he leaves around places, and he's always sure to tell me when he overhears conversations about 9/11. A few months ago he said he was in the Spanish deli and a cop and security guard were discussing it near him--one of them mentioned the fact that there was no plane at the Pentagon, and that Bush did it to have an excuse to go to war. This is in Puerto Rico where people in general don't have their head up their asses when it comes to shit the U.S. does (go figure.) I remember one of the first things he said after I sat him down to watch Loose Change 2nd Ed. was that he didn't see how they could possibly keep a lid on this forever given how obvious it was no 757 crashed into the Pentagon.
So, are you making any headway convincing your friends at truthaction that controlled demolition is not a batshit crazy theory and that we should consider people innocent until proven guilty? Cuz it would really be nice if some day we could stop bombing the hell out of Pakistan, and I'm afraid that isn't likely to happen so long as people keep spreading malicious innuendo about their involvement in 9/11. Do you know how many Pakistani boys and girls, many of whom play soccer like your kids, have been killed in the hunt for Qaeda operatives? Too many, I'm afraid.
liars lying about the Pentagon
Check it out, on the review pages of the new Kevin Fenton LIHOP book! RT just pwned a shill...
You stay classy, John...
n/t
I hope...
...you and yours are well, C455!
Well, thats the final
Well, thats the final whistle and a red card in my notebook.
LW you are the marshal Petain of 911Blogger !
I have had sympathy with your attitude and given you some credit for your Blogger antics, trying to reform from within?-or whatever, but I withdraw my support for you now, (triggered by the ineffectiveness of your method over time, your inability to engage in genuine progressive discourse here (at least on my part) and finally these pathetic snidey quips).
Whilst maybe for a short while still, people can make peace and love in a field in the USA, the dead and dying elswhere at our governments hands would be greatly offended by your signiture quote. The myths that 911 blogger is perpetuating is prolonging their misery, and your sign off smacks of faith and passivity which will achieve nothing now except giving the snipers an easier shot.
If you continue to endorse 911 blogger by associating yourself with it ,you can only do more harm than good by distracting people from the best evidence,and putting them off the movement and from seeking change (NOT just some illusive unthreatening , convenient'truth' dictated by an unrepresentative elite!).
If you are genuine, you are clever enough to know that, and your only constructive move would be to dissasociate yourself from the circus at blogger,and denounce it so that you may atually contribute to the possibility that something more effective comes along instead.
well said
very well said
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Frankly, I think John Wright SHOULD be on this list...
He comes to the defense of the fake truthers all the time. More infuriatingly, he continues to tilt his wine glass in their direction and "Proost!" them.
Veitch, Charlie
aka the 'Love Police' .. apparently he will appear in the BBC's tenth anniversary special as a 'conspiracy theorist' who they convert to the OCT.
note: The first video in the following thread (posted by Veitch) has two very loud noises at the start that might make you jump, seemingly to obscure the name of the show. Curiously an 'Anonymous' (the cyber patsies who hate Scientology) logo flashes up on the screen at the same time, while in the interviews below Veitch bemoans Scientology, and compares it to the truth movement.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=20601
Hey LeftWright...
Let's flash back to when the first round of mass bannings started at 911blogger. It was a purge of everyone known to post at this site.
Here was Reprehensor's blog entry "Responding to Libel."
http://911blogger.com/node/16695
Here, he showed the WTCD right column RSS Feed description of 911blogger and at the time, it said: "Warning: Currently controlled and censored by fake truthers and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racists."
To which Reprehensor replied:
"It's not true. This is called libel."
Well John, what say you to the following recent comments at 911blogger?
"Oh.....in your unproven conspiracy theory it was just an exercise. When these "Assets" were slicing the throats of flight attendants and at least one passenger, was that to make it more realistic? Were the people getting their throats slit part of the exercise as well? Sorry...I forgot...I'm not supposed to believe any of that because of all the non existent evidence of "fake phone calls"....they have to be fake or these preposterous conspiracy theories go away and we certainly can't have that can we?"
-alleged 9/11 "truther" jimd3100
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-30/kevin-fenton-long-anticipated-book...
"Wait what evidence to the contrary? The 9/11 attacks were certainly carried out by radical muslims. They were there. They were radical. Even the transcripts you referenced support this reality. We can make up a fantasy to fit another more exciting conspiracy theory we make up, but its not only of NO USE to us to do so, it makes everyone asking questions about 9/11 look like delusion ridden fools."
-alleged 9/11 truther "kdub"
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-30/kevin-fenton-long-anticipated-book...
"If you want a new investigation to find out what really hit the pentagon and who was fooling the families with fake phone calls, that is NEVER EVER going to happen because the rest of the world knows that a PASSENGER JET hit the pentagon and the phone calls are NOT fake. Your fantasies and weird theories will continue to do nothing but help with the cover up and marginalize you. But don't listen to me, I'm just an IHOPER."
-jimd3100
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-30/kevin-fenton-long-anticipated-book...
I'm sure I could find more on just that thread alone but I'll spare myself from choking on the bile.
Yes, I know neither of those two people are moderators (though jimd3100 is a Prisonplanet forum mod) but the fact that their comments are allowed to stand says it all because they are every bit as hollow and as hateful and as OCT-supporting as the typical comments from any JREFer or Screw Looser. In fact 911B has truly devolved into JREF-lite. Do you still believe this crap doesn't go on at blogger? Do you still side with Rep in believing that Gretavo and this site are the infiltrators trying to sow divison? Do you still believe that the more than three dozen people banned from blogger were all violating the rules?
It is quite fascinating to watch the people over at truthaction who you used to like and support, now giving you hell's grief as they monitor your every move.
he apparently also believes...
...that my dad and I are super sekrit CIA agents (that's what his kind sounding post was about, in case people weren't aware). now, if you ask him how he "knows" this, the best he'll be able to do is say "I read it on the internet". but hey, someone calls out your friends as fake truthers, I guess the thing to do is go after that person's family with anonymous internet smears. because you know, love is, like, the *only* way forward and all that!
Chip Berlet.
Chip Berlet.
thanks, added
keep em coming!
2 more for the list
Thanks for this list!
I nominate Rex Murphy ("The Real Truth About 9/11" July xx, 2006) and Adriana Bolton ("Smoke and Mirrors" June 22 or 23, 2007), both writing in "Canada's National Newspaper" the Globe and Mail. Neither article available online now, even though both were available for a while.
The G&M was my trusted print news source for many years, so I was shocked to read Murphy's hit piece soon after I was "woke up" by a friend in June 2006. Murphy is a Canadian national media darling, with a cute Newfie accent on his lip and a Rhodes Scholarship (like Clinton) under his belt. His article has disappeared from the internet (though I have the text), but you can get a taste for his approach to the 9/11 Truth "industry" by reading page 142 of his book, "Canada and Other Matters of Opinion," which can be found through Google Books.
I kept a PDF of Bolton's article, which appeared ONLY in G&M's Vancouver edition on either the 1st or 2nd day of the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference. Barry Beyerstein, the celebrated (in several obits) "sceptic" psychology prof quoted in the article, died of a heart attack 2 days after the article appeared.
Why am I not on the
Why am I not on the list?
Regards,
George Bush