USAPatriot Calls Out Colleen Rowley And Other Soft 9/11 Truthers
Source: The Real 9/11 Truth Movement Blog - USAPatriot Calls Out Colleen Rowley And Other Soft 9/11 Truthers
Image via Wikipedia
I was always taken back at how some prominent 9/11 Truth supporters like Colleen Rowley and Ray McGoven refuse to talk about the obvious Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center Complex. Colleen Rowley is an ex-FBI agent turned whistle-blower and Ray McGovern is an ex-CIA guy turned whistle-blower. Both think we need a new investigation into the attacks on 9/11 but both refuse to discuss the obvious elephant in the room, that the WTC complex was demolished by controlled demolition and the phony story about 19 Muslim Hijackers just does not add up.
Well a www.911blogger.com user by the name of USAPatriot put my feelings into words better then I could have. Here is what USAPatriot has to say about soft Truthers like Colleen Rowley and Ray McGovern who refuse to follow the truth where ever it may lead.
The quote below is a response to the video about Colleen Rowley which I've included after the quote.
Great.
Afterwards, a few of us from the dc911truth group approached Rowley to ask her where she stood on 9/11 (no camera, unfortunately). She would only go so far as to say we needed a new investigation, that she had signed the petition for it, and she supported the NYC CAN initiative. (She also mentioned Jon Gold…in a good way.)
However, when asked about Richard Gage’s work, the nanothermite paper, and the scientific basis for controlled demolitions, she tensed up, saying she wasn’t a scientist, didn’t have the knowledge, and would need an advanced degree to understand the theories. She held firm and was clearly unwilling to discuss it further.
That was very discouraging. For whatever reason, she would not (publicly) veer from the official script of al Qaeda, the 19 hijackers, Moussaoui and the FBI lapses.
Ray McGovern had the same response. He said he’s looked at the scientific evidence but isn’t convinced that it’s strong enough to support controlled demolitions. Including Building 7, presumably.
This, after a speech about moral courage and the duty to be informed.
It leaves us wondering why these “truthtellers” and “whistleblowers” even bother with events like this. They garner our admiration for having the courage to speak out; they urge us to do likewise. Yet when we do, when many of us risk our own careers and reputations to follow the truth regardless of where it leads, they refuse to go out on that limb with us. Why?
“Unanswered questions” is safe. Saying we need a new investigation is safe. But unless these public figures move beyond that and start using their soapboxes to challenge the official story, with more courage and conviction, nothing will happen. The 9/11 Truth movement will remain stagnant, divided, demoralized -- and contained.
Do they know something that we don’t? - USAPatriot
This is the video that USAPatriot is referring to:
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=235497ca-1d87-4d46-abe3-b93f3b86ca6e)
Pretending to be gullible: PTBG
All these LIHOP fakes and limited hangout frauds are members of the PTBG Club Pretending to be Gullible Club.
Shame on Justin Martell - CD denier/fud promoter
NO IT IS NOT. Controlled
NO IT IS NOT. Controlled Demolition is a hypothesis. With some compelling evidence behind it, yes. However, it has not been proven. Quite frankly, I'm sick of the people in this movement who try to shove it down everyone's throat and denounce those who focus on other aspects of the 9/11 cover-up. These tactics run completely counter to the basic ideas behind this movement.
You can attack me all you want. However, it matters not what you say. I've contributed as much to this cause as anyone else on this site.
Justin A. Martell
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow.
Submitted by jamartellxiv on Sat, 10/24/2009 - 10:13pm
----------
This guy is pretending to be an idiot and insists that CD is "just" a theory that should not be promoted as fact. Maybe he missed high school physics and can't understand David Chandler's simple video explaining the free fall acceleration of WTC 7. Perhaps he cant grasp that free fall acceleration through a steel framed building is downright impossible and is as good a proof as any that they were demolished.
I do think he is disinfo just like his friend Jon Gold. Notice that he does not attack CD science itself, he is instead offering debunker web sites as "proof" that cd is inconclusive. He has no evidence against cd and putting one up would invite further criticism and ass whipping.
Kudos to the truthers taking him to task, do consider that he is a disinfo mole planted to gain credibility through hype only to undermine the movement by spreading fud on the solid evidence of CD and diverting investigations to the patsies.
Do not be fooled by the feigned stupidity, or misled by backhanded stabs at CD. Justin knows exactly what he is doing, and so does Jon Gold. Their attempts to undermine CD has a hidden agenda which will reveal itself one day.
Nice try
A comment at 911blogger
For people to assert that there was definitely no involvement by islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden and Al Qeada in 9/11 is wrong.
It is clear that 9/11 involved aspects of the CIA, Mossad, ISI, FBI, Saudi Intelligence, and possibly Iran and Turkey's intelligence services. We can all agree on this.
And whether or not Al Qeada is truly funded and operated by banking elites and other internationalists (it most probably is) is irrelevant to this particular issue. The fact remains that there are "radicals" who actively engage in terrorism and would willingly go along with a plot like 9/11. So we need to keep open the possibility that background information on 9/11 such as, "The Looming Tower," is not necessarily inaccurate but incomplete. Much like our history of WWII.
Why is this important?
Well beside the obvious reason that it is the truth which is our ultimate objective, It is absolutely crucial that people have the best available facts at their disposal when debating this in public discourse. Particularly when you are talking with people who consider themselves "educated" on the 9/11 story. If this helps us acheive common ground in order to break through new ground, so be it.
For example, "So we both agree Osama Bin Laden is a religious terrorist who conspired against the US on 9/11."
":Yes. That is correct."
"Ok, now is it possible that others might have been involved as well?"
"Well, I suppose... what do you mean exactly?"
"Did you know the FBI reported that Mohammed Atta, the lead hi-jacker on 9/11 received a $100,000 wire transfer from the head of the Pakastani ISI, that was never fully investigated?"
"No. I did not know that. That is interesting."
...that is a far more effective way at opening people up to these possibilities when we can meet each other on common ground and they will not feel as threatened by what you have to say.
Anyway, That's my lecture for today. Cheers!
Submitted by The ICONOCLAST on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 8:19pm.
Who are all these "truthers" who are so adamant that
bin Laden orchestrated 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan along with 19 "islamic fundamentalists"? I've never met any seasoned truthers in real life (i.e., in the real physical face to face world) who have been involved with the movement for very long and who are thoroughly familiar with the evidence of the CD of the WTC who continue to claim to believe absolutely that bin Laden/Al Queda were involved.
But it's the strangest thing over at 911Blogger. Somehow these seasoned "truthers" who are adamant LIHOPpers who normally represent perhaps between 1 and 5% of the movement (of those who are at least somewhat conversant with the evidence of CD) are entirely over-represented at 911Blogger and TruthAction to the point where it often seems like they have a huge following and get their posts voted up consistently. WTF is going on? It almost seems like 2 parallel universes. What are the chances that 3 of the most visible web sites for the truth movement (911Blogger, TA, and prisonplanet forum) could be dominated by such a small and generally unpopular minority?
How is it fair that the owners/moderators of the key 9/11 truth web sites are able to either directly manipulate the forum themselves or allow other favored forum members to control the discourse by pushing unpopular theories that are in opposition to the 95% of the truth movement but do it in our name? Where is the accountability? I think it's time to institute some sort of accountability so that this strange situation in which this unpopular minority has been allowed to hijack our most important forums and misrepresent the views of the movement does not continue to happen. If not, then those forums should stop claiming to represent the overall movement, and instead rename themselves to "LIHOP Fringe of the 9/11 Truth Movement" or something along those lines.
A responsible forum would at least relegate fringe theories to the proper section, so that if people wanted to push WTC no-planes, holograms, the islamofascist hijacker myths, and other stupid crap, they can go to the "Fringe/Speculative Theories" Section and stop disrupting and contaminating the main forums. Jon Gold, John A, Eric Larson, Michael Wolsey, this ICONOCLAST character, Justin Martel, Mr. Jimd-How-embarassing-3100, etc., should have their disruptive anti-truth posts shunted off to the "fringe nonsense" section so that they are stopped from hijacking all the other threads with their LIHOP/anti-MIHOP crap.
Wire Transfer Debunked Years Ago
I'm not surprised that www.911blogger.com continues to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and push anti-Muslim theories that are literally killing people in the Middle East right now. That is it's purpose.
Yes, 911blogger.com is helping to kill Muslims by continuously reinforcing the official conspiracy theory and supporting the war against the Muslim world.
Can someone please log into 9/11 Blogger and re-post my debunking of the ISI wire transfer which can be found here:
Omar Saeed Sheikh Disinfo Goose Chase?
Specifically...
This is not true at all. If one were to read through my article and the ensuing debate with Jon Gold, you can plainly see that the statement above is based on articles that use semi-crafty wording to insinuate that the FBI confirmed this or that about 100K, ATTA and the ISI.
This article led to my banning at 9/11blogger.com. You an read about my banning from 911blogger.com and TruthAction.org here:
911bogger.com Bans, Censors, Restricts Discussion About 9/11 Attacks
It's should be said with no doubt that www.911blogger.com is conclusively a disinformation website run by disinformation agents. It's sole purpose is to merge the official and anti-Muslim conspiracy theory with real 9/11 Truth.
www.911blogger.com is doing great harm to this movement.
Notice how the moderators operate in secret? Notice how bannings are secret? Notice how comment moderation is secret? Notice how the disinformation artists push extremely dangerous anti-Arab theories to the front page but are absent when it comes to discussing the material? That's because they have been debunked over and over. So new screen names do the bidding of the fake 911Blogger.com.
But you know this. We know this. I'm preaching to the Real Truth choir here.
The theory about Muslim fanatics is killing people in the Middle east. Space beams don't do that. The absolutely relevant discussion about what hit the Petnagon doesn't kill Arabs.
That is what should be pointed out to these people who use disinformation to prop-up the official theory about Muslims and 9/11. They are literally helping in the murder of people in the Middle East.
But wait, there's more...
More from Iconoclast at 911blogger
The problem is, there exists a wealth of evidence to suggest that Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden have been plotting against the US and other western countries for years.
I could believe that their operations were, in actuality, directed from somewhere else (aka CIA, Mossad, etc.) unbeknown to them but the fact remains that they are an easy scapegoat because there is a lot of information in the public domain that confirms them as terrorists who want to bring down the US, one being the book "The Looming Tower," as I mentioned earlier.
I am not going to spend hours of my time writing out in detail why this is the case. I've done my research, so you can do yours.
One thing I suggest trying is to go to places that DO agree with the official story and try to cross-examine their information with yours. This will undoubtedly give you a clearer picture of what the game is.
Another great source of information is the HistoryCommons.org website that gives an incredibly detailed timeline of events, people, and places since the early 90s. No detail is left out. You will find quite of bit of evidence there to suggest Bin Laden at least wished he could have pulled off an operation like 9/11.
So to bring this full circle. The point about this is that achieving common ground and understanding with your intellectual opponent will clear the way for further investigation. Instead of getting hung up in the periphery, such as, "Was bin laden behind the attacks?" Sure. but the doesn't mean it wasn't an inside job. You could almost view it as placating. Then use the 100,000 transfer or some other interesting unknown fact as bait to bring them into the truth that the MSM so conveniently leaves out.
I promise you will get farther with people when they don't feel threatened by your presentation. Bellowing at people that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, as true as it may be, is going to make them feel threatened and immediately their rational and analytical thinking goes right out the window.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Submitted by The ICONOCLAST on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 6:16pm.
bellowing at people?
I NEVER bellow. I may jostle, cajole, and kvetch--but NEVER do I bellow. The fact is that people in my experience have proven MUCH more receptive to scientific observations about the role of explosives in the towers' destruction than to elaborate speculation about "the gummint is in cahoots with al Qaeda".
It's really a no-brainer, and I say this as someone who has been out there just about EVERY DAY (the 12th Hour of Every Day campaign...) for the last 2-3 years talking to people about explosives in the WTC and 9/11 generally. I know what works and what doesn't better than some anonymous LIHOP-pushing sock puppet at the Booger.
Disinformation Spreading 101
From the comments at:
Omar Saeed Sheikh Disinfo Goose Chase?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5945
Did you see this....
That Executive Order 13224 mentioned, Shaykh Sai'id (aka, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad)?
Ever see this staff statement?
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf
pg. 144
"Senior al Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydeh has commented on the source of the funding; he said that KSM received funds for the 9/11 operation directly from UBL, bypassing al Qaeda Finance Chief, Shayk Said, and suggested that some of the funds came from money that Zubaydeh had provided UBL for use in an operation against Israel. Zubaydeh, however, apparently did not participate in the 9/11 planning, and his statements lack any foundation."
These disinformation artists are crafty. They think no one has the time to research. Lucky for the 911 Truth movement I have time to debunk disinformation that is helping with the killing Arabs.
I pointed out numerous times that Jon Gold and his disinformation team were confusing the facts regarding the references above.
I am 100% certain that Shaykh Sai'id and Omar Saeed Sheikh are two very different individuals. I pointed this out to them but apparently that was divisive.
Instead of embracing FACTS that counter this anti-Arab conspiracy theory of Jon Gold's I was chastised by him and his buddies, a hit blog was posted that pointed out my full name and location, and I was banned from 911blogger.com.
EDIT: Let's continue...
The smoking gun used as 'evidence' to support this disinformation is this passage from the article link after it:
Why then is Omar Sheikh not being dealt with when he is already under sentence of death? Astonishingly his appeal to a higher court against the sentence was adjourned in July for the 32nd time and has since been adjourned indefinitely. This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit.
As confirmed by the FBI? This is an example of disinformation. If the bolded sentence above was not disinformation it would say something like:
"The FBI confirmed that Omar Sheikh and General Mahmood wired Mohamed Atta 100K".
But instead it takes a fact, the FBI confirmed a 100K wire transfer, and merges it with fiction, the FBI confirmed that Omar Shikh wired 100K to Atta.
Crafty huh? The FBI never confirmed such a thing.
Sorry for preaching but I'm hoping this information will be re-posted to the disinformation website www.911blogger.com so other may see that they still spread the same disinformation even after it's been debunked for years and years.
i hope so too...
your work on debunking the bogus 100K wire transfer story is much appreciated here, JPass!
These people have always been LIHOP
The only reason these people are considered 9/11 Truthers is because other soft 9/11 Truthers like Jon Gold and the owners and moderators of www.911blogger.com have built them up to be something they aren't.
I'm not surprised that Jon Gold gets praise from this FBI agent. I wouldn't be surprised if Ray McGovern, the ex-CIA dude gave Jon some props for his relentless pursuit of LIHOP.
Over the years we've seen these names as 'whistle blowers' and 'insiders turned 9/11 Truthers'. Where have they been on the issue of controlled demolition?
These so-called whistle blowers who shy away from the obvious controlled demolition are also, coincidentally, most heavily promoted by the obvious LIHOP loving soft 911 Truthers like Jon Gold and Sander hicks. And, coincidentally again, these same softies are also anti-controlled demolition and have stated so within the 9/11 Truth movement for years.
So Gold and his buddies bully the 9/11 Truth movement about Controlled Demolition. And then these softy 9/11 whistle blowers go into the public and treat Controlled Demolition as if it were a terribly ugly child that should kept in a closet.
When you consider the obvious demolition of WTC 7, it turns the theory of '19 Rabid Muslim Hijackers' into mush. These people, IMO, are completely bogus.
hear hear
I second that.
Coleen Rawley, "ex" FBI agent
What a total fraud. I met Colleen Rawley in Santa Cruz when she came to speak at the Truth Emergency Conference in 2007. I basically wanted to find out what was up with her unwavering and ridiculous insistence that the muslim hijacker narrative was true. She just kept saying that all the answers are in the FBI Inspector General's Report and the Moussaoui (tortured) interrogation nonsense. She would not veer from that script, no matter what. Me and my local truth buddies at the time just looked at each other and agreed that most likely there's nothing "former" or "ex" about her FBI career. She is completely full of crap and still on the payroll. No wonder Jon Gold respects her so much.
This comment from "rm" says it all:
I would put it a little differently
If they were to apply their 'unanswered questions' position to include those about how the WTC buildings came down, then that might cover it. If they hesitate to draw conclusions, OK--but stop pretending that the official version of how they came down is sound.
And in general, what ultimately is most important for people ostensibly friendly to truth-telling isn't so much the specifics of CD on 9/11, but that they stop treating the account of bin Laden and al Qaeda hijackers being responsible as having been proven. Sticking to your area of first-hand knowledge, as a whistleblower, doesn't give one license to be gullible--and thereby encourage others to be gullible--regarding other critical aspects of the 9/11 story.
I think that the shills at 911blogger are close to panicking over the fact that they have lost control over the discourse and obvious fakes like Jon Gold can no longer get away with their BS and attempts to control and manipulate the truth movement without being called out and exposed. Will there be another mass purging soon at 911blogger to protect the fakes?