9/11 infiltrators and informants will fail

[Informed Citizen]

Almost every major left-wing organization created since the sixties has been started or infiltrated by the various intelligence agencies. This has diluted and even brought down many political movements. But what does that mean to us who work to educate others and ourselves about 911 truth? Can the facts of this matter be so easily subverted at the public level? I doubt it. I think that the 9/11 truth movement is soundly enough based in solid historical facts that no propaganda campaign can ultimately derail its progress.

Recently WingTV decided to attack 911truth using methods that suggest an intelligence operation, or simply sheer idiocy, in a campaign aimed specifically at discrediting and dividing the movement. Also, Indymedia has demonstrated that they have been pressured internally or externally to censor the issue of 9/11 completely. These things initally seem bad, but I've been wondering recently how much any of this matters, specifically for the issue of 9/11? Should I really be upset?

Certainly I'm disappointed that there are many who work to undermine a movement that seeks only to expose the lies we all have been told. But I keep in mind that discovering and promoting the facts about 9/11 isn't really about speculation. We are not relying upon any specific political ideologies, grand suppositions, or conspiracy theories. There are many who do entertain these considerations, but this is not the core focus of this movement. We seek first to prove that important questions have not been adequately addressed by those responsible for the answers. We have specific facts that contradict the official story, and they remain unaddressed. We were warned about the attack. We have no proof that Al-qaeda was responsible. Dick Cheney was commanding both the military and training exercises that day. These facts, and the conclusions they readily imply, have been roundly avoided and stigmatized by our mainstream media sources, and many of our not-so-mainstream sources as well. However, the lack of answers will not disappear from the public discourse, and will continue to be passed from one to another until a critical mass is achieved. I believe that this is inevitable.

There are those who want us to think that this whole issue is all a matter of speculation. But people who want to distract us from these facts can only be so successful. Infiltrators can try to move us away from the facts and effective tactics that help promote these facts, but ultimately, they have limited power to undermine the truth. The principle of democracy suggests that we must always give the skeptic a voice. But that doesn't mean that we need respond. These people and the organizations that they represent can not greatly divert this cause. If we stay on message, learn the facts and promote them, then there is little that anyone can do to stop these facts from spreading, and more people finding out about what has been hidden from them.

- I.C.

[MrSammo1]

1. Waking up the masses

is the most important thing. More people have to SEE the deception in front of their eyes. The more analytical will pick up on it. Considering that only about 1 in 10 people are analytical......that still give us about 30 million people in this country alone.

More than enough to make the necessary changes needed.

[Informed Citizen]

11. Excellent point

I agree that we have to focus our initial efforts on exposing this issue to people who are most receptive. The base must grow before the mainstream will pay attention. Lets get out the word to those who will listen.

- I.C.

[pauldp]

2. Thank you I.C. you give me hope.

Those Wing TV wingnuts really got me fucking pissed off today.

The only real agenda of this movement is to find the truth, and the truth, like running water, will always find a way to break through while simultaneously washing away filth.

[Informed Citizen]

12. A vacant legacy

People who do not have the truth on their side are not powerful unless they use force or pay a lot for propaganda. But as you say, truth over time will wear down anything that stands before it. Don't worry about the WingTV folks. Their lives will only amount to the vacant legacy of those who do not think for themselves.

- I.C.

[rman]

3. Chomsky: "..tendency towards centralisation of control and authority..."

"Any of you who are active in groups, small groups or large groups - know that there is just a natural tendency that you have to resist, towards centralisation of control and authority.
There are going to be certain people who are interested and willing to take on responsibilities and make decisions. Others are busy, not interested enough. And groups can tend towards highly authoritarian, bureaucratic control. Those are tendencies that you've got to be aware of and overcome."
-- Noam Chomsky

[Informed Citizen]

13. Resist

Yes, we must resist the tendency to rely upon centralized authority. But the 9/11 truth movement is about helping others to think for themselves, and not about the authority of its leaders, so I'm not too worried about it. The big organizations can always be undermined, but 9/11 is more about the word on the street. Its about one person telling another, that yes, they actually believe this stuff. Don't wait for the organization to spread the word. Tell a friend.

- I.C.

[StrafingMoose]

4. Re

You said:

"We have no proof that Al-qaeda was responsible"

Well, _maybe_ it was. Considering this:

"Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as al-Qaeda. Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept “fighting terror” is the background of the “low-intensity-warfare” conducted in the mono-polar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as “al-Qaeda.”"

...

"Security officials noted that whatever Sakra might tell during his trial could be very important, considering his obscure relations. “If during his trial, Sakra tells half of the information we heard from him, al-Qaeda’s real face will emerge. But what he has said so far has more to do about a formation permeated by secret services rather than the terror organization of al-Qaeda.”"

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&trh=20050815&hn=23056
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&hn=22982

Still, that wouldn't help the OCT at all :P

[spooked911]

6. I think it all depends on how you define "Al Qaeda"

:)

I'm sure "Al Qaeda" was involved to some extent in 9/11.

But is Al Qaeda really a group of dastardly evil super-villains as painted by the media?

I think not. The truth is undoubtedly much more complicated.

[Informed Citizen]

14. Good point, but we do not disagree

I as well assume that Al-qeada is a development of the U.S. national security establishment. They were obviously the intended 'bad guy' of 9/11, and were lead into a supportive role by secret handlers. I didn't say that Al-qaeda did not exist, but that they were not responsible. The patsy isn't responsible, but only a tool of those who are. And as I stated, the government has not to this day provided proof of Al-qaeda's involvement, let alone responsibility. And they said they would.

- I.C.

[StrafingMoose]

20. Yea I remember...

You said:

"And they said they would "

Didn't Powell say this? But like you said, proof never came.

[Informed Citizen]

21. I think it was...

If I recall the controversy surrounded remarks by Powell. Condi said something that backed it up too. But later Press Secretary Scott McClellan denied that any 'white papers' would be released.

- I.C.

[vincent_vega_lives]

5. You can never be wrong

when anyone who disagrees with you is attempting to "undermine a movement" and dismissed as "infiltrators and informants".

[LARED]

8. Rather convenient isn't it (n/t)

[Informed Citizen]

18. You can do better than that

Pleare read my response to Vincent above, and don't get so cocky. I wasn't talking about you. Although your knee-jerk response to my post pulls you out in the open as someone who is sensative about being called an infiltrator. I know you get this alot. I'm going to confuse you. I can't be put in your 9/11 box. I'm rational. I'm flexible. I accept the role that you play in here, and won't ignore you. I also think that you ignore historical precedent in your analysis. What's your take on Operation Northwoods? How can you not feel that there is reason to be suspicious? Show me that you are rational and flexible and accept my role as a skeptic of the mainstream view. Democracy is about debate. And debate isn't about two dogmatic people hitting each other over the head and not learning anything from one another. Do you learn anything in here? Have you ever changed your mind? Is any of this evidence strong enough to dislodge your normative view? I want to know.

- I.C.

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. Cocky?

I've been here long enough not to let my Id or Ego get involved in any internet context. Nothing sensitive about my response, just an observation (not necessarily about you in particular) in regards to much of the 9-11 threads in the past four years. I can't recall how many times I have been labeled a "paid disinforment" for not buying one conspiracy "fact" or another.

Operation Northwoods is a poor "historical precedent" for any perceived 9-11 plot. A hysterical precedent would be a more accurate assessment. I have gone over my reasoning in detail in past threads.

There are things that one can "change their mind about", and then there are things you can't as they are fundamental understandings about the universe, like gravity and the sun rising in the east. I have seen quite a bit of "dogma" that has been supposedly supported by armature internet forensic analysis. Everyone has their "dogma" and most tend to bend the facts to fit their version of the truth.

Again sorry if you took my comment personally. But in my opinion much of the MIHOP "evidence" is right up there with the case for the Moon Landing Hoax.

[pauldp]

24. Up there with the case for the Moon Landing Hoax?

1. Do you deny the veracity of the report of the $100,000 wire transfer to Atta from the ISI?

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160

It was also confirmed by the FBI and ABC News among others.

Is this one of those pieces of "evidence" you would put up there with the case for the moon landing hoax? Did this evidence deserve to be omitted from the 911 Commission "full and final' Report?

Nothing personal, but the characterization of anyone who seeks to investigate strange circumstances and bizarre coincidences as a loony is a Republican tactic used over and over again since Watergate and recently used by half of the Republicans on the floor of the Congress to try to discredit Barbara Boxer for questioning the election in Ohio. It is a tactic that has grown very thin.

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. I wouldn't be surprised if the ISI

or elements thereof was supporting Afghan training camps prior to 9-11-01. No surprise whatsoever to anyone who studied the war in Afghanistan.

The CIA was at odds during the entire conflict with the ISI, ending up with two separate camps in the 1990s...that then became the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

There was much missing from the 9-11 Commision...Able Danger for example.

I'm not referring to "circumstances and bizarre coincidences", I am referring to the junk forensic science that is put forth so often.

Do I hear "Republican dis-informant" creeping in to this thread?

[pauldp]

27. So why do you think they (the 911 Comm) did not include that information?

It is evidence of who paid for 911.
Do you think they just forgot it? It must have been intentionally withheld yes?

At odds with the ISI or not, the CIA did funnel BILLIONS through the ISI to the Mujahedeen along with being complicit in the heroin trade yes?

Accusing you of being a Rebublican dis-informant? Absolutely not. Accusing you of generalizing in an overbroad manner, as many on the right do, about the evidence of government complicity in 911? - yes.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. Perhaps perhaps not

It is certainly a legitimate question as to why the 9-11 Commission omitted it, along with other things. I don't know but I imagine it has more to do with sensitivities than about conspiracies. Why did the commission omit Able Danger?

the CIA did funnel BILLIONS through the ISI to the Mujahedeen along with being complicit in the heroin trade yes?

Yes but the Mujahadeen was not a homogeneous organization by any stretch. There was the Fundamentalist Islamist sect on one end and the pro western sect on the other. The ISI favored the former and the CIA the latter, and ended up with the CIA pulling back all aid at a very critical phase of the Afghan war when it was apparent that the ISI was manipulating the aid, and the CIA was at the mercy of the ISI agents distributing the money and arms across the border.

[pauldp]

29. Well I certainly agree that the ISI paying for 911

could be considered a sensitivity.

What else could the money have been for? Atta would have been up to his ears in the final planning of the attack in the summer of '01. If it wasn't for 911 then why has that information not been released?

Would you agree the 911 commission conspired to withhold important information from the american public? Or is that just a word you avoid at all cost?

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. It certainly does require some answers

but I think we have a long way to go to get to a Government conspiracy at any level.

[pauldp]

31. I'm glad someone has so much faith in the people

who brought us Iran Contra, who told us there were WMD in Iraq and a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, because I was really beginning to lose faith.

Just how far do we still need to go?

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. True

I do have faith that public servants tend to act with good intentions that can go catastrophically wrong when competing personal agendas, ego, departmental jealousy, and a CYA/NMJ mentality can corrupt common sense and lead to poor judgment.

I think when we are accusing whole slews of public servants at least complicity to commit mass murder we need to go further than circumstantial suspicions.

[pauldp]

35. Did the Contras commit mass murder?

Who was complicit in that?

Certainly not all public servants -many are honest and moral. But certainly there were enough corrupt and immoral individuals involved to get the job done.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Good intentions gone awry

Sometimes backing an enemy of your enemy can bite you in the ass. Afghanistan is currently a good example.

Did an ally of the United States commit mass murder during WWII?

We backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war...look where that got us.

Nicaragua was a mess that got out of hand. I wouldn't go as far to say it was state sanctioned murder.

[pauldp]

41. Are you implying the people in the Reagan administration

who were funding them didn't know they were engaged in mass murder?

State sanctioned, maybe not. Sanctioned by clandestine factions within the government, definitely.

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. Depends how you define "administration"

Usually it would include the President and his WH staff, cabinet and secretaries. In that case then no I don't think so. How would they? I doubt the CIA was telling them, "oh BTW the Contras are committing mass murder". The us of the term "mass murder" to describe tactics used is questionable, "terrorism" would be more accurate as both Sandinista and Contra-Sandinista forces used terrorist tactics against their enemies, while "mass murder" was more common in a place like the former Yugoslavia. Like any non-moderated group that uses violence as a political tool, factions within those groups will eventually commit abuses, and it was Naive for the administration to think otherwise.

Media reports would be questionable as both sides used brutal tactics and propaganda to demonize the other side, and prop up their cause. This was essentially a Civil War, which can be the most brutal form of conflict.

And technically there was no one "Contra" group, there were peasant militias led by former Sandinista supporters, a Honduran supported group and then ARDE, who was led by a former Sandinista founder. There were also coastal tribes who considered the Sandinistas as committing cultural genocide against them with their sometimes brutal Modernization drive.

So did "clandestine factions within the government" know of the contra's tactics? Certainly. Did that mean that the policy makers were corrupt and immoral? No, just blinded to it by their paranoia of Cuban Socialism taking hold in Central America.

[pauldp]

50. Does the VP count as part of the "administration"?

It certainly could be argued that he was more the president than Reagan was.

" In an early interview with the FBI in December 1986 and in the OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush (Senior) acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events connected with the Iran arms sales, including the 1985 Israeli missile shipments.2 These statements conflicted with his more extreme public assertions that he was ``out of the loop'' regarding the operational details of the Iran initiative and was generally unaware of the strong opposition to the arms sales by Secretary of Defense Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz."

from"FINAL REPORT OF THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR
IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm

Daddy Bush knew all about it. The tons of cocaine being shipped, the rapes and murders, the arms deals. And then he pardoned everyone who was being prosecuted.

"just blinded by their paranoia of Cuban Socialism" IMHO is an oversimplification.
Paranoia of Cuban Socialism was the main cause for Operation Northwoods being cooked up. Maybe all of this along with the lying to go to war that junior has done is well intentioned, some are maybe more well intentioned than others, but it sure as hell is perverse by any moral standard not to mention highly illegal.

[Informed Citizen]

52. Rumsfeld backed Saddam

He sold Saddam chemical weapons. Saddam used them to commit genocide. That didn't change our relationship. Before you look at where that got us, look at who did it. Do you think I trust this guy, or his cohorts?

Who were the good guys in WWII. Prescott Bush didn't just trade with the Nazi's. He presided over and profitted from the sale of about 30% of their armaments and explosives.

You call the CIA flooding south central L.A. with crack a 'mess'? A prominant Black community was dicimated. John Negroponte took the money and created death squads meant to suppress the popular interest of self determination in Nicaragua. How democratic and concerned with liberty the Secret Government must be.

Don't you even sense the irony. They are back to the same old tricks. That's not crazy a crazy supposition. In this country we examine someone's prior record when considering if they are the perpetrator of a crime. So after these precendents, you can't so certainly say that these people automatically have good intentions.

Please don't tell me that all people are basically good. I generally agree, but that's no response to looking at people who have demonstrated themselves not to be. At the very least I don't trust that they will tell me the truth. Do you simply assume that every national security secret they keep is justified relative to the requirement in a democracy for public oversight? Every government has been corrupt at times, and usually before it falls apart. Where's your natural skepticism.

Also, please don't pick apart my statements about Bush, Rumsfeld, and Negroponte, and fail to miss my point. I was being brief and overly general to make my point. I hope that you have reviewed the evidence that supports my claims.

I have attempted to counter your claim that these people can be trusted to have good intentions. What is your response my general line of reasoning. Why should I trust them?

- I.C.

[hack89]

33. So all those civil servants hired by Clinton ..

are part of the neocon conspiracy? Not even a small percentage are moral enough to resist being complicit in mass murder? What a dark and cynical view of mankind you have.

[pauldp]

34. Could you explain how you arrived at that assumption?

Which civil servants are you referring to? When did I say all civil servants were involved?

Perhaps you trust the current administration more than I do for some inexplicable reason. If so please enlighten me as to why you trust them.

[hack89]

37. Who executed and covered up this vast conspiracies if not

all the hundred of thousands of workers at the DOD, NIST, FBI, FEMA and all the other agencies that are routinely demonized on this board. The administration is people - lots of government workers of which many are Democrats. It is not a matter of trust in the administration - I have a basic trust in the fundamental goodness of people. A small group of neocons could have planned 9/11 but it is impossible to cover up such a vast conspiracy without someone in the government having the courage to step forward.

[pauldp]

38. That's right. You can talk to Indira Singh about that if you like.

And Sibel Edmond's and many others in the whistle blowers coalition.

There are many examples of honest intelligence agency personnel in that coalition. I'm sure there are many others as well. Mine is not a problem with the trust in the fundamental goodness of people. It is a problem with people's underestimation of what a relatively small group of evil people will do in the name of money and power.

[Kevin Fenton]

39. Vast conspiracy

IMHO:
DOD: 1 person is involved in delaying the response: Rummy, who sat on his hands (I don't believe in the standdown order). A few people know that United 93 was shot down, but are keeping quiet because they believe this was the right decision (I think it was the right decision and I might keep quiet myself).
NIST: 1 person is involved. I guess this would have to be somebody high up who could frame the investigation. I would imagine he has been told the buildings were wired anyway because they were a major terrorist target (I think this is true) and were demolished because otherwise they would have fallen over sideways, causing much more death and destruction (I have my doubts about this).
FBI: nobody, why?
FEMA: nobody, why?

I doubt even the neocons would have planned it. If they did, why did they frame Al Qaeda, not Iraqi intelligence? I see it as either (1) some sort of huge cockup, or (2) somebody in the government (my money would be on the VP) figured out what was going on during the attacks and began to manipulate them while they were in progress.

If people are asked to keep quiet for what they think are good reasons, they'll keep quiet happily.

[hack89]

42. What about the cover up?

You have to admit that the cover up requires thousands of people - there are 5000 engineers at NIST alone. Look at my post - I agree that to plan and execute requires only a handful but the cover up is huge.

[Kevin Fenton]

44. Cover up at NIST

No, I think 1 person high up in the investigation at NIST is all that is needed. The main problem with the NIST report is that it stops in the middle of the story, merely saying that the initial collapse on one floor inevitably led to the collapse of the rest of the building. I doubt all 5,000 NIST employees were involved in this decision. My position is perhaps there would have been a partial collapse (which was reputedly possible in other fires in steel-frame skyscrapers, for example Madrid), but I don't think a partial collapse would have set the towers pancaking (or unzipping).

As I have pointed out in other posts, I think the base case numbers are high-end estimates (not numbers that were completely invented), whereas I disagree with the severe case numbers more strongly. For example, the people lower down looked at the amount of combustibles and came up with the figure of 4 lb/ft2, which seems to be a realistic figure as far as I can see. Somebody at the top of the investigation then increased this number by 25% in the severe case scenarios. This happened time and time again with every number. Most of the work NIST did lower down the food chain is sound, but it has been manipulated somewhat.

In any case, the investigation was stymied by the destruction of the evidence before it even got underway.

[hack89]

48. Give me a break!

So a senior official at NIST skews the investigation and not a single engineer and scientist at NIST or the collaborating universities says a single thing! They all knew enough of the science to know that they were deliberately covering up mass murder and not a single one said a thing. Right :eyes:

[Kevin Fenton]

51. Key part

The key failure of the investigation was that there was no examination of the pancaking. Nobody at NIST or the collaborating universities was involved in that part of the investigation, so why would they complain about it?

Most of the people murdered that day were murdered by Al Qaeda and the people at NIST obviously aren't covering that up. They figure that since Al Qaeda flew the planes into the towers, it's responsible for the deaths. Most of the people in the towers would have died anyway, regardless of demolition.

[pauldp]

49. You are assuming everything rests on controlled demo.

look at my earlier post about whistle blowers. People have come forward.

Indira Singh's story will send chills up your spine.

[Kevin Fenton]

36. You cannot be serious

"Yes but the Mujahadeen was not a homogeneous organization by any stretch. There was the Fundamentalist Islamist sect on one end and the pro western sect on the other. The ISI favored the former and the CIA the latter,"

The CIA loved Hekmatyar because he was such a bastard that nobody stole any of the stuff it gave him. That's why he got half of the arms the CIA shipped to the Afghans. Because he had good accounting. When Massood sent a team to kill Osama, the CIA tried to recall it, because they thought it would be illegal under US law (they had provided some of the intelligence the raid used) - by these two points I mean the CIA had an overall idea of why they were there (to aggravate the Soviets) and wanted to comply with the rules for its operation, but they never had any real policy or understanding of the conflict in Afghanistan and didn't see the danger of Islamist fundamentalism until it was too late.

It was apparent that the ISI was manipulating the aid all the way through, but the CIA was generally fine with that - the finance ended when the bear went back over the mountain.

IMHO much of the stuff claimed by the MIHOPers is also incorrect, but that doesn't mean it all is.

[vincent_vega_lives]

47. Not totally true

The CIA loved Hekmatyar because he was such a bastard that nobody stole any of the stuff it gave him. That's why he got half of the arms the CIA shipped to the Afghans.

Even the ISI head at the time says the CIA did not trust Hekmatyar. He got most of the stuff the CIA funneled into Pakistan because the ISI weighed it that way (due to tactical reasons they claim).

but they never had any real policy or understanding of the conflict in Afghanistan and didn't see the danger of Islamist fundamentalism until it was too late.

I agree with that.

It was apparent that the ISI was manipulating the aid all the way through, but the CIA was generally fine with that - the finance ended when the bear went back over the mountain.

Initially they were, but mainly because they couldn't really control it, and the end result would be the same, the defeat of the USSR. The CIA pulled finance during a critical phase of the conflict, when it was learned that the Fundamentalist factions were going to take power. By then it was too late.

[pauldp]

9. "anyone who disagrees with him"?

Could you point it out where he said that?

[Informed Citizen]

19. Thanks

Thanks for the backup. Read my response to their comments. I'm trying to be flexible. I hope they can as well.

- I.C.

[Informed Citizen]

17. Mischaracterization

You may have misunderstood my intent. I'm not sure why. I wasn't really referring to people at DU9/11. People who are skeptical of alternate 9/11 theories are a very improtant part of the movement. I apprecitate your participation and that of Lared, Hack 89, MercutioATC, et al. Lared has been very open about the fact that he supports the official view of 9/11, and yet I find the role of the devil's advocate to be essential in helping us to better defend the truth. And occationally these people offer an important check on our tendency for wild hypothesis.

To be specific, I wasn't referring to people who disagree with me, but people who engage in diversionary tactics that serve to disengage people from discussion of the important facts. Debate is essential. But some of the people mentioned have in the past treaded into the realm of dogmatic certainty. I'm certian of little, and highly suspect of anyone who thinks they know exactly what happened, official or alternative.

So please don't suggest that I am acting dogmatically myself, when I am perfectly willing to engage you in debate. I will not however accept commentary, such as this that mischaracterizes my views, and serves to support the idea that people who support the 9/11 truth movement are incapable of accepting contrary evidence. If you have a better theory you should write a book about it. I hope your book is as well sources as "Crossing The Rubicon" or "The Terror Timeline". Good luck.

- I.C.

[pox americana]

43. Don't get your hope up.

Bushbots aren't here to learn anything, they're here to propagandize, period.

Either that or they're very, very, very slow learners.

[spooked911]

7. I hope you're right.

But what if the movement has been infiltrated at a very high level, and someone who professes all these points you profess is also secretly undermining/selling out the movement?

Wouldn't that be more effective for the government than having a few lone groups spouting seemingly outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theories?

As to why NYC Indymedia doesn't push 9/11 skepticism, that is a very important point and someone should find out why.

[Informed Citizen]

15. Clarification

You read my post?

<But what if the movement has been infiltrated at a very high level, and someone who professes all these points you profess is also secretly undermining/selling out the movement?>

As I stated, most of the organization were probably started by or with intelligence operatives. I take this for granted. But in what specific way can the facts we speak of be undermined? How can any of the big groups really change the fact that this information is best passed from person to person. The whole aparatus could fall apart, and people would still be learning about this on the street. And I feel that this will over time have an impact. Its a grass roots movement, and small groups in every city are at the forefront. And these small groups are easy to infiltrate, but hard to divert.

- I.C.

[Kevin Fenton]

22. Sadly,

to derail the 9/11 movement I don't think it's necessary for somebody to infiltrate it at a high level (or any other level). Such movement automatically attracts all sorts of crazies; all you have to do is look at some of the websites that promote 9/11 truth - they also promote UFOs, the moon landings were faked and God knows what else and can be used to discredit the "sensible core". All that anyone would have to do is release some information leading the movement up the garden path, like faked pictures of one of the attacks, or some little snippet about the wargames. It's that easy.

Remember Roswell?

[graphixtech]

10. Great commentary

Thanks for writing it.

[Informed Citizen]

16. Thanks

Appreciate the recognition. We gotta keep hope alive.

- I.C.

[graphixtech]

25. agree and additional comment

IC,

Yes, word of mouth about 911 truth issues is gaining inertia and is the most powerful of our communications.

I assure you that both the leadership of 911Visibility.org and of 911Truth.org are
dedicated to increasing public awareness and have only Honorable intentions. As staff
graphic designer for 911Truth, I have worked with researchers to make numerous
educational handouts, specifically towards this goal of raising public awareness.

A few of these downloadable resources:
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm


Here is our current Editorial Policy (this is currently in the process of being updated):

We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at 911Truth.org. Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best.
- We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur.
- Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion.
- Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones.

Here is a recent major event that was sponsored by 911Truth.
This huge event was mainly organized by four us of (at no small sacrifice).
http://truthemergency.us/

Sixteen videos from the event:
http://truthemergency.us/pages/VideoAudio.html

(This powerful ETC video of Retired AF Col. Robert Bowman raises blood pressure. Few minutes to load)
http://truthemergency.us/movies/BobBowman2.mov


Another ETC event will be held in Kansas City, on Oct. 28-30.
http://truthemergency.us/pages/Regional.html

Watch for major 911Truth organizational announcements in the next day or two.

http://911truth.org/

[Informed Citizen]

45. The 9/11 truth movement rocks!!!

The graphics guy is always the perfect mole. I have learned not to trust anyone working for this movement until we get pretty deep into the issue. And then I only trust that they aren't going to embarrass me by association. 9/11truth.org is the only website about 9/11 that I find appropriate to use as a general reference for those who have not yet explored the issue. However, I don't think that any site alone is adequate to serve as a primary resource. I enjoy coopre, but its a resource not integrated into a focused promotional strategy. 9/11truth.org has an education approach that should be more common. An approach that doesn't scare anyone off too quickly. I recently began to participate in this movement. I plan on sharing my concern for the best possible liguisitic strategy. Each word in a handbill or sign is a trigger that either fires where you were aiming, or quite possibly somewhere else. I find that people are good at expressing themselves, but less aware of reception, or what people hear. The 9/11 truth movement needs some advertisers and P.R. associates, but for now I'll see what I can do. It needs people to summarize in order to mobilize. What is this all really about? What can most of us agree upon? We must eventually have a multi-faceted approach to promotion, involving promotional materials created specifically for different cultural communities. Just a couple of the lastest thoughts. Promoting 9/11 truth is all I've been thinking about lately, and I think I'm close to determining the strongest approach based on introduction, information, and retention. I want to work on this with someone, but its too specific and abstract for most 9/11 researchers, and too nutty for everyone else. I'm hangin with the New York 9/11 truth crew, so were not too many steps apart. Keep pushing.

- I.C.

[Informed Citizen]

53. WingTV - Intel op or calculated idiocy

The WingTV operation on 9/11/05 appears to have been a success. They disrupted the 9/11 rememberance ceremony drawing negative attention to the movement. They promoted speculative evidence drawing attention away from the primary evidence upon which the 9/11 inquiry is founded. They captured the news media's attention by manipulating its willingness to stigmatize this movement as 'conspiracists', with their 'we don't care what anyone else thinks' tattered banner, and uncompromising attitude. They showed up at the NY911Truth rally with Nico Haupt, after having trashed everyone involved, taking advantage of the organizers willingness to maintain decorum, in order to falsely establish their association with the group. And they intentionally frustrated individuals in order to draw them into a conflict that would serve to undermine the peaceful nature of this inquiry.

Looks to me like someone took 'Infiltrate to undermine 101'. I am at loss to discern the positive outcome of their actions. I hope everyone is now more familiar with their tactics, and that we are not fooled into thinking that these people work for the same goals as those concerned citizens who educate others about the events of 9/11.

- I.C.