Arcterus 9/11 Truth (kind of)

Silence

2011-05-04T20:01:00.000-07:00

Those of you who read my blog have probably noticed that I haven't been very active in quite some time. In fact, I have not been very active with the 9/11 Truth Movement in general over the past several months. I have not been to TruthAction, TruthMove, 911blogger, or any other sites I used to frequent, nor have I engaged (in any significant detail) in debate regarding the matter. There is a reason for all of this.

I wrote an article some time ago about how psychological bias is inevitable. It's simply human nature to let your own way of thinking shape what you see. Experience shapes perception just as perception shapes experience. In spite of this, I've always strived to be as neutral as possible, and not let personal philosophies or preconceived notions interfere with the information that is given to me. I've been known to drastically alter my position on a variety issues, even my way of thinking in the grand scheme of politics has shifted from being strongly liberal to independent to left-leaning libertarian to being mildly liberal. I'm a young person. I'm only 20. It is expected that it should take some time to solidify my political philosophy.

That pattern is rather consistent with my involvement in The 9/11 Truth Movement. I've talked about it before, the "Conspiracy High". When I first became involved, I bought the whole thing hook, line, and sinker. As time went on, I began to see fallacies, inconsistencies, and general falsehoods that led me to abandon certain notions. Most notably, I have described in the past my prior beliefs that no plane struck the Pentagon. Relatively quickly, I turned from this. I stayed a supporter of Alex Jones for quite some time, but now I acknowledge him for the nutcase that he is. I, like many of my comrades, was ecstatic when the nanothermite paper came out by Jones et al. Eventually, however, it became clear that the paper had a serious credibility issue, and I have since dropped it. I still considered controlled demolition likely. Now I'm not so sure.

We all have doubts. There is always one issue that you think twice about. You are sure you're right, you believe what you say, but something reminds you that then again, maybe you're not. Maybe you're wrong. I'm sure most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement have had this feeling from time to time, and I'm certainly included in that regard. But in the end, I've always found myself drawn to the same conclusion. Still, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being influenced. After all, I spent a good chunk of my time reading material from other 9/11 Truth groups/individuals. I felt the only way to fairly reflect on these doubts was to pull back from the issue as much as possible. I did not involve myself with truthers, nor debunkers. I wanted to let the evidence and information circulate in my head, so I, myself, could form a conclusion.

It was, somewhat bizarrely, only a few days before Bin Laden's death that I thought I made up my mind.

All of those things I mentioned, those beliefs that have waned with time, were never the things that kept me pinned to the movement. It was the documented, factual evidence. I've talked about it before, especially in my article “Controlled demolition in activism”, and why I think it should be the primary focus of the 9/11 Truth Movement. These were things that always came back to me and made me say, “Okay, so I accept that I was wrong in this matter. But this here is indisputable. Debunkers can speculate all day, but we'll never truly know these answers without an investigation”. That, after all, was what the Truth Movement was [supposed to be] all about. This line of thinking had worked for a time, but absence from the 9/11 Truth scene left me circling around the same problem.

When making an extraordinary claim, one requires extraordinary evidence. This is something debunkers have said before to 9/11 activists, and I've always agreed with it. We ARE making the claim, we SHOULD provide the evidence. And I always thought that we had it. I've been more than happy to point out the various questions that need answering. Somehow, it's only recently I've only realized the truth. It is a somewhat ironic discovery given my involvement in the atheist community, in which we have similar standards regarding positive evidence.

Absence of evidence is not a basis for building a conclusion, and that's all that these questions really are: absence of evidence. Why did they fail to intercept the planes? Why was nobody fired or reprimanded for the massive failure on 9/11? Why did they lie about this? Why did they lie about that? I could go on and on, but in the end, the truth comes down to this: We don't know. The reason I have treated questions as evidence is because I've had no answers and thus been presupposing them. I don't know why everything happened the way it did. I can't prove complicity by pointing out a lack of an answer. When one asks a question and does not receive an answer, that is a decent reason to form suspicions. It is not an excuse to form a conclusion. We do not need to fill in the blanks.

Some of these questions may seem as though they can not possibly be answered without revealing corruption. Assuming this is true, it means nothing in the long run. Governments are corrupt. Governments lie. That's what they do. That does not necessarily equal complicity. As a 9/11 truther, that was likely difficult for me to see as my “way of thinking” was interpreting the information a certain way where it seemed the only reasonable way to interpret it. Unintentional bias, but bias all the same.

I still have questions. I still have suspicions. The difference is that for the first time I am seeing these questions as just questions. I would still like to have them answered. If a new investigation is carried out, I will support it, as it would be fair. I mean no malice towards the 9/11 Truth Movement. I maintain the stance I have always taken: I will go where the evidence takes me. The 9/11 Truth Movement has made an extraordinary claim. They do not have extraordinary evidence. Unless such a thing happens in the foreseeable future, I can no longer affiliate myself with this organization.

I have no shame in this, no embarrassment, no humiliation. I believed what I believed because at the time it made sense to me. I have re-evaluated my position, and I see no cause for shame in that. My only such regret is anyone else who I have convinced of this position. I can think of a couple friends of mine who are likely candidates. Well, they are free to think for themselves and come to whatever decision they wish. 9/11 Truth has been a big part of my life for many years. Politically, it was the single-biggest issue for me. While it may be hard to cast away something that has helped define me, I can not, in good conscience, maintain my status as a 9/11 truther when there is no evidence of the position. If 9/11 was an inside job, then that conclusion is unattainable with the current body of evidence, as far as I'm concerned. I see this as a test of my own integrity.

I rarely have ever admitted I was wrong, not because I was stubborn, but because I was right. I keep myself informed on many issues, and when it comes time to lay the cards down I am usually right. But sometimes I am wrong. It's been five and a half years since I became a part of the truth movement. Five and a half years of fighting for the truth. Five and a half years later, I admit I was wrong.

-Kamen Fattorusso

While I have no intentions of updating the site, I will not delete anything. Everything will stay up as normal. I rarely delete anything I write, even if it's no longer applicable. If you wish to contact me, I will not be checking the comments section with any frequency, so you can do so in the following ways:

E-mail: arcterusgnu@yahoo.com
AIM: Arcterus52
MSN:arcterus@live.com
Youtube Channel: youtube.com/Truescar
Facebook: Kamen Fattorusso

In defense of myself

2010-08-21T20:29:00.000-07:00

There's some rumor I've noticed recently that my career move is to become a 9/11 Truth filmmaker.

It's not.

Just thought I'd mention it.

I'm not really sure how this started, but I've seen this claimed by both Adam Syed and Craig Ranke. My guess is that it started at WTCDemolition when, in one of the first ever attacks on me for daring to mention "no-planes" in the same context as CIT, some user started speculating on my career move and suggested I want to be the next Dylan Avery.

Now, I imagine that the fact I'm working on a 9/11 Truth film, 9/11 Anomaly, would fuel this idea. Relatively speaking, this isn't an entirely unreasonable conclusion. It's still wrong though. For one thing, it would be the single worst career move ever in the history of mankind, as my film will be free, which pretty much cancels out any chance of income. Secondly, what's apparently been glossed over is that this film isn't my "career". I am pursuing the career of a filmmaker, yes, but not 9/11 truth in particular. I am using my skills to do my part in aiding the 9/11 Truth Movement.

So to recap, for those of you who have fallen under this assumption, you are wrong, and I am right. This seems to be a pattern.

9/11 Truth News

2010-08-18T14:07:00.000-07:00

Announcing the launch of 911truthnews.com

http://911truthnews.com

The editors of 9/11 Truth News are pleased to present 911truthnews.com. 9/11 Truth News is intended to be an accessible and factually oriented first reference for those curious about 9/11 truth. Our movement must serve its audience and this site was created for that purpose.

The key to effectively serving this purpose is our strategy. That starts with the site being solely related to 9/11 truth and edited by four longtime movement activists. With a good deal of thought about who we need to reach and the obstacles that stand in the way of reaching them, the editors of 911truthnews.com will be publishing only that which we believe to be the best this movement has to offer.

What does 'the best' look like? Uplifting images of people committed to educating the public. Videos of thoughtful actions and real connections with our audience. Stories of our mutual challenges and cooperative successes. Important discoveries. Revealing hit pieces. Thoughtful commentary. The best looks like positive movement.

In order for this site to reflect the best this movement has to offer, we will need help from the movement to keep us informed about what we might include. We need people to help us find relevant news. We need groups to send us their best images and videos of their actions and events. We need people to help us fill out the resources section by submitting links to related history, our strongest evidence, and information relevant movement strategy.

Commenting is provided on our site primarily to allow readers to post thoughtful questions and commentary that enhances the educational value of our posts. We will be strictly moderating comments to maintain that educational value. If you'd like to comment, please stay on topic and don't get too heavily into details, speculation or debate.

9/11 Truth News. Please check out the site and if you like what you see, bookmark us, visit us regularly and spread the word. Also, please let us know if there are any huge bugs. We're still working out some browser issues.

http://911truthnews.com

If you'd like more information about the project please have a look at our ABOUT section.

http://911truthnews.com/about-911-truth-news/

If you would like to comment please read the COMMENT page before registering.

http://911truthnews.com/share-911-truth-news/comment/

To submit a suggestion about content you can use our CONTENT page.

http://911truthnews.com/share-911-truth-news/content/

To contact the editors about the site please use our CONTACT page.

http://911truthnews.com/contact-911-truth-news/

Thanks for your time and your commitment to 9/11 justice.

Sincerely,

The 9/11 Truth News team

"Building What?" - Most Important 9/11 Truth Campaign Ever?

2010-08-17T16:53:00.000-07:00

I've been seeing talk of this campaign called "Building What?" on websites like 9/11 Blogger and Global Research. I've seen it billed as "The Most Important 9/11 Truth Campaign Ever". Naturally, I felt something that holds itself up to such a vast standard warranted my attention. So what is the "Building What?" campaign?

I actually rather like the idea. Gather up finances to pay for a TV ad that will play in New York City for a week sometime around September 20th. Television is a great method for outreach, and New York is a great location, not only because it was the location of the World Trade Center but because it's one of the most highly-populated cities in the world.

But as you may have guessed, I'm not ready to back this campaign up 100%. I think the "How" is great. It's the "What" that I have problems with. The campaign is called "Building What?" because the ads will be about the collapse of Building 7, so as to make sure the question "building what?" is never asked again when referring to Building 7.

Now, I can't say exactly what's in the ad, since it hasn't premiered yet. My PRESUMPTION is that it will show one of two things: Information about controlled demolition or footage of WTC7 to get people interested in the website.

If it's number one, my main concern is that, like most ads, I figure this ad will be either 15, 30, or 60 seconds long. None of those times are long enough to go in-depth enough about controlled demolition to be convincing.

If it's the second option, then I like this much more, and I suspect that's closer to what they're planning to do, based on this paragraph in their announcement:

"Over one million New Yorkers will see Building 7’s collapse for the first time and tens of thousands will go to BuildingWhat.org for more information. The website will be a visually stunning, user-friendly journey through the most essential information about Building 7. It will open with a 90-second intro featuring 9/11 family members and David Ray Griffin telling the story of Building 7, interspersed with news footage from 9/11. There will be a video gallery, an 8-part section on evidence of controlled demolition, a page on fundraising for future ad campaigns, and an advocacy page explaining what New Yorkers can do. There will also be links to the organizations cosponsoring the ad campaign."

This works better because the website will be a better venue for information than a quick television ad. The ad offers the hook and the website offers the substance. It's better but I still have the problem that I don't think controlled demolition is the best information to offer in a tv ad. I'm not completely opposed to this plan but controlled demolition is a highly-debatable subject. Even some of us in the truth movement don't endorse the idea, and plenty more may endorse the theory but don't endorse the promotion of it. This may very well get many people interested, but will it be convincing?

I just think that you could show other things in a span of 30 or so seconds that are far more compelling. I can think of several concepts off the top of my head. Picture this: Open the ad talking about Gen. Richard Myers and his role/failure in the 9/11 attacks, then you reveal how he was PROMOTED after this failure. List off other individuals who failed that day and weren't at all reprimanded, then finish the ad asking why nobody in our government was held accountable for their failures. Also imagine this one: List off the various war game operations that took place that day, noting the similarities to the actual events. If there's time, bring up other things outside the war games that show the government planning for such an attack before 9/11. Finish the ad asking why the government couldn't defend themselves from an attack they'd been planning for all this time.

These things are NOT debatable. The conclusions, yes, but the facts are sound. These sort of ads end with people being given solid facts that lead to a question - a question of WHAT happened that day? Have a link on the ad that goes more in-depth with these kind of FACTS to further educate anybody interested. In my opinion, I think this would be much more effective than talking about WTC7. You could even have several of these ads all as part of the same campaign, so if one ad doesn't get someone interested, another one promoting an entirely different set of facts can build upon it.

WTC7 is a very interesting anomaly, no doubt, and I think that kind of thing that can brought in later, maybe, but 9/11 Truth has been well-painted by the mainstream media as another fringe group of conspiracy theorists, and controlled demolition has been a large part of that. I also don't think that CD is as much of a mystery to anyone anymore. At one point it was something that was engaging since nobody knew about it, but now when I talk about it with someone they seem to have heard of it, even if only a little. I don't think solving the question of "Building What" is as necessary as the creators of this campaign might think. This is just based off my experience and perception, I don't have any statistics or anything to support this, but if I had to guess, a lot more people have heard about Building 7 since 2006 or so when it was more of a mystery.

A lot of these facts that I bring up, however, have not been as strongly promoted. Why is this? I don't know. But it means that we have plenty to offer to people who only know the 9/11 Truth Movement as "those people who believe controlled demolition and no plane hit the Pentagon". They offer something completely new and, more importantly, untainted by bad research.

I'll have more to say on this when the ad premieres on August 27th, and I have something more concrete to talk about. At face value, however, I think this ad is taking the wrong direction. I still like the idea, I still think it can be effective, and in the early stages of this campaign I can so far get behind it. But I think it could be MORE effective. I think that a campaign for 9/11 Truth, not to mention a campaign that's asking for donations from well-meaning activists, should be executed to it's maximum potential. I don't think this is that campaign. I can't say that this is the most important 9/11 Truth campaign ever. It's a big one, but it falls short of what could be something much greater.

CIT is useless

2010-08-01T12:32:00.001-07:00

UPDATE 8/15/10: Added a segment about the closing statements.

Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.

There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.

Let's say that CIT is right. For the sake of argument, let's say that all of those unsupported excuses, all of that "all the other witnesses are wrong/disinfo" and that "the physical evidence was faked" was, indeed, how it went. Well, perhaps you are satisfied with the evidence CIT has passed on and agree with their proposed conclusion, but bear in mind that when it comes to the big picture this means nothing. What convinces you and what can pass convincingly in court are two entirely separate things, and if our goal as a movement is to merit a new investigation to achieve accountability, then the court method is the more important one, correct? If you agree that trial is going to be a necessary factor in the grand scheme of things, so to speak, then you also have to acknowledge that, well...CIT is useless.

Let's run by a quick list of what we can all agree on.

1. CIT has 13 witnesses who support a north-side path.
2. There are other witnesses who support a south-side path.
3. The physical evidence supports a south-side path.

Bear in mind that none of those 3 points are asking for validity. They are simply pointing out, at face-value and without cross-examination, what it all appears as initially. Do you think the south-side witnesses are wrong? Fine. But we should still be able to agree that these witnesses support a south-side conclusion, however valid or invalid that testimony may be.

Let's also add to the list:

4. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to divulge in aggressive behavior, even if given permission to treat as a "hostile witness".
5. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to give opinions.
6. Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, nor anyone else would be allowed to speculate on possible explanations.

For #4, there is a certain court etiquette by which all participants must abide by, else they are held in "contempt". For #5, Lawyers present, examine, and cross-examine the evidence to the jury. They do not lead the jury by offering their personal thoughts on the matter. For #6, that's more or less the same thing. It just means they can't say "But you see, it only seems that way because..." You can not offer explanations until you are presenting the evidence that you believe explains away whatever it is you are opposing, and even then you can not do so in a way that leads the jury.

I clarify this because it means, first and foremost, that Craig, Aldo, and everyone else involved on the legal team would have to act like civil, adult human beings. That's something that has been a problem for them. It also means that their normal way of arguing would not be admissible. They could not say "this part of the testimony is right, but he was mistaken on this part" because they can not give opinions. The best they could do would be to bring up additional testimony or evidence to contradict it, which would also be a problem because it discredits the witness (I'll go more in-depth on that later). CIT can absolutely bring up witnesses and examine their testimony, but they CAN NOT offer opinions on what the validity of the testimony is or what that testimony means, which is basically their entire process for arriving at the conclusion of a flyover.

Now I'm going to start offering several scenarios which, I think, show how horridly CIT would hold up in court.

Let's start with their own witnesses being cross-examined with each other. CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the building. Their case for claiming the physical evidence was faked revolves around the testimony that the flight path as on the north side of CITGO. They would HAVE to find some way to convince the jury that part of the testimony was right and another part was wrong without directly saying so. Now even if they made this possible, invalidating a witness discredits their ENTIRE testimony. Even if you're only arguing against part of it, it only makes the entire testimony look bad. It's so unlikely it might as well be said to be impossible that an entire jury would accept a testimony to be PARTIALLY accurate. They would almost definitely disregard it. Even if, by some miracle, each and every one of them thought in this way, that would go out the window upon cross-examination. Take, for example, Sergeant Lagasse. CIT says that Sergeant Lagasse giving irrefutably wrong locations of the taxi cab and light poles actually supports their theory. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but back in the realm of reality, all it means is that he's WRONG. And if he's wrong, it means the entire testimony could be wrong. That and, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to say why they think it supports their conclusion. They can not speculate.

I don't want to make this article too long by going through each and every witness, but I assume we can all agree that the majority of CIT witnesses report testimony that CIT themselves disagree with, mostly concerning whether or not the plane hit the building. Again, I remind you that CIT can not give their normal explanation of the whole thing being like a magic trick or sleight of hand. They can not offer opinions. They can only suggest as much by objectively examining the evidence. Evidence which they lack, since the entire premise is built on speculation.

But how about the other witnesses? The witnesses who support a south-side path? No longer can CIT accuse them of being liars without adequate proof, no longer can they insist that they were influenced by media reports without reasoning. No, I'm afraid CIT can only call forth the witness, listen to their testimony, and try to find holes in it. Even if they find holes, which they probably would for at least some of them, given the vast quantity of witnesses, the witnesses who support a south-side path outnumber the north-side witnesses so greatly that right off the bat it would be more convincing. More importantly, many of these witnesses were interviewed immediately after the attacks. Most of the CIT witnesses were interviewed years later. The opposing lawyer would undoubtedly bring up an expert to talk about how A) Trauma distorts the memory (it does not strengthen the memory as CIT so erroneously claims in their documentary) and B) How memory fades with time. More importantly, there are so many holes in the CIT witnesses that would be revealed upon cross-examination that any found in the south-side witnesses would be underwhelming. In a best-case scenario, you have the jury not being convinced by either side. More likely though, the jury is leaning towards the side with more witnesses, more credible witnesses, and of course witnesses who corroborate the physical evidence.

Ah yes, that pesky physical evidence. It's been quite an issue for CIT, as it's quite damning to their conclusion. CIT has basically offered that their claim of the evidence being faked is supported by the witness testimony, but in fact it's quite the other way around. In the legal world, physical evidence trumps witness testimony, always. This is explained in detail by Edmond Locard, a pioneer of forensic science and the creator of Locard's Principle of Exchange.

"Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."

In short, this means "Every contact leaves a trace." Are the implications of this clear? Physical evidence is always correct, because it can not be wrong. IF the physical evidence was faked, then there'd be some sign, some EVIDENCE that it was faked. Does everyone understand? You can only trump physical evidence with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Were the light poles blown away by explosives? Then there should be some explosive residue. Was that segment of the Pentagon blown up? Then like all bombs, there must have been some shrapnel. Were the plane parts planted? Then it should be clear to forensic examiners that the locations of the plane parts are all wrong, that they flew in the wrong trajectory, that they weren't traveling at the right velocity, anything to suggest that they didn't originate from a high-speed plane crash. Did the examiners miss all of this? If so, it doesn't matter. It means CIT has no case here. If the evidence was missed by those examining the scene, there's nothing that can be done about that. It still means there's no documented, verifiable physical evidence with which to suggest that the whole scene was set up.

It is this portion, this matter of physical evidence, where CIT falls short that it makes the witness matter pale in comparison. That whole mess is such a wishy-washy roller coaster ride filled with holes and mistakes that I only include that out of thoroughness. In truth, all I need to point out is this right here. That CIT has NO physical evidence to back them up, and without that they have no case. All signs point to a plane striking the building. CIT would not only have to disprove that, but they would have to also prove that the south-side path was faked, and they would have to do so objectively and built on a mountain of evidence which they lack. Remember, THEY CAN NOT SPECULATE.

At the end, CIT and the opposing side would give their closing statements. Note, it is ONLY in the opening and closing statements where either side can offer explanations. This is the one time where a tiny fragment of speculation can see it's way in. Each side tells the jury how they view the evidence at hand. Both sides are still bound, however, by the evidence presented, so they can't delve too much outside of that. Here's an example of what a closing statement might look like for two different sides.

A man is having money troubles, but did not share his concerns with his family. He is an avid hunter who regularly used guns and kept one in the house. He is found in his study, dead, with a gunshot wound to the head. His shotgun is nearby as are cleaning supplies for the gun. Shortly before his death, he spoke with a friend on the phone. He gave no sign - to anyone - of depression or impending suicide. The friend said he sounded completely normal on the phone. He was a devoted family man, committed to his wife. Widow is suing insurance company which claims the man commit suicide and is therefore refusing to pay the life insurance claim.

Both attorneys have the same facts to work with, right? Some are good for them, some are bad. Here's how they would explain the evidence to fit their theory of the case:

Widow's Attorney: This was a tragic accident. Man makes a terrible mistake while cleaning his gun and it accidentally discharges. Widow lost her husband and now Insurance Company is trying to make things even worse. This was not a suicide. Friends and colleagues testified that Man was not depressed and gave no hint of suicide. In fact, he spoke with Friend shortly before his death and there was no hint that he was moments from taking his own life. Why is that? Because he wasn't. He may have had money problems. Lots of people do. But that doesn't mean they are all suicidal. The evidence shows that this was a tragic accident. Don't extend the tragedy. Return a verdict for the plaintiff.

Insurance Company's Attorney: This was a tragedy. On that I think we can all agree. But it was no accident. Man was clearly adept at hiding things. He hid his financial troubles from his wife and his severe depression from his friends. On the day he spoke with Friend and sounded as he always had, it was because he had found a solution to his troubles. After hanging up, he walked over to his shotgun and pulled the trigger. Why were the cleaning supplies out? Well, Man was a smart man and knew about the suicide rider, that the insurance company would not pay life insurance if the death was a suicide. So he left out the cleaning supplies to make it look as if it were an accident. We feel for Widow, but that doesn't mean that the rule of law doesn't apply. It doesn't mean Insurance Company should pay to make things better for her. We ask that you review the evidence and draw the only sensible conclusion. Return a verdict for the defendant.

What we see here is how two completely different stories are formed using the same body of evidence. Now imagine the case with CIT. Remember that, outside the possibility of their opening statement, they'd have been incapable of even mentioning things like "flyover", "faked evidence", "sleight of hand illusion", or anything else that didn't reside in speculation, since none of those can be supported by any witness testimony or evidence of any sort. Still, as long as they make it fit with the evidence, they can still mention those things in the closing statement. But that's a problem for them, even here where their speculation is granted the most leniency. Here is probably something it might look like:

(Although Craig/Aldo would probably have a professional lawyer hired, I'll use "Craig" as the lawyer for simplicity's sake.)

Craig: The American people were all lied to about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We showed you 13 witnesses who all reported a flight path completely different from the one suggested by the damage path. This can only mean that the path was faked, and the plane did not actually strike the Pentagon.

Here are some important things to note on that. I simply have to make sure how clear it is that they are bound by the evidence in hand. They can not talk about other witnesses "lying" or "being agents" without evidence that was brought up in court to suggest as much. They can't bring up "sleight of hand illusion", since there's no evidence that any such distraction occurred. It is an entirely speculative excuse for why the witnesses would have said there was an impact. They can't even specifically say the plane "flew over", since their witnesses don't say as much. They can only imply it, to the subtlest extent, with a line like "It didn't strike", using the contradiction between their proposed flight path and the damage path as support. CIT is so limited in what they can say that they're forced to do more ignoring of evidence than framing it to fit their conclusion. Now here's what the opposing attorney might say.

Opposing attorney: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is almost certainly nothing suspicious about the evidence brought up in court today. The 13 witnesses contradict each other and have indisputable mistakes in their testimony. We have also brought up experts to show how trauma and time are both severe factors in the preservation of memory, and we've brought up several witnesses of our own who give testimony consistent with the flight path of the official story. Even without that, do 13 witnesses really trump something as damning as the hard, physical evidence of the damage path? It all comes down to this, are you going to trust physical proof, or the aging, mistake-ridden memories of some trauma victims?

If you were on the jury, which way would you decide?

So to recap:

1. The north-side witnesses would be discredited and/or counter-productive towards CIT's case both upon direct examination and cross-examination.
2. The south-side witnesses would, at the very best for CIT, make the jury neutral.
3. The physical evidence is sound and completely inarguable unless CIT was to come across legitimate, verifiable physical evidence.
4. They would have to be civil.
5. They could not speculate
6. Their closing statement would be heavily restrained, and would possibly make them look ignorant or even foolish with such a short, weak closing statement followed by a long, convincing one.

With all this, I don't see how CIT could even get to flyover outside of their opening/closing statements. Their entire case for flyover is built upon speculation, and that is inadmissible in court. Without being allowed to offer their own opinions and speculations, it is impossible for them to lead anyone to believing that their witnesses are more credible, that the physical evidence was faked, or that there was a flyover.

Do you agree with CIT's conclusions? Do you think they are right? If so, I'd recommend devoting your time elsewhere. Unless CIT can bring up MUCH stronger evidence, they will never accomplish anything other than being laughed out of the courtroom. At this moment, CIT just doesn't have a case. This is not a debunking article. It's simply here to objectively analyze the testimony and hypothesize how it would hold up in court under federal and state laws. Whether or not CIT is right is not the issue. The most important issue here is that they can not benefit the cause of the movement.

9/11 Anomaly update

2010-06-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

I announced that I was working on a 9/11 documentary a little over a year ago, and in various comments I've been asked about it. I haven't given many updates and it's taken a lot longer than I originally estimated. Well, the main reason for this is that I've been seriously debating with myself whether I should go through with the movie as it is or re-write the script entirely.

It's not that I think there's anything inaccurate with the current script, but I question whether or not it's the ideal information to present. I am talking, in particular, about the physical evidence aspect which was going to be a major part of the film. I've talked before about how physical evidence, controlled demolition in particular, has been a strong focus in the movement when it probably isn't the best method for our goals.

So while I don't think the film would be bad if I were to include the physical evidence, I don't think it would be as good as it can be. It would be tedious to start mostly from scratch, but ultimately I've decided that precision is perfection, no matter how long that may take.

I can't tell you exactly what the content will be since the re-writing is in it's early stages, but I can tell you some topics that will definitely be explored.

Documented evidence (i.e; foreknowledge, war games, etc...)
Disinformation in the movement (as well as my interview with Jim Hoffman on the subject)

Also, a definite change is that I'm removing the voice narration. Sure, it's more professional to have a voiceover rather than just text, but my voice doesn't translate well over the microphone and I think it'll be easier to watch in the long run without me talking over it. Despite the removal of the narration, Francie Kaplan, who helped record the narration, will still be credited as a consultant for her numerous script/information input, input that will definitely be carried over into the new script.

Keep in mind, I am not opposed entirely to the promotion of physical evidence. I think it's useful and worthwhile in it's own way. I just think that the focus on it has been ultimately detrimental, and it should be more of a background cause, as opposed to being on the poster for 9/11 Truth activism.

I apologize for the massive delay, but I pride myself as a perfectionist. 9/11 is a serious issue for me, and I will do whatever it takes to make as informative and productive a film on the subject as possible.

H.R. 847 passes House of Representatives

2010-05-27T15:16:00.000-07:00

The H.R. 847 Bill, also known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act, passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday. If the bill passes the Senate, it will provide health care and compensation for the first responders who developed illnesses that can be connected to the 9/11 Attacks.

The bill is named after James Zadroga, who was an NYPD detective who spent 400 hours at the World Trade Center after the 9/11 attacks before his death in 2006, due to health complications from his working on the site.

It was an atrocity when the EPA told the people working and living near Ground Zero that the air was safe to breathe. It was not. Thousands of first-responders, firemen, policemen, etc... who worked at or lived near Ground Zero have now been diagnosed with a variety of diseases which have been linked to their work at the site. People such as John Feal, who formed the Feal Good Foundation, have been fighting for these people to get the care they need.

They're finally looking like they'll get it.

Time can pass, but we'll never stop fighting

2010-05-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

There is this notion I seem to see quite often from people who are opposed to the efforts of the movement not because of any factual interpretation, but because for some 9/11 is just a distant memory. I've always remembered this article in the local paper back in 2007 that had a story on the 9/11 Truth Movement, and in part of it a guy goes up to the activist and says "Dude, it was six YEARS ago. Get over it!"

With another two and a half years gone by since then, that attitude has been more noticeable in several people. It's a psychological phenomenon I don't quite understand. To say that each passing day without progress is discouraging and upsetting would be an understatement. Yes, it can be a real pain in the ass having to fight rampant disinformation and poorly thought-out promotional strategies within our own movement while STILL trying to get our points to the public. It's distressing to watch people doing their angry bullhorning on the streets, or saying the Jews were part of 9/11, or snapping at anyone who disagrees with them instead of trying to rationally persuade them. Yet, despite all the fighting and the difficulty in progress it leads to, I have never lost my will to fight for this cause.

Personally, I don't consider 9 years a particularly long time when it comes to something like the murder of 3,000 people. Certainly not 6. But that's beside the point. Is it just lost on the people we're talking to? The gravity of the situation? We give them evidence of government complicity, and the counter-response isn't a retort, but simply a complaint that it was too long ago for them to care. I just don't get it.

You know, from when Rosa Parks made her stand on a bus to when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it too just under nine years. It took another four years for the extension bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, to be passed. But what if neither bill had been passed by 1968? Do you think they would have stopped? How many hundreds of political issues are discussed and debated daily by the public because it's a subject they feel truly passionate about? And how is seeking accountability for the deaths of 3,000 citizens any different from that? Is that not a cause to rally around?

The culture we live in today seems to thrive on the joy of not caring about anything meaningful. As we watch our freedom slowly die over the years we are happy to ignore it and say "Well, what am I supposed to do?" We can watch videos of people being tased and consider it funny. I remember my high school years very well. I remember the talks I had with my peers. Some would listen, I knew some people who knew how to take serious issues seriously. But most people opted instead for "Nobody cares, Kamen." And why not? Why is it suddenly "cool" to not care? Why is it a pest when someone is talking about something that has an IMPACT on this country. Well, some of us still love the liberty this country was founded on, and some of us believe that there SHOULD be a REAL investigation into the attacks. Some of us believe the people are entitled to the truth. Some of us will never stop fighting.

Still think it's long gone? 9/11, it happened, so what? Alright, then conduct yourself an experiement. Go and look for Lorie Van Auken, or Kisten Breitweiser, or anyone else who lost a loved one in the attacks who is fighting for an independent investigation. Go find them and say, "It was 9 years ago. Get over it." Could you? Would you have the courage to stick to your inane criticisms? Because that wouldn't be courage. It would be cowardice. Cowardice that you'd rather sweep it under the rug and forget about it than fight for the pursuit of justice.

9/11 Hoaxes: No Plane hit the World Trade Center complex

2010-02-21T08:55:00.000-08:00

9/11 Hoaxes

No plane hit the World Trade Center complex

By Kamen Fattorusso

In my first 9/11 Hoaxes article, I covered the notion that no plane had struck the Pentagon. It was, I felt, the most dangerous hoax because it was the most accepted and the most correlated with 9/11 truth. In my second article in the series, I’ll continue the “no plane” phenomenon in examining what happened at the World Trade Center.

This is among the more fringe hoaxes in the movement. Unlike the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, this one is mostly ignored by researchers. Regardless, it’s made an impact. Every now and then you’ll see it mentioned by mainstream sources. Ace Baker even made an appearance on Hardfire some time ago. The promotion of these theories can only end badly. This is why it’s important to show why they are wrong.

This is also a matter of special interest to me, as I’ve not only been trained in how to shoot and edit film, but I’ve also been trained in using green screen technology and broadcasting. As several theories surrounding no-planes involve this, it makes them very easy for me to refute.

The two major theories involving no-planes-at-the-WTC are the media overlay theory, which suggests that there was no plane or anything resembling the sort, and was solely the work of green screen technology during live broadcasting. The other theory is the hologram theory, which tries to explain the thousands of eyewitnesses who saw a plane by explaining that a hologram of a plane was what crashed into the tower, followed by an explosion to create the illusion of a plane impact. Because both theories use mostly the same claims, they will both be discussed without any particular order between the two. This article will not deal with the notion that “different” planes struck the tower – something different from Flight 11 and Flight 175.

The format of the article will be the same as last time. I’ll write a claim in bold. I’ll write a sub-claim or related quote in italics. My commentary will be in normal text.

The “plane” that crashes into the North Tower does not look like a plane at all.

A look at the footage from the Naudet brothers show an object that, at first glance, may seem distorted. There are two incredibly simple reasons for this.

A) The camera is out of focus.

B) The resolution is affecting the quality of the image

The plane does not take up enough of the camera, and is simply too far away, for the plane to look normal.

It is interesting to note that promoters of the no-plane theory often use low-quality images and video. The Webfairy, for example, converted the rasterized footage into vector art on the image to make it even more degraded. Raster is pixel art, vector is flash art. This is the comparison:

However, despite the distortions, a close analysis shows that the object does bear recognition with not only a plane, but a Boeing 767, as Flight 11 was, as video expert Eric Salter demonstrates.

Salter points out the details to show it’s a plane, but more interestingly, the image of the plane during impact shows a wingspan that, in relation to the width of the North Tower, would be just right for a Boeing 767.

The holes in the tower don’t match the alleged planes.

Actually, they do.

This is, like most of these claims, a great example of asserting something that has no basis in fact. It is likely that the people claiming this either did so with the deliberate intent of disruption or neglected to measure the hole and compare it. Either way, it is wrong.

The object that struck the North Tower was dark in the sunlight, but as it came closer and closer to one of the tallest buildings in the world, it got brighter. Clearly, this was not real.

The claim is in reference to this footage.

What might be hard to notice though are the massive clouds of smoke arising from the North Tower. The smoke blocked the sunlight and so, despite it being a bright morning, the plane was shaded. As it got closer to the South Tower, sunlight reflected off the building which, in turn, reflected onto the plane.

The object that strikes the South Tower simply “melts” into the building. Impossible.

Actually, it’s very possible. As I pointed out in 9/11 Hoaxes: No Plane Hit the Pentagon, there was a crash test done by Sandia Labs with an F4 Phantom which showed this exact behavior. The high-speed impact completely vaporizes the plane.

Aha, but the plane does not decelerate as it should have from impact. Without the loss of kinetic energy, this could not be real.

This would be an excellent argument except, as you might expect, this claim was never tested by its promoters. It was, however, tested by Evan Fairbanks, and a slight deceleration does, indeed, occur.

The nose of the “plane” comes out of the other side of the tower in the same exact shape as how it came in.

The idea here is that, if it was the same shape, then what happened was that they didn’t shut the graphic off in time and it accidentally went on a fraction of a second longer. This argument was made by Ace Baker in the earlier link to the Hardfire show. As opponent Steve Wright points out, the deceleration is inconsistent with a composite shot. If the plane were a graphic, it would be moving at a constant speed, and would have exited at an earlier time than when we see. Also, a closer analysis of the two noses shows that they are certainly not the same.

As you can see, the shapes are NOT the same. You can see the nose in the first image is much straighter than in the second image, where it is more crooked and distorted, the type of debris one might expect from high-speed impacts.

But wait, I thought you said the plane vaporized?

Yeah, I did. And just like at the Pentagon, the fuselage had enough forward momentum to make it all the way to the C-ring. It should not be misinterpreted that the pulverizing of the plane happens all at once.

There is a fade to black on the shot of the South Tower right as it was struck.

Rarely do I hear a reason why this fade to black would have been done. Regardless, it can easily be disproved. The camera does something called “Automatic Gain Control”. It’s a circuit that detects the brightness of the shot and adjusts when necessary. In other words, if there’s a sudden flash in the shot, the camera will darken the shot. This is evident in the footage of 9/11, where for about two frames the camera darkens at the beginning of the explosion. It turns completely black at a time when the explosion would be at its peak brightness.

In some video footage, the plane appears to take a straight, horizontal angle. In others, it takes a descent.

Perhaps this is because the “other” footage is being shot at a completely different angle with a completely different depth of field. Shocking as it may seem, different angles mean different perspectives. The straight-path shots are all looking at the tower about 90-degrees off of where the descent-path shots are. Observe:

The lower picture is from the “descent-path” shot. What’s happening is that we’re seeing it at an angle where the descent is emphasized, but the distance isn’t. The straight-path shot is the opposite, where we can clearly note the distance it’s traveling but the descent is harder to measure. If we had two roughly similar shots which were different, then this would be a very interesting anomaly. But as it is, ALL the “descent-path” shots are at angles like the bottom image, and all the “straight-path” shots are at angles like the top image. What does this mean? It means perspective is everything.

There were tens of thousands of eyes on the World Trade Center complex when the second building was hit. It seems unlikely that so many witnesses would have been fooled. In that case, wouldn’t a hologram explain the witnesses while explaining the other anomalies?

Hypothetically, sure, but the problem is that there aren’t any anomalies that need such explaining. All the issues can be explained away in a perfectly reasonable and factual manner that make jumping to such eccentric conclusions highly unnecessary. Furthermore, there’s the question of whether or not such sophisticated technology was available at the time. Sure, we had CNN doing holograms with Wolf Blitzer during the 2008 election, but projecting yourself in a controlled news studio in 2008 is very different from projecting two massive planes crashing into two massive buildings in one of the most famous and populated cities in the world in 2001.

Does such technology exist? Maybe, I don’t know. But I can say that there is no reason to believe such technology was used.

If a plane crashed, then where was the debris?

Everywhere.

The plane vaporized mostly, but plenty of identifiable debris was recovered after the collapse of the buildings. It was very similar to what happened at the Pentagon. The plane was mostly confetti but there were still several conspicuous parts with which it could be identified. There are several available pictures of the debris from both planes. Here’s an example:

The plane was going way too fast to have been a Boeing 767!

John Bursill might have something to say about that.

Near the end of May, 9/11 Truth advocate John Bursill wrote an article titled Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175. He used a simulator to test the speeds possible for a Boeing 767-200. His test concluded that the plane’s speed was not only possible, but not even any stretch of the imagination.

For a summary, here are his concluding points.

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.

2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.

3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.

4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false.

A.K. Dewdney showed that the cell phone calls would have been impossible.

Yes, a test he performed with different cell phones, different planes, and different flight paths. This is not scientific. To do a scientific test of how the probability of the calls, Dewdney would have had to use the SAME cell phones, SAME planes, and at least roughly within the vicinity of the SAME flight path.

But even then it wouldn’t make a huge difference, since most of the calls were done by Airfone.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the plane in the first place. It deals with the passengers. Passengers who, by the way, were identified via DNA at the scene.

Conclusion

The claims that no plane struck the World Trade Center are exhausting in that, because there are so many theories, there are so many points to address. But for all it’s worth, it’s not particularly necessary to debunk all of them. Reasonable people will see the lack of validity behind these claims and know instantly how wrong they are. That’s the problem. These theories are so blatantly ludicrous that people see them for what they are and then associate that with the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement. This makes ALL claims, legit or not, within the movement look absolutely loony.

The witnesses are the biggest obstacle of all for these no-planers. Amazingly, they can say with a straight face that they believe no plane struck – despite the fact that what they struck were among the most major landmarks in America and the world. This is especially true with the South Tower, where all eyes were on the complex because of the first impact. You have a city of millions of people watching the South Tower, and to think this was faked in front of all those eyes, ESPECIALLY eyes holding cameras and shooting amateur footage, is outright delusional.

And then the hologram guys come in to explain away the witnesses, but do so with the same flawed evidence AND the proposal of technology that was questionable to have even existed at the time.

It becomes clear looking at these theories that they are promoted only by those who have no understanding of even the most basic concepts of video, such as pixel resolution, nor do they understand any other field of interest. In the end, 99.9% of people – whether they be truthers, debunkers, neutral or outsiders – can see these theories for the absurdity they represent.

I give thanks to Eric Salter, who’s written several great papers on the subject and helped me organize these claims during the production of this essay. I also thank John Bursill for his simulation experiment. Most of all, I thank my former media teacher, Brad Conger, for teaching me all I know about video editing, video shooting, video broadcasting, and pretty much everything else I know on the subject.

Conspiracy High: When Truthers get Addicted

2010-02-15T17:19:00.000-08:00

The movement faces a lot of internal problem. It's a sad fact of my life that I spend more time concerned about the internal problems than the external goal of accountability. It's mostly our fault though. Truly. Too many truthers let their emotions get way too intertwined with their theories. When this happens on such a massive scale, it leads to a massive clump of infantile problems.

One of the problems these emotions cause? Well, they cause something I like to call a "Conspiracy High". This is when someone gets exposed to one conspiracy theory, in this case, the alternative to the official conspiracy theory that our government was behind the attacks. Their mind is so blown by this that they begin to distrust everything from the opposition, and trust everything on their side. The problem is that some people on their side, like the infamous everything-the-government-does-is-a-conspiracy Alex Jones, propogate several, maybe even hundreds of conspiracy theories. This leads to ignoring facts and simply accepting the words of their leaders in conspiracy land. People like Art Bell, who can't tell the difference between his theories and the plot to Half-Life, suddenly gain credibility. When people like THAT can be listened to with the purpose of being INFORMED, this WILL, under every circumstance, lead to this person believing that everything that was ever done is part of a secret plot. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Now, some things outside 9/11 are suspect, I'd go that far. I certainly don't trust everything the government tells me. I also don't trust everything that John Bursill says, or Julian Ware, or Jim Hoffman, or other prominent 9/11 truthers who I generally agree with. I am skeptical of EVERYTHING, not just one side. For me, everything is suspect until I look into it and am able - if able - to convince myself otherwise.

But not everyone is like this. Some people get to a point where they believe in so many conspiracy theories that it becomes a part of who they are. They just can'tlet go of ANY of them, because to let go of one is to be skeptical of ALL of them, and to be skeptical of all of them runs the risk of dropping the majority of their beliefs, possibly even all of them. It runs the risk of damaging themselves, which is something they just can not do.

This leads to several things. For example, it helps support the common stereotype that 9/11 truthers believe in many other conspiracy theories. It also runs the risk of holding a belief that is debunked, which by association will weaken your other arguments. But most importantly, it means you lose the ability to be unbiased. You are no longer an advocate of the truth, you are an advocate of YOUR truth. An advocate of delusion.

What is the secret to avoiding a "conspiracy high"? DON'T let your emotions get in the way of your critical thinking process. Yes, it can easily be overwhelming. Yes, it might make it difficult for you to discern what's legit and what's not. But if you find something you were led to believe is proven wrong, take it as a lesson, not a criticism. Get a grip on yourself and follow what the evidence says. Don't listen to the major figures for facts unless you're confirming what they're saying. Double-check, triple-check if you have to, just don't weaken yourself by sticking with theories that are proven to be wrong. That's the only way you'll present credibility to others. It's the only way you'll give credibility to yourself.

CIT: Who cares?

2010-01-06T15:11:00.000-08:00

I've written several posts in the past over the flawed "evidence" that CIT displays. There was a time when I could debate the CIT evidence for days on end before seeing that their cult-like nature blinds them from things like "science", "corroboration", "Occam's Razor", and all the while using double-standards to convince themselves that they are right.

Who cares?

At this point, the futility of trying to argue with a zealot prevents me from staying in these fruitless arguments for much longer than a couple responses. They're a distraction. A pure, non-fulfilling distraction that can't do anything for the truth movement.

You want to know why? Here's how flawed the CIT evidence is: CIT could be RIGHT and they still wouldn't be able to help the movement. That's right, let's say that CIT is right. About EVERYTHING. The physical evidence was faked. The DNA was faked. The south path witnesses are wrong and the selected testimony from the north path witnesses are right. In contradiction to all science, CIT has reached the true conclusion. But it's not valid! The fact that it's not scientific, the fact that CIT expects people to ignore the inaccurate testimony in favor of testimony purported to be accurate means that it would never fly in a court room.

If a witness places a taxi cab incorrectly, then his testimony is flawed. AND HE IS UNRELIABLE. If a witness says he saw an impact, and your theory involves the plane FLYING OVER the building, then he must be WRONG! About SOMETHING! This means that he is UNRELIABLE. You can't just say insist that some parts are right and some parts are wrong. No judge would take that case. Even if 9/11 Truth wasn't a controversial issue, no judge would consider this evidence. The case would be thrown out faster than you can say "logical fallacies".

So even if CIT is right, their conclusions are not supported by valid evidence. It is composed entirely of cherry-picking. Everything that opposes their selected testimony is faked or invalid, yet in no way infringes upon the credibility of their witnesses. It is depressing that there are so many people who look at this evidence and take it seriously.

Hey, I understand. I've been there. I've mentioned before that when I started in the movement, I was on something of a "high". It became very difficult to filter the legitimate from the dubious. But I've always, under all circumstances, maintained an open mind to alternate ideas, and so I was able, eventually, to evaluate the evidence critically, until I realized it was non-scientific bogus that held no place in a movement seeking truth. Which is the problem. Pride has taken priority over truth. An inability to accept that mistakes were made and conclusions were drawn prematurely has led to CIT's continuing promotion and made it difficult, if even possible, to show their followers that they've been duped. Whereas I have made it a priority in my life to refrain from emotional attachment to any beliefs I hold, CIT, as well as other groups within the movement, have put themselves ahead of the truth they claim to seek.

CIT continues to distract and detract, promoting fallacies and flawed evidence that won't get the movement anywhere. Yet somehow they have followers. Well, fine. CIT and their followers have made it abundantly clear that they're not interested in anything that opposes their theory. So all we can really hope to do is prevent well-meaning people from being sucked into the hype. No more pointless debates, no more wasted time, no more trying to make sense with these people. Let's shift our target audience to people who are not yet exposed. People still trying to make sense of everything. Let's appeal to people who can still be drawn towards critical thinking. All that these CIT debates have accomplished is promotion for CIT. CIT has done nothing for us. Why should we do anything for them?

9/11 truthers are anti-government?

2009-12-28T11:33:00.000-08:00

A while ago, I read this article which somebody had posted on TruthAction. The author, David Swindle, makes a list of how the "Conspiracist Crackpot" mentality works. It was a pretty absurd and generalizing list that for the most part I could laugh at and ignore. There was one point that caught my eye, however, to which I am responding now.

"Conspiracist Crackpots are oblivious to the fact that their conspiracy of choice tends to relate directly to their political views. Not only that but their embrace of the conspiracy actually flows out of their political ideology. Every single Birther is opposed to Barack Obama on policy grounds. Truthers who think 9/11 was an “inside job” done by the government are almost always politically opposed to the government. Leftist Truthers hate America and Right-wing Truthers hate the federal government. Holocaust deniers hate Jews. Afrocentric leftists who think the government engineered AIDS and crack also think America is fundamentally racist. You can do this with virtually every conspiracy."

There is a degree of validity to the statement. A lot of the examples he gives are valid. But I just can't agree with Swindle that all truthers are opposed to the government. First and foremost, and I just have to get this out of the way, since when do leftist truthers hate America? What on Earth makes him think he can make such a broad sweeping generalization like that? It's so astoundingly unprofressional.

But let's look at the overall claim. "9/11 Truthers are politically opposed to the government". Mr. Swindle seems to have a difficult time understanding that a distrust of the government - or certain figures in the government - something that IS fairly common among truthers, is not the same thing as being politically opposed to it's foundation. In fact, it is the love of the ideals which founded this country that is such a strong motivator for many among the movement. What Swindle is talking about is something close to anarchy. While I'm sure there are some in the movement who follow such extreme beliefs, it is most certainly not prevalent.

Of course, you can be politically opposed to the government without being an anarchist. A lot of democrats opposed the Bush administration. A lot of republicans oppose the current Obama administration. But Swindle himself makes the tacit admission that the political spectrum is a broad one among 9/11 Truthers. He refers to both "Leftist Truthers" and "Right-wing Truthers". Indeed, from what I've read of, for example, Julian of TruthMove, he is a fairly liberal person, whereas you take someone like me who leans conservatively. Left, right, in-between, you'll find pretty much any position on the spectrum if you bother to look. Since this is admitted EVEN by David Swindle, this could not possibly be what he is talking about.

Of course, many truthers disapprove of both Obama and Bush. Is this because of their ant-government tendencies which Swindle alleges? No, it seems that the distrust and dislike stems from elsewhere, as many 9/11 Truthers have supported other politicians in hopes of having said candidate elected. Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul are such examples of politicians who truthers HAVE shown support for, thereby showing some amount of respect for the system. Two candidates who, by the way, have very different ideas on how the country should be run.

Some would point out that McKinney believes the government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and thus would attract the likes of 9/11 Truthers. But that would be missing the point. What attracts truthers to her would not be the position she holds, but the honesty she presents in publicly announcing something so controversial. But even if this was not the case, this is no different from pro-lifers favoring towards politicians who are heavily pro-life, or people opposed to higher taxes straying away from politicians saying they'll raise taxes. It is a position on which people are passionate about, and it is no different from any other group favoring towards someone who agrees with them. Ron Paul, meanwhile, stated numerous times that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, despite many of his followers being truthers. This drew him a great deal of criticism from the movement. He still received a large number of votes. This would seem to contradict the belief that our support of politicians is based primarily on 9/11 Truth.

If he is not talking about a political opposition based on the political spectrum, then he must be referring to an opposition towards the FOUNDATION of government, which is either anarchy or a proposal for a completely different type of government, neither of which is prevalent among the movement. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. Truthers show a tendency towards preserving the foundation of government.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Swindle is right. That almost all truthers are anti-government. Does this prove the correlation he claims? No. Why? Because there are many people who are anti-government who do NOT believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Many members of my own family, who for the most part are significantly more liberal than I am, have also been critical of the Obama administration. Yet, they do not, or at least have not bothered to announce as such, believe 9/11 was an inside job. At the very least, they stray away from the issue. Similarly, I know several people who would declare themselves anarchists, communists, and the like who have remained unconvinced that 9/11 was an inside job. People who at their core are opposed to the foundations of this country who believe the official story. If Swindle's proposed correlation was that 9/11 truth attracts anti-government people, then why are there many anti-government people out there who do NOT address the issue?

9/11 Truthers are not opposed to the government. We are opposed to what the government has turned into. We are opposed to what the government and its frontmen have committed. We are opposed to how the government has treated civil liberties, habeus corpus, right to privacy, and other rights which have been all but annihilated in the wake of 9/11.

We are NOT opposed to this country's foundations.

Who's the real skeptic?

2009-11-16T18:09:00.000-08:00

I rarely write such opinionated pieces, but this subject has been on my mind.

I find it interesting in how alike truthers and debunkers tend to be in their way of thinking. I hate to say that, but the psychology is remarkably similar. In particular, I find both often believe themselves to be skeptics. Truthers say they're skeptics because of their doubts about the official story whereas debunkers are skeptical towards conspiracy theories. I can't help but wonder how two groups who define themselves as skeptics can come to two entirely different conclusions.

What is a skeptic, really? A skeptic is not, as some on both sides seem to think, somebody who tries to disprove things. On the contrary, a true skeptic tries to believe things that he or she would otherwise find extraordinary or absurd. If someone is aiming to prove something then they're not looking at it objectively, which implies an agenda of some sort. Thus a skeptic, to be objective, must try to convince himself of something he has trouble believing. Only then can you adequately analyze the foundation of such an issue.

So who's the skeptic? The truthers or the debunkers? Well, I'd like to give an answer, but I really can't say I know. On one hand, I do my best to look at things objectively and I keep my mind open to things I'd otherwise find absurd. But on the other hand, how do I know I'm really objective? Maybe something subconscious in me is slanting me in one direction, a mental bias I can't be sure I'm controlling. Can anyone really know if they're skeptics? Any one of us are likely to be biased in one direction for whatever reason that may be affecting our decision-making deduction-drawing. Really, I'd love to say that the truthers are skeptics and the debunkers are simply delusional, but as I AM trying to be objective and all, I have to say that I don't think anyone is really capable of knowing that about themselves.

I entertain ideas all the time. I even take the time to read this no-plane and DEW crap because I can't help but think to myself "Hey, maybe this time they'll actually provide something substantial". A stone-cold atheist, I will even consider every now and then the existence of some deity, whether said deity be of any known religion or not, for the purpose of finding some kind of plausibility in the idea. I always fail to convince myself, but repeatedly I will wonder if I'm wrong in my viewpoint.

I think I am a skeptic. I'd definitely like to think I'm a skeptic. I'd like to think this very article, which implicitly gives debunkers possible legitimacy, solidifies me as someone who is able to look at both sides rationally. But as I'm only human and we're very good at self-deception, I can't be sure. I think it's perfectly plausible that debunkers, or at least some of them, are also skeptical, and the difference in our opinions is the result of intellectual differences as opposed to psychological ones. For that matter, it's also possible that neither truthers nor debunkers are skeptical, and we're all just following an inherent bias that's distorting our opinions.

Comment your thoughts.

Controlled Demolition in activism

2009-11-09T12:26:00.000-08:00

One of the most widespread issues in the movement is the controlled demolition hypothesis: that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings, including WTC7. This position is endorsed by the majority of the movement. Some raise the issue, however, of how effective it is as a promotional tool. Before I even begin to address this, I'm going to clarify a few things.

A) I endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis

B) I view difference between what works in street action and what works in other venues, such as film, which is why this essay will primarily refer to controlled demolition in street action and why controlled demolition will remain a point in 9/11 Anomaly.

Now having said that, I tend to agree that promoting ourselves through factual evidence, documented evidence, and all-in-all non-debateable evidence is better than promoting ourselves through something less conclusive like controlled demolition.

Compelling as it may be, the controlled demolition hypothesis is still just a hypothesis. It cannot, scientifically, be deemed proved. There is a vast difference between evidence and proof, and proof could only be feasibly and legally obtained via a new investigation for the proper clearance.

On the other hand, we have information at our disposal that is completely out of the realm of dispute. The failure to defend the skies, people responsible for said failure being promoted, NORAD giving 3 contradictory accounts of what happened that day, etc... the list goes on. This is more than enough for a new investigation, as the 9/11 Commission did not look into such things. But instead, we bullhorn that the towers blew up when none of us know 100% what happened that day. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

More importantly, controlled demolition has been used to demonize us. The media has turned the issue into another nutjob belief like "no-planes" by associating it with such theories and not with the adequate supporting evidence. We are mocked by the extraordinary theory itself before we have a chance to validate it. At the very least, we should open up wth the fctual evidence that appeals to common sense before he mention of something that people are more likely to have an instnt negative reaction towards. Back when I lived in Washington, I often would talk about controlled demolition on the street and had trouble getting people interested. Later on, I started discussing the documented and indisputable evidence, and found that I had much more success in this way. Not only that, but when I talked about controlled demolition AFTER mentioning the solid facts, they were much more open to it. Since then, I have continued with this form of street action, and have had success every time.

Furthermore, although proving controlled demolition would certainly prove government complicity, it is not necessary to prove government complicity. How they did it is not important as long as they are proven responsible. We can prove government complicity without controlled demolition, so what is the point of making it such a focus?

Although the controlled demolition hypothesis is certainly compelling and a worthwhile subject to research into, it is clear that our focus on it has been handled poorly, and consequently become detrimental to the movement. We should put more of an emphasis on the factual and documented evidence, and learn to handle controlled demolition more responsibly, as our current promotional strategy is clearly having a negative effect.

Yes, there was lawn damage!

2009-08-18T18:06:00.000-07:00

My most frequented, linked to, and overall popular article on my blog is 9/11 Hoaxes: No plane hit the Pentagon. I find it remarkable that points I explicitly address are often used to try and counter the article by proponents of the theory that no plane struck. In particular, I've had numerous individuals ask me, "Well what about the lawn damage?"

It is at this point that I question whether or not said individual actually read the article, for I directly addressed that claim. The idea that there was no lawn damage is basically an optical illusion from photos like this:

That chain-link fence looks much closer to the area of impact than it really is. It is, in fact, about 100 feet away from the building. What happens when we zoom in past the fence?

That is some very explicit lawn damage. Case Closed.

Why CIT witnesses do not corroborate with each other

2009-08-04T14:21:00.000-07:00

It's so frequent among CIT debates to hear claims that the 13 witnesses "all corroborate each other". I find this incredible since some of their witnesses don't even corroborate with themselves. This was mentioned frequently in this thread at TruthAction, particularly by Stefan, that the witnesses all corroborated each. I stayed out of the argument mostly, as I find these CIT arguments so blatantly unscientific and frustrating that it's outright pointless. But this claim being repeated caused some problems for me, and I feel I need to address it.

Most frequently, the "corroboration" is in reference to the flight paths given. Stefan has noted this corroboration frequently, giving them some leeway of "a few meters". First of all, "meters" is not the proper measurement for this. All testimony has the same impact point, so this should be measured in degrees. A few "meters" could be insignificant or could make an entirely new flight path depending on where you're placing those few meters. To the left is a picture of the 13 witnesses and their flight paths.

It sure looks all bunched up together, especially seeing how far away the flight path is, but that's just the problem. Because they're all bunched up together, it's hard to look at them individually. Take the line farthest from the official flight path and the line closest to it. A careful look shows that the line closest to the official flight path is roughly the same distance away from the line furthest from the official flight path. This is hardly corroboration. They are giving very different flight paths that are simply in a certain area away from the flight path. If you were to take all the middle lines out of the picture, this would not look much like "corroboration", now would it?

The only way this would be remotely valid for corroboration would be if there were enough witnesses supporting the north-of-citgo path in that area that you could excuse further-away flight paths as outliers in a standard deviation. That would be far more than 13 witnesses. On the other hand, many more witnesses, along with physical evidence, suggest the EXACT flight path given officially. No "well maybe a little over here" or "a little over there". Just right smack dab in the same spot. Now THAT'S corroboration.

It gets worse for the witnesses, some of whom aren't even consistent with their own testimony. Take Sgt. William Lagasse and his infamous light pole testimony, who in addition to giving the wrong locations of the light poles in The Pentacon after claiming to have not seen them, had said years earlier to flyover-advocate Richard Eastman that he DID see the light poles (as well as the taxi cab, which he also misplaced).

Stefan certainly has a very interesting idea of corroboration. Apparently, giving contradictory testimony and different flight paths strongly suggests that the witnesses gave valid accounts. On the other hand, maybe after years since the attack happened, their memories faded a bit. And maybe the official flight path is true after all and "what" or "how" it was hit is completely pointless but "why" it was hit is something that can be rationally discussed.

Maybe CIT is just a big distraction to the movement and serves no beneficial purpose.

A look behind the psuedonym

2009-06-19T23:19:00.000-07:00

It'll be very rare that I write about non-9/11 related topics. In the earlier stages of this blog, however, it was suggested that I make a profile. I'm in the middle of a move and won't be able to write extensively on 9/11 for a while, and so I decided that I'd take the time instead to tell you a bit about myself.

My name is Kamen Fattorusso. I was born in New York, then moved to Jacksonville, FL, then Salem, MA, then Bellevue WA, and I'm now back in Jacksonville. I'm an independent filmmaker and currently working on my first major release, 9/11 Anomaly. I dropped out of high school (out of choice, not necessity or failing grades or anything). I was first introduced to 9/11 Truth on a forum called The Best Fan Page in the Universe, where someone linked to a clip of Loose Change. It was the World Trade Center scene which, while not entirely accurate in retrospect, was probably the most compelling portion of the film.

Although many in the 9/11 Truth community frown upon mainstream things like television and sports and such, I'll be the first to tell you that I watch a shitload of TV, and I've been an avid fan of the Jacksonville Jaguars since 1998. Some of my favorite tv shows are:

1. Dexter
2. House
3. Spin City
4. Doctor Who
5. Psych

Here are my favorite movies(Not including Star Wars film because that'd be nearly half the list):

1. The Crow (1994 version)
2. V For Vendetta
3. The Matrix
4. American Beauty
5. Back to the Future
6. The Birdcage
7. Rocky
8. Moulin Rouge
9. A Beautiful Mind
10. Love, Actually

What else is there to list... I suppose my favorite bands.

1. Muse
2. Nine Inch Nails
3. Kasabian
4. Concrete Blonde
5. Stereophonics
6. Klaxons
7. Trans-Siberian Orchestra
8. Daft Punk
9. Tears for Fears
10. Kings of Leon

Religiously, I'm an atheist. I believed in God until I was about 8 when I realized that God was a belief(I was a kid in the deep South, so people would talk about God and I'd sort of think "Oh yeah, that guy who exists"). When I realized that the existence of God was not knowledge but simply a belief, I tried to find any rational reasons to believe in God. I found none. Wow, I must have had a pretty boring childhood that I put such thought into God's existence when I was fucking 8. Oh well.

Politically, I'm very open-ended but generally find myself agreeing with libertarian philosophies, just a tad bit more conservative than moderate.

To finish this short info page about me, I'll reveal the origin of my psuedonym. I made a comment on Screw Loose Change once and some moron tried correcting me on the spelling of my name, idiotically assuming my name was based off the star, Arcturus. It is not. It was something I just made up one day and I liked it because it was an anagram of "True Scar". Okay, glad that's out of the way.

So, there's a little about me until I get settled in to write a more relevant article.

9/11 Anomaly enters post-production

2009-06-01T19:53:00.000-07:00

My upcoming documentary, 9/11 Anomaly, is finally finished with the production phase, leaving only editing to be done. I can't quite come up with a release date at the moment but with any luck it'll be ready before August 1st.

9/11 Anomaly will feature (in no particular order):

Narration by me
The war games that took place on 9/11
The failure to intercept any of the four planes
The oddities behind the hijackers and Osama Bin Laden
Jim Hoffman via interview
A case for controlled demolition at the World Trade Center Complex
A case for government complicity in the Pentagon attack
A case for a shoot-down of Flight 93
A brief analysis of disinformation
Footage from TruthAction Ottawa's interview with David Long
Motive for the attacks

The film contained numerous other things that were touched upon but were cut out because I didn't feel they were as strongly-supported as I'd have preferred. The recent thermite paper did not make it into the script, but I intend for it to be touched upon as an extra on the DVD. Another extra I hope to have is a video version of my 9/11 Hoaxes article.

CIT - A world where facts are irrelevant

2009-05-17T21:18:00.000-07:00

I've already written my criticism of the research behind CIT. Unfortunately, I still find myself in debates with their followers who think that just because they restate witness testimony that they've somehow proven something. It'd be fine if I could just ignore them but these people also happen to be highly aggressive. The slightest criticism and they sniff out where it is like dogs and start picking fights.

Indeed, it's been tiring at the TruthAction forums where, after a topic about 911blogger hosting a CIT video, at least 3 CIT followers have newly joined the forum to argue. Remarkably, none of the arguments are any different, only phrased differently, which really shows how ridiculously circular their logic is. Oh yeah, I try to make them understand, at the very least, why I have a problem with the lack of science and provability behind their theories. Yet I'm still seen as an enemy to them.

I think that best describes what non-CITers are thought of by CIT followers. Enemy. Not once can I recall a debate I had with a CIT follower (or, for that matter, CIT themselves) where I wasn't treated as a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization. CIT has followers so blinded by ENTIRELY NON-SCIENTIFIC claims that they're literally unable to understand how anyone else can't believe as they believe. The only possibility? Well, if they're not new to the issue, then they must be agents of disinformation.

I speak in general terms, but regardless, I don't have to elaborate on how ridiculous this logic is.

Unfortunately, and I admit this, I have a problem with not responding to things. I have a very strong urge to respond to something that provokes me. And I don't mean something stupid like a random “You're a moron” comment, but someone literally trying to argue with me. As a result, this has led to me such lengths as arguing no-planes with a holocaust denier. Not the finest use of my time, to say the least, but the point is that it's quite stressful to argue with people so blinded to any form of rationale. CIT is special in this case because their logic is, as noted above, so incredibly circular. Take something like this as the common debate with a CIT follower:

“But that witness made inaccurate statements”

“Oh, it's just memory craziness. But the part about it being on the north side of citgo is true”

“Then how come the physical evidence doesn't comply?”

“The physical evidence was faked. I know because the witness told me it was on the north side.”

“But other witnesses, more in fact, said they saw it on the south side, and they did it without making blatant inaccuracies”

“They're liars/agents/naive victims of hearsay. My witnesses are right.”

“But this is all speculation!”

“I don't care. My witnesses say I'm right.”

“No they don't!”

“I don't care.”

And it goes on and on with you providing new counter-evidence over and over again as they simply find new ways of phrasing that their witnesses said they saw it on the north side.

CIT is, perhaps, the best example in the movement for people who take speculation over science or any form of rational analysis. When Jim Hoffman wrote his essay criticizing the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, he noted in his next article the many comments he got that witness statements and the like couldn't stand up to hard, physical evidence, which prompted him to make a critique focusing on the physical evidence. Yet, CIT does not only a reverse of this but also exaggerates it to a ridiculous level.

Not only does CIT put witnesses before physical evidence, they outright IGNORE physical evidence, dismissing it as faked. And not only that, they cherry-pick which witnesses they use, putting thirteen up to the test of over a hundred. And not only that, but they cherry-pick which portions of their own witness testimony is valid! Anything that doesn't fit with their pre-conceived conclusions (I.e; “I saw a plane hit the fucking building”) is dismissed as an error, yet they're perfectly willing to rely on their north-of-citgo claims.

In the end, does CIT really do anything for the movement?

The presence of disinformation

2009-05-07T22:17:00.000-07:00

Disinformation: The deliberate act of spreading false information. Most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are aware of the term, yet many are equally oblivious to the level of it's presence. Some disinformation is easy to spot such as directed energy weapons from space, no planes at the World Trade Center, etc... But some disinfo has been highly successful at infiltrating the movement. In particular, the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon. This hoax has spread even outside the movement. Just earlier today I was discussing 9/11 with a friend of mine who, when I got to the Pentagon, asked about how the hole was too small. A claim which I quickly refuted. This is someone who hasn't studied 9/11. Someone who hasn't taken much of a glance at alternative theories. Yet she had also heard of this no-plane theory, despite the ease in debunking it with physical evidence. I don't think I need to elaborate on how bad this is when even people outside of the activist movement are under a false impression that that is what we, as a movement, endorse.

Opposition to the movement generally regards such claims of disinformation as paranoid and ridiculous. This was much the case recently when my interview with Jim Hoffman was posted at Screw Loose Change, where the topic of COINTELPRO was prevalent. Pat Curley, one of the main bloggers on Screw Loose Change, states:

“Where Hoffman goes off the rails is on the assumption that certain theories he finds nutty are being pushed forward by forces malevolent to 9-11 "Truth". The reason that certain nutty theories are being pushed forward are that small "Truther" factions have formed around individual aspects of 9-11.”

It's true that factions have been formed around individual aspects of 9-11, just as Pat says, but that hardly means that there are not those who push these theories deliberately to associate 9/11 Truth with nutty, unscientific ideas. The two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it is most certainly not “off the rails” that there would be such malevolent infiltrators.

COINTELPRO is well-documented series of covert operations done to investigate and disrupt dissident political movements. Activist movements have long been targets of government officials. This is not paranoid nuttiness. This is documentation. This sort of information is readily available from the FBIs own records. Known examples of groups targeted by COINTELPRO operations are women's rights movements, the civil rights movement, the NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, and nearly any group that protested the Vietnam War.

Putting it simply, disinformation has been prevalent in many activist movements in the past few decades. To say that there has been infiltration in the 9/11 Truth Movement is not only within the realm of reality, contrary to implications against that, but also completely reasonable. Why would our movement not be infiltrated? Why would there not be an eye out for us? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the official story is true, the fact of the matter is that we are aiming towards a massive revolution that opposes a great deal of ideals held by the majority of politicians, significantly including those in the current administration. We're talking about a virtual coup d'etat. That's more than enough reason to, at the very least, keep an eye on us.

So if the movement has, as seems likely, been infiltrated, then why on Earth would they not attempt a method of disruption as efficient as disinformation? Disruption was the primary purpose of the COINTELPRO operations. Spreading ludicrous theories with speculation and pseudo-science is an easy to way to divide the movement and make their theories, even the legitimate ones, seem entirely fringe. Certainly, we have seen such theories from “no-planes” to “directed energy weapons” to “faked cell phone calls”. Many who have fallen for these theories have been sucked into them to the point of being unable to accept science, logic, or any sort of rational analysis. Perfect conditions for anyone who wants us distracted.

So with all these perfectly valid reasons to suspect deliberate disruption, let alone infiltration, why is it so ludicrous to critics of the movement to think that there could be malevolent forces within our boundaries? I understand it's common for “debunkers” to write us off as paranoid nutbars, because ad-hominem is easy and sometimes when you have such a lack of respect towards your opponents it's hard to take them seriously. But let's be rational. Let's be reasonable. Is it really that unrealistic for there to be intentionally disruptive individuals within the Truth Movement?

I don't think so. I see it as all to easy to sneak inside the movement and cause division and distraction. I see the media paying a great deal of attention to hoax theories and hoax advocates such as Jim Fetzer and then sneakily avoiding anything new of substance that is released (take, for example, the recent thermite paper). I see the movement in the midst of a rebuilding period where it has to disseminate the massive amounts of disinformation throughout it. Are government forces involved?

Is that really so unreasonable?

Interview with Jim Hoffman parts 5-8

2009-04-28T19:41:00.000-07:00

Finally got it put on Youtube. It'll be available on archive.org soon.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered

2009-04-05T18:49:00.000-07:00

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe is a new paper published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal by authors Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen.

In the paper, they elaborate upon their findings in the WTC dust samples, in particular the red/gray bi-layered chips.

The paper puts to rest the suggestions that they are ordinary "paint chips" in a variety of ways. For one, they test the red/gray chips by putting them in methyl ethyl ketone, a know solvent of paint. While the red side of the chips swelled, there were no signs of dissolution. The same test done on actual paint chips had them dissolve as expected.

In addition to this, they put a flame to paint chips to find that they rather boringly turned to ash. When done on the red/gray chips, they produced an acute burst of energy, a startlingly more drastic exothermic reaction than the paint chips.

The samples are found to have notable chemical signatures of thermite. The explosive potential of these chips is shown to be conspicuously greater than normal thermite, making it likely that this is a nanothermitic material which, unlike conventional thermite, is quicker and has a more explosive effect. Perhaps more importantly is that the technology for nano-thermite, also known as "super-thermite", is documented to have been available at least a year prior to the attacks.

Some have already jumped to criticizing the article based on it's being published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, accusing it of being a "vanity" journal with no real credibility.

A)This does not address the evidence. This is like a reverse of an appeal to authority, a common logical fallacy among debunkers.
B)It is an established, peer-reviewed journal. Absent an example of a poorly-supported and/or unscientific work on The Bentham Open Journals, I fail to see any reason to doubt the credibility of this journal.

It appears to me that the attacks against the credibility of the journal are nothing more than evasive tactics by debunkers. This is, quite possibly, one of the most damning pieces of evidence the 9/11 Truth Movement has received so far. It is a scientific paper supporting the existence of thermitic materials in the WTC dust. This makes it one of the first physical proofs of an inside job as opposed to outside analysis.

It will be interesting to see the reaction by the mainstream media and defenders of the official story.

Here are some other papers to read in conjunction with this latest essay:

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives: As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

by Jim Hoffman

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries In Debris From the Twin Towers

by Jim Hoffman

Jim Hoffman interview

2009-04-03T15:30:00.000-07:00

Parts 1-4 of 8 parts. The remaining four parts will be uploaded in about a week.

9-11 Anomaly

2009-03-24T20:13:00.000-07:00

I recently had the chance to interview Jim Hoffman of 9-11 Research. While a great experience to interview him, the primary reason for my interview was for my upcoming documentary: 9-11 Anomaly

I've said very little about this movie to the public at large but it's just recently exited the stage of pre-production after 3 years of planning.

The film, as is typical, will cover the Pentagon, World Trade Center complex, and Flight 93, but will also cover events during/surrounding 9/11 and the subject of COINTELPRO and disinformation. My interview with Jim Hoffman primarily discussed the subject of COINTELPRO.

The film should be, though it's still hard to say, available and ready for ordering by the end of July. Although copyrighted, I'll be allowing for free distribution.

On a side note, the interview with Jim will be posted on YouTube next week when I get back from New York, so check back next Wednesday.

That's it! I've had it with Mainstream media!

2009-03-16T22:41:00.000-07:00

Let's face it, 9/11 truthers aren't exactly notorious for their love of the mainstream media, but it gets particularly annoying when you have to be reminded how inane it can be every time you go to check your e-mail..

Instead of REAL news like this little tidbit (which as the link shows, even CBS has the decency to report), every time I log onto Yahoo! I get stories about Gwenyth Paltrow, diets, why Pamela Anderson's outfit was so "fugly", and of course, boy troubles.

At first I thought that Yahoo! wasn't supposed to post news that transcended beyond tv stars and pre-teen gossip. Then one day they showed a political article. I was shocked. I almost thought I found something today where the headline mentioned Obama, but it was just him skipping out on some stupid dinner.

They weren't nearly as eager to report Obama's sending ten of thousands more troops to Afghanistan.

I mean, c'mon, even MSM can do better than this? I've gone through a lot of BS on Mainstream news outlets but Yahoo! has got to be one of the worst. I'd stop using it as an e-mail if I had the patience to find everybody acquainted with me and any sites that use that e-mail address and change it appropriately. But I don't. So tomorrow I get to check my e-mail and learn how diet pills can stunt my sex drive. I get more intelligent reads from my spam.

Bashundhara City Mall Fire - Smoking Gun or Full of Hot Air?

2009-03-13T20:37:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, a four-hour fire broke out in the 21-story building known as the Bashundhara City Mall. Already I've heard suggestions that the fire is yet another example of a building that failed to collapse from fire damage. I went to investigate the design of the mall, to confirm it's validity.

The first thing I found was an architect's view of the fire. He believes that the fire could have been prevented earlier if fire fighting systems had worked properly, which they didn't. More or less irrelevant to the issue of 9/11, but the same article states:

He also thinks that the fire could be doused with the help of interior system of the building. He said all the modern equipment, including automated fire, smoke and heat detectors are kept in the building.

Doused with an interior system? So the building had an inadequate sprinkling system? Well then that's a problem, because all three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 had sprinkling systems. But then again, a sprinkling system helps put out fires, so it's fair to say that it's not collapsing despite an inefficient sprinkling system makes it an even better example to compare to the World Trade Center. A fair point. This is why I moved further into looking at the construction.

This news article features an architect saying that "the steel structure of the Mall is heat stable" and he specifically references 9/11 saying he hopes it doesn't burn down like the Twin Towers. So it's a steel structure, but is there more to it than that? The Windsor Building, for example, had steel, but it was steel-reinforced concrete, which makes it non-comparable to the WTC fires.

I looked, and so far I've been unable to find any differences in the material of the building. The one thing left to find are blueprints, which would confirm the possibility of any structural differences. Well, I've yet to find any blueprints, if they're even publicly available. The closest thing I can find are floor maps on the building's official site.

Even then though, there is still another critical aspect that we're unsure of at the moment. The fire temperatures. Although the architect's above statement that they could have been blown out easily with the systems functioning properly implies cool-burning fires, this is merely a speculative comment, so more data is needed before making any comparisons.

Any further information on the construction of the building would be appreciated. At the moment, I'm going to not jump to conclusions and say that it may look like a reasonable comparison but it's not definite due to a lack of known factors.

Some good AE911truth videos

2009-03-11T19:38:00.000-07:00

I found a few good videos off of the YouTube profile of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Debunking debunkers

2009-03-10T20:04:00.000-07:00

With all the time I spend attacking hoaxes and false information, I notice myself writing less and less about actual anomalies within the official story. So I've decided to take a few arguments I've heard from debunkers and make a counter-argument.

Demolition Squibs

9/11 truthers like to point out that the "puffs of dust" as Popular Mechanics describe them. According to them, these sharp ejections from the buildings are demolition squibs as found in controlled demolition. The debunker response is generally known as the "piston" theory. Basically, they argue that these ejections are not squibs, but air pressure. That the force of the collapse squeezes the air inside the building out.

How does this explanation hold up? Not too well. There are numerous problems with the theory that it's air pressure.

-The ejections contain thick dust of a light color. If this was air pressure, then the dust would likely be composed of crushed concrete or gypsum (a material often used in drywalls). But the collapse is going on 10-20 floors above the ejections. So how can there be crushed concrete or gypsum when the floors haven't even had a chance to crush them yet?
-When viewing the ejections seen in videos, quite often it is easy to make out that their coming from about the horizontal center, often with other squibs doing the same on a different facade. It is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by something like the piston theory. The piston theory would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors. The squibs were just too orderly.
-The pancaking of floors to create this air pressure would have created underpressures in the top pancaking floor. What that means in a nutshell is that the air that goes out would be sucked right back in. However, videos show no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.

The overall collapse features - demolition?

9/11 truthers often state how the collapses bear all the signature traits of controlled demolition. Debunkers will point out, often quoting demolition experts, that it does not. It depends on how you look at it. If you're looking at a conventional controlled demolition, then yes, the World Trade Center towers wouldn't look like controlled demolitions. They explode instead of implode, they don't start top-down, etc...(these features are, however, viewable in Building 7, but for the sake of argument, we'll ignore that for now).

If, however, you are talking about an unconventional controlled demolition, then all of the characteristics are right there. A controlled demolition is just that - controlled. They can be engineered to demolish in a variety of ways.

Some ask how, in that case, did the bombs at the point of impact not detonate from either impact or fires?? There are numerous possibilities. For one, some may have been set off, but masked by the massive combustion of aerosolized jet fuel. It's also possible to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive such violent assaults, similar to the casings built for black boxes.

It would have taken too many people

In fairness, this is not an argument I see too common amongst the leading debunkers, only something I see from common folk and/or media who are skeptical of the alternative theory presented by 9/11 Truth. This is a straw-man argument, and is not necessarily true. Granted, people like A.K. Dewdney, who I have publicly-known negative opinions of, think it would have been perfectly plausible, and come up with scenario's like Operation Pearl, which require a vast number of insiders. However, it's far more likely that this was a much smaller operation, and such a scenario is possible.

Jim Hoffman of 9-11 Research produced a hypothetical scenario titled Attack Scenario 404. Jim Hoffman uses it as an example of how 9/11 could have been (but probably wasn't) perpetrated by inside conspirators with fewer than 20 people being in the know. Although only a hypothetical, it proves that it is possible to conduct the operation as presented by the 9/11 Truth community without thousands of people being potential whistle-blowers.

A mild apology

2009-03-09T19:47:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take a moment to apologize for certain things said about Mark Roberts in an earlier post of mine.

By no means do I agree with the guy on his conclusions. Hell, I don't even like the guy. He can act like a real asshole sometimes (not that I'm one to talk). But he is dedicated. That much is definite.

In my article which referenced him titled "The Art of Debate - Mark Roberts", I essentially criticized him of focusing far too much on ill-informed truthers and that those with substance seem to never get the same attention. The article was, in essence, meant more to focus on the vulnerabilities of the movement through hoaxes rather than directly Mark Roberts.

A comment made by someone named "Pat" (it's not stated explicitly, but I'm guessing this to be the same "Pat Curley" we all know and love from Screw Loose Change) had me take another look at my article and I want to apologize for any implication that Mark is not an honest-intentioned researcher. Do I think he spends far too much time dealing with those who are more ill-informed and less able to come up with rational and/or effective counter-arguments? Yeah. Do I think that his rebuttals are far too focused on the weakest of points among the movement? Yeah. Do I think he's doing this intentionally because he really thinks the official story is false but doesn't want to admit it? No. Some hit pieces show me signs of disinfo, but I believe Mark Roberts to be well-intentioned and honest in his work. A real asshole, to be sure, but a well-meaning asshole.

The Art of Debate - CIT

2009-03-08T20:32:00.000-07:00

It's improper to suggest that the following characteristics of debate that CIT employs are exclusive to them. Many of the debating techniques, if it can even be called "debating", can be applied to anybody promoting false information. However, I recently had an exchange with CIT which will make it easier to use as an example.

CIT, or Citizens Investigation Team, is the group which produced The Pentacon, a film which suggests that the plane flew over The Pentagon, and the damage was caused by something else. Whether that be explosives or a catapult or a goddamn chisel is pretty irrelevant. It's a terribly-constructed argument, and CIT, along with their followers, refuse to acknowledge the most basic of problems with their argument.

Anybody else who's had an exchange with them will know what I mean. CIT is probably the best example of circular logic I can think of. In The Pentacon, they interview four witnesses who recall a different flight path. They use that testimony to determine that the plane flew over the Pentagon and anything that opposes that conclusion is faked.

If you have trouble following that logic, you're not alone.

It all started when I took a trip to the Loose Change forums and, in my introduction post, noted my opposition to no-plane theories. The next reply introduces me to the Pentacon film. I, in all my good will, say that I'd be willing to recant any conclusion of mine with adequate evidence. Thus, I watched every lasting minute of The Pentacon. I got one of the most poorly-constructed arguments I've ever seen. Not just in 9/11, in general. Using only a few witness statements (all of whom are less reliable than other witnesses anyway, since the interview occurs FIVE YEARS after the attack) they ignore the myriad of other testimonies that argue against them. One of their own witnesses even notes that the people on Interstate 395 would have had a great view of the attack. Sure enough, it is not that difficult to find witness statements from I-395 that confirm a plane impact.

What's even more preposterous is that they only use their obtained testimony when it suits them. 3 of their 4 witnesses (the remaining one of whom was nowhere near the Pentagon and only saw the plane) all told them that they saw the plane HIT! They saw the impact! But does CIT care? No. They use this "devastating eyewitness testimony" to conclude that a plane did NOT impact the Pentagon.

I relay they criticisms, along with the fact that all the physical evidence points to a plane impact, and the response I get is "You're using media-whore information!" like I'm insane for analyzing any evidence other than theirs. Most of the 9/11 Truth Movement talks about getting a trial. If such a selective thought process is to be used in a trial, then the movement might as well kiss itself goodbye, because that will lead to nothing. Court does not work that way! Can you imagine this in a real-life scenario?

Defendant: And I would like to bring on...the physical evidence!
Plaintiff: OBJECTION!
Judge: On what grounds?
Plaintiff: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: ...overruled...
Plaintiff: What!? You're going to listen to the defendant's information!? I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH THE REAL EVIDENCE!
Judge: Can you prove this evidence is, in some way, invalid?
Plaintiff: It's the defendant's information! What more proof do you need?

I respond telling the CIT followers these criticisms, only to get the same "Nuh uh, our witnesses are better than yours" argument. Eventually, Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, the CIT members who created The Pentacon, decide to grace me with their presence...as well as the same damn arguments. It is not long before I am suggested to be a disinfo operative or COINTELPRO agent of some kind. Under no real basis, mind you, other than that I disagree with them. Whenever I talk about contradictory eyewitness statements, I get "FAKED!". When I bring up light pole damage, "FAKED!". Anything that opposes their theory? "FAKED!"

(On a side-note, I've never actually heard a reason for WHY the government would even fly the plane over. Why not just let it hit? It's not even a reasonable operation. Why take such a huge risk in having the plane seen and having your whole operation blown wide open? It would be like they were trying to get caught.)

After a while, I realized just how cult-like this group was. They had literally blinded themselves to anything that opposed their claims. Furthermore, CIT acted like cult leaders themselves, with this all-knowing approach, often saying "After a few months you'll be kicking yourself when you realize just what it is what we've done!" and other such delusions of grandeur.

Oh, and let's not forget the disinformation-promoters' favorite: Ad-hominem! I got plenty of those too. What started out as a kind introduction thread resulted in a debate between fact and religion. Proof and belief. Eventually, I left, because it was clear that there was no arguing with these people, and I had better ways to spend my time than repeat the same arguments over and over.

This is how hoax-promoters often work. Come up with a pre-conceived conclusion, find evidence for that conclusion, deny any opposing evidence, including evidence that opposes your own evidence, assert your conclusion's dominance, and throw in a couple ad-hominem attacks every now and then.

In my last "Art of Debate" post, I mentioned how I do not believe Louder Than Words, the creators of the Loose Change films, are disinfo operatives. Why not? Because they've had the decency to fix their errors. They're willing to look at criticism and correct their mistakes. CIT, however, refuses to acknowledge so much as the POSSIBILITY that they are wrong. Even I, who am so heavily determined to erase the hoaxes among the movement, would be willing to recant with adequate evidence (and since there is no adequate evidence which supports hoaxes, I don't have to worry too much). CIT, however, will simply spout excuses and blatant speculation when confronted with facts and basic reasoning. Perhaps they started out with good intentions and were simply promoting misinformation. But when you are confronted with an argument that you cannot beat using any reasonable kind of critical thinking, and you do not recant your argument, you have turned into a disinfo operative. When you spit in the face of real evidence and offer the weakest, most unreliable "evidence" of your own, then you are participating in disinformation. When you care more about making a name for yourself and being perceived as right over actually BEING RIGHT, then you have lost the right to associate yourself with The 9/11 Truth Movement.

Because we stand for TRUTH! NOT PRIDE!

9/11 Hoaxes: No plane hit the Pentagon

2009-03-07T20:41:00.000-08:00

NOTE: This article was written a couple years ago by me as part of a series of articles to debunk hoaxes within the movement. There are some slight changes, but not so much in context as in code, since I had to convert the BBcode version of the file into HTML. Any errors that came across as a result of the conversion (i.e; broken links, no image, etc...) will be addressed as quickly as possible.

9/11 Hoaxes

No plane hit The Pentagon

By Kamen Fattorusso

9/11 Hoaxes is a series of articles I'll be starting which analyzes hoax theories, misinformation, and disinformation among the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is not a hit piece but rather an essay which seeks to improve the knowledge and research among 9/11 Truthers. The subjects I write about will be hoaxes that I find false and/or discrediting to The 9/11 Truth Movement.

Firstly, I'll be starting with one of the biggest and I feel most dangerous hoaxes that are spread around: that no plane, or perhaps a plane smaller than a 757, crashed into The Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. A great deal of those among The 9/11 Truth Movement support this theory and promote it to other people, truthers and non-truthers. This is largely due to it being promoted by well-known, prominent 9/11 activists such as Phil Jayhan, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas, Killtown, Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, and others. Admittedly, I too once believed in this theory because at the time I felt the evidence to be rather extraordinary and overwhelming. However, a closer look reveals that the theory has very poor foundations and support, lacking in coherency or substantiating evidence. I choose to write about this first due to a recent exchange with another 9/11 Truther, who based on her bulletins seems to be a reasonably intelligent person, and I feel it's dangerous for anyone who's smart and serious about the movement to be excitedly promoting hoax theories that discredit reasonable theories by association. Most hoaxes in the Movement aren't very popular and most people realize how flawed it is, but unfortunately this is not one of them. This applies to the whole of The 9/11 Truth Movement, as well, for there are those among the movement, such as Steven E. Jones and Jim Hoffman, who do not believe that no plane hit the Pentagon but some may assume they do since a great deal of other truthers do. Thus, this hoax negatively affects people who don't believe in it.

This article will be organized by taking one fragment of evidence or claims used to support the theory, which will be followed by my rebuttal. The hoax claims will be typed in bold whereas anything related to said claim, such as a quote or closely-related claim, will be typed in the same passage in Italics. Lastly, before I start, I'd like to quote something by Victoria Ashley in her article, “Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11”.

“It is important to note that falling for mis- or dis-information is not a sign of weakness or a failing, but is actually part of a natural human sense of fairness, compassion, and flexibility. Most false claims depend on these admirable qualities to spread. And more than likely, most sincere people working hard to spread truth have been taken in by hype at one time or another before looking into the details. Some prominent advocates of false claims may themselves have been duped or manipulated, or simply don't have the ability to critically evaluate the evidence.”

If a plane hit the Pentagon, where's the plane? Why is there no debris on the lawn?

Perhaps the most well known foundation for this claim, as well as the entire No-plane theory in general, is Thierry Meyssan's ”Hunt the Boeing” web page. The claim suggests that, if a plane hit The Pentagon, then large pieces of debris, particularly things like wings, the engine, and the fuselage, should be scattered and about, yet all that is seen are small, insignificant pieces of debris, which seems to suggest that no plane really hit the Pentagon. This is related to the following idea.

A 757 can't just obliterate like that on impact.

But to the contrary, a plane most certainly can and most certainly will incinerate the way it did when it hits a hard wall at such a fast speed. In fact, in 1988, Sandia National Labs conducted a test involving an F-4 Phantom crashing into a wall of concrete at about 480 mph and a velocity of about 215 meters per second. To quote, “The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact.”

The following photos illustrates the result(for size simplicity, I'm going to provide a link to the photos rather than directly input them here).

http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image1.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image2.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg

As you can see, the F-4 Phantom has been completely pulverized, consistent with the crash at The Pentagon. This is not all. Even assuming that there did need to be some amount of debris left over from the crash, you should not expect to find most of it in the lawn. Not in this scenario. Judging by the dimensions of punctures in the facade(which I will elaborate on in a later passage), the vast majority of debris entered inside the building, and not out on the lawn. Regardless, there is still a rather wide and extensive field of debris. While there are few to none large pieces of debris, we should not expect that as seen above with test with the F-4 Phantom.

The fuselage is not burnt. How can a piece of debris, which supposedly came from a speeding jetliner that completely incinerated, have not been singed?

Should the plane have been singed? There are a myriad of photographs of jetliner crashes that show unsinged pieces. For example, take the following picture into account.

There are contradictory witness accounts. Surely, this means that those who claimed to see a plane can't be relied on.

Saying “those who claimed” seems to imply that there was anyone who saw something other than a plane. The witness accounts are not contradictory. There are some which are less specific than others, but that's all.

”So it looked to be maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides, come in at a shallow”

This is one of two quotes that some use to suggest that indeed, the accounts were contradictory, but what's less reported is that both quotes came from witnesses who were very far away and that both people were the only ones to describe something so far away from what [i]did[/i] hit The Pentagon.

Here is a list of witnesses and what they reported seeing. The list was created by Joël v.d. Reijden:

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.
at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.
at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.
at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.
at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.
at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.
at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.
at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.
at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
at least 3 The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)
at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)
at least 25 The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)

As you can see, witness testimony in no way suggests no plane hit The Pentagon, but rather suggests that one truly did.

What about the light poles? How could a jetliner crash through five lightpoles and still hit The Pentagon at full throttle.

The only time I can recall seeing this point in a film or article was in the documentary Loose Change. Specifically, the narrator, Dylan Avery, states that there was a crash on November 22nd, 2004 where a plane was pulling in, clipped a single light pole, and crashed. In fact, they state(and correctly) that the wing was outright ripped off. So how can a Boeing 757 maintain such speed through five light poles? There are two things not taken into account for this point to appear valid. One point involves the planes, and the other involves the light poles.

For the planes, there are too many differences to make a valid comparison. The plane that crashed in 2004 was a Gulfstream II. A Gulfstream II is relatively small compared to a Boeing 757, a fairly large jet. The Gulfstream II was only flying at about 150 mph, whereas the Boeing 757 may have been travelling at speeds as fast as 530 mph.

For the lightpoles, not only is he ignoring potential differences in composition for the light poles, as they were in entirely different crash sites, but also ignores the fact that highway lightpoles are built with breakaway bases(this is done for the safety of motorists).

Thus, it is not surprising that a Boeing 757 or a jet of similar size travelling at high speeds would be able to rip through five light poles stationed on the highway. Loose Change also asserts that the wings were not damaged, but I must ask what evidence they've obtained that leads them to believe this? Who's to say the wings weren't damaged? Beyond this, the CNN.com story of the Gulfstream II crash says that the crash wasn't caused by hitting the light pole. By neglecting this fact, Loose Change overexaggerates the damage the light pole did to the plane. But even assuming the light pole was the sole cause of the crash, there are still plenty of reasons, as stated above, to expect a Boeing 757 to maintain it's speed until it's crash into The Pentagon.

The hole in The Pentagon is far too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757. It's completely inconsistent with such a crash, so it must have been caused by something else. Perhaps a cruise missile?

To the contrary, the dimensions of the hole are entirely consistent with a Boeing 757 crash. This misconception is largely due to the promoters of such theories, whether intentionally or unintentionally, only showing photos of the second floor damage, where the first floor damage will be hidden by hoses or smoke. Photos of the damage to the Pentagon can be analyzed and compiled to deduce the precise dimensions of the hole, as seen in the following photo. Areas in red are areas which lack any significant damage.

This photo also shows the feasibility of the dimensions. Notice the light-brown colors shaded in around portions of the red-shaded area. This is where lighter damage was done.

On the second floor, there was indeed about 18 feet of significant damage. This would likely have been caused by the vertical tailwing. The first floor, however, shows a span of damage ranging to about 96 feet of significant damage. To give a better idea of the damage, I will quote Jim Hoffman from his essay “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows”.

On the first floor, the primary puncture extended from column 8 to column 18. Three leaning objects in the first floor space left of the hole center are often assumed to be displaced remains of columns 15, 16, and 17. However, this analysis shows that those objects are more likely to be fallen pieces of the second floor slab than columns. Thus, it appears that the crash initially left a first floor hole that extended unobstructed for 96 feet. Surviving column 18 marked the rightmost extent of the hole, but to the right of it is another hole extending to column 19. Thus the total width of punctured walls on the first floor was at least 105 feet.
On the second floor, the puncture extended from column 13 to column 15. Photographs show a hanging object in the position of column 14. This appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14.

As you can see, the dimensions are entirely consistent with a Boeing 757 crash. As a matter of fact, they are entirely inconsistent with a strike by a “cruise missile” or anything of the sort.

What about the round hole in the C-Ring?

First of all, for those unfamiliar with the Pentagon structure, it is composed of nine sections, and going through all of these sections are five “rings”. The “C-Ring” refers to the ring in the middle. This picture shows the Pentagon's rings clearly, as well as it's sections. In the interest of space, the image will be linked to.

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/pentagon.jpg

Now that that is out of the way, the hole in the C-Ring is the final point of penetration by whatever hit The Pentagon on 9/11. Many people find it rather small compared to a Boeing 757. Here is a picture of the hole.

The hole measures about 9 feet in diameter. A 757's fuselage measures to be about 12.5 feet in diameter. So how could a plane make this hole.

Well to start with a little observation, note that the hole rests right on the ground. Rather peculiar considering the “16-foot hole” that no-plane theorists frequently promote was located on the second floor. Now correct me if I'm wrong, seriously, as this is a presumption of mine and not anything I've directly looked into, but missiles typically don't move progressively down like that. I've always been under the impression that they move in a straight line until their massive penetration potential is stopped. Again, not even sure about that, but I thought I'd address a possible anomaly.

But on to the real evidence and real facts, quoting Jim Hoffman in his article “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence shows”:

However, the mass of a jetliner is not uniformly distributed throughout its shape. The fuselage of a 757 comprises only about a quarter of the area of its frontal profile, but makes up well over half of its mass. The distribution of the mass within the fuselage is far from uniform. Most of the structure is located in the lower third of the fuselage, as are the heavy components such as the landing gear. In a high-speed collision with a building, only the parts of the aircraft with the greatest density and total mass, such as the lower third of the fuselage, could be expected to penetrate far into the building. That part also has a small frontal profile -- approximately the size of the punch-out hole.

There is little more to say on the C-Ring hole, as it is clearly plausible for it to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

Is it merely coincidence that The Pentagon was struck in the least-populated section, which had been undergoing renovation, and was struck by going in a complicated maneuver when it would have caused more damage and life toll hitting it by diving in, AND was struck in the area which killed mostly people in the Naval Operations Center, which housed the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), a RIVAL of the CIA, as well as being on the complete opposite side of where where the Secretary of Defense would have been?

Absolutely not! This is a valid point brought upon by almost all 9/11 Truthers, and rightfully so, for it clearly shows that the government was either terribly convenient or were directly involved with the attack on The Pentagon. However, this doesn't prove that a missile or anything except a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

If a Boeing 757 struck The Pentagon, then why have NO tapes been released showing the attack? All footage of the attack has been confiscated and unreleased except for the five frames which don't show a plane at all! If the government has nothing to hide, then why keep these tapes secret?

When I present many of the points I explain throughout the essay, I commonly get something to the effect of “I refuse to believe a plane hit The Pentagon until I see those tapes.” For this reason, I find this an important point to address. Even if we are to assume that lack of footage is a reasonable basis for denying physical evidence and common sense, we have to think critically. Let's start now. Do you believe that government insiders are hiding the tapes because they're afraid of showing no 757 or do you think that they're hiding them intentionally because they're having fun keeping the no-plane hoax going?

For years now, the theory that no plane hit The Pentagon has been discrediting the movement. Let's create a plausible scenario where a large portion, let's say at least 80%, of the population believes that the government was directly involved with the events of September 11th. Now let's use modern estimations and implement them into this eighty percent, and say that at least 75% of those in the Truth Movement believe that no plane hit The Pentagon. Now let's say the government, due to high demand, is forced to release the tapes. These tapes, in this scenario, will show a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. The video will have no signs of editing and the plane will be seen very clearly. Can you imagine how damaging this would be to The 9/11 Truth Movement?

By not releasing those tapes, they are feeding the no-plane theory, and they know that they are feeding the no-plane theory. By releasing only five frames of footage that don't show a Boeing 757, they feed it even further. By releasing the May 16th, 2006 footage that still doesn't show a 757, they feed it even more. They fuel debates about what hit The Pentagon, rather than put them to rest. If no plane did hit The Pentagon, wouldn't they not release any frames at all of any footage so as to not make the public skeptical?

The no-plane hoax is very effective at putting The 9/11 Truth Movement on the fringe. Thus, waiting for footage which could very well put to rest these hoax theories does not benefit the movement, but rather is a significantly damaging risk.

Why does a white line mark the trajectory of the crash days before the crash occurred?

Another point that I've heard exclusively in Loose Change, the exact quote is:

And finally, why do satellite photos taken four days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon four days later?

Loose Change downplays the “almost” in their claim, as the path of the line was separated from the path of the plane crash by at least ten degrees. The path was there initially for underground purposes.

Reports claim that the plane bounced off the lawn, but photos clearly show that the lawn is in perfect condition!

No, photos show that a large portion of the lawn where the plane didn't bounce is in perfect condition. These photos tend to be deceiving due to the perspective, which makes things seem closer to The Pentagon than they really are. Take the following photo, where the chain-link fence at the right of the picture appears to be very close to The Pentagon.

As it turns out, that fence is about 100 feet away from the facade of the building. Now to take a look at the following photo, we see that the lawn was not in perfect condition, to say the least.

Hani Honjour was a very incompetent pilot. There's no way he could pull off such a complicated maneuver into The Pentagon.

An excellent and very valid point, indeed. However, like the valid claim I mentioned earlier concerning the area where The Pentagon was hit, this is evidence of an inside job, not that no plane struck the building. Both of these valid points are often used by both those who believe a plane did hit the building, and those who believe a plane did not hit the building. As the latter group is attacked and debunked while using the valid points, it will discredit the former group by association.

Conclusion

Given the vast quantity of claims surrounding the “no-plane-at-The-Pentagon” theory, I'll undoubtedly find myself updating this article to counter yet more hoax claims that support an even worse hoax theory. However, I'd like to think I've done a pretty sufficient job in taking most of the major points thrown around, some minor ones too, and countering them to show that absolutely none of the claims or evidence used to support the no-plane theory are plausible. The physical evidence suggests a Boeing 757 struck the building. The witness testimony suggests a Boeing 757 struck the building. To top it all off, basic common sense suggests a Boeing 757 struck The Pentagon. Theories that no plane struck the Pentagon have no basis in fact or logic, and deviate from real witnesses and real facts.

I hope any who have fallen for this hoax theory will take this information into account, form more plausible conclusions, and will avoid falling for any other hoaxes pertaining to 9/11 in the future, as well as analyze their current theories and determine whether or not they're plausible.

I'd like to give thanks towards Jim Hoffman for his outstanding research in analyzing the Truth Movement and debunking this hoax claim, which awoke me from the belief that no plane struck The Pentagon, and also towards Victoria Ashley, who's article, “Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11”, inspired me to start 9/11 Hoaxes.

9/11 Truth will not die

2009-03-06T16:40:00.000-08:00

No matter how much bias is against us, it is most certain that the movement will retain its existence until we get the investigation we crave. It's been suggested that 9/11 Truth was naught but a Bush-era phenomenon, and will slowly fade away with a new administration. But this is not the case, and such is represented at the recent formation of a new 9/11 truth group:

Political Leaders for 911 truth

It has been joined by another recent group:

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

The formation of these groups show that people out there are still interested in ascertaining the truth about 9/11. Indeed, aren't we all? So let this be a word of encouragement to the 9/11 Truth community, and a word of warning to the powers that be, that this movement will not falter to the hands of evil, will not succumb to this string of lies, and ONLY until the truth is known to every living person on Earth and the perpetrators are appropriately punished for their crimes will this movement be satisfied.

To acknowledge the everlasting growth of the movement, I will link to other websites similar in concept to the two above.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Veterans for 9/11 Truth

The Art of Debate - Mark Roberts

2009-03-05T21:32:00.000-08:00

Mark Roberts became famous over his critique, the Loose Change Guide, a point-by-point critique of the hoax-mongering second edition of Loose Change.

I find it concerning, though hardly surprising, that Mark Roberts seems less than eager to debate with serious, discerning researchers. He likes to debate silly no-plane theories with Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery, the latter of whom seems more willing to analyze their theories, as seen in the Final Cut edition. On the note of Loose Change: Final Cut, I also wonder why Mark Roberts doesn't (or hasn't) updated his site to have a critique of the latest edition. While not completely absent of errors, the Final Cut version is, by far, the most accurate version of the Loose Change project. Mark Roberts claims to have the evidence on his side. So why not write up another rebuttal to the latest version? Maybe because it's harder to debunk since their fact-checking skills have improved since the second edition.

Mark Roberts seemingly debates only with those who fall for all the hoax theories or are ill-informed. I've never once heard him debate with Jim Hoffman, one of the best researchers in the movement I think, or any other such discerning researchers.

Putting it simply, Mark Roberts represents an art of debate that is so prevalent among attempted debunkers. Focus on the hoax-mongers and pay no heed to the genuine researchers. Works like 911 In Plane Site and The Pentacon make it terribly easy to discredit the movement.

This is why I am so adamantly opposed to any mis - or dis - information prevalent among the movement. By having so much as one hoax theory being circulated, especially if by leading figures in the movement, you not only discredit the movement, but you paint a target on what to focus on, so it becomes even easier to discredit.

One of the reasons that the Loose Change Companion Guide was so popular was because, for most of it, it was highly accurate. No, Flight 93 did not land in Cleveland. A missile did not hit the Pentagon. A.K. Dewdney makes a crap argument about the cell phones. Etc... Loose Change is so riddled with errors and, arguably, the single most effective 9/11-work for attracting people to the movement, that it becomes a massive target. One that towers over the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and consequently taints us with its shadow.

One of the big flaws with Loose Change is that they make such bold assertions on such flawed analysis. Having said that, the Final Cut is a big improvement, and let it be known that in no way do I think Louder Than Words is a disinformation campaign. There is a significant and noteworthy difference between disinformation and misinformation.

Regardless, Loose Change represents just how easy it is for the debunkers and defenders of the official story to discredit the movement. One needs to look no further than the infamous Popular Mechanics article to see an example of using hoaxes in the movement to defend the official story.

To Mark Roberts and any other aspiring debunkers out there: If you're seriously interested in the truth, then don't beat a dead horse. Come talk about the real evidence.

Arcterus: 9/11 Truth

2009-03-04T13:52:00.000-08:00

I've had the idea for a while, but have not made my own 9/11 Truth Blog until now. The 9/11 Truth Movement, as any reader of this site is likely aware, is the accumulative term for the massive amount of people dedicated to exposing the truth of 9/11.

Having said that, hoaxes are prevalent among the movement, and I do not endorse all theories given by the various sources. I do not endorse "no-plane theories", for example. The very existence of these hoaxes is a constant plague cast over the 9/11 Truth Movement that ruins any credibility and believability. As such, I find that removing this plague from the movement is far more important at the moment than getting a new, bipartisan investigation of the attacks, because until we remove these ridiculous theories, the movement can not be taken seriously by the millions of people who endorse the official story.

I was inspired to finally start a blog after reading the blog entry by Arabesque at http://arabesque911.blogspot.com. Arabesque's blog is one of the best, and I highly recommend checking it out. Other websites and blogs worth checking out, among others, are:

9-11 Research
9-11 Review
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Visibility 9-11
Truth Action
911 Blogger
Oilempire.us
QuestionsQuestions

There are, of course, hundreds of other websites concerning 9/11 Truth (although obviously some are more accurate than others. Judge wisely).