Fake Truthers At True Faction And Blogger Now Embracing Debunkers, Openly Denying Controlled Demolition Options

[A. Syed]

Now to be sure, I've had my skepticism for quite some time now about the nanothermite paper, which the anti-truth camp is now claiming to have debunked. I personally don't direct people to the paper if I'm trying to convince them about CD; I just show them the videos, the squibs, the molten metal dripping out from the impact zone, the eyewitness testimonies...

Anyway, the cognitive infiltrators posing as 9/11 truthers are embracing this latest "debunk" as a means of completely denying the occurrence of CD at the towers.

Jimd3100:

But it doesn't matter. The WTC was blown up argument is done. It was destroyed (along with any integrity the "truth" movement pretended it had) by imaginary NANOTHERMITE."

truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48859#48859

The truth shall set you free and the truth is 9-11 truth scholars are full of shit and didn't find nanothermite and AE911truth are lying to you.

Love is the way forward and sometimes love means telling people they are full of shit.

truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48863#48863

ae911truth are making it very clear they intend to perpetuate a known fraud with dishonesty.

If you think it was hard to convince the dimwits a plane hit the pentagon, you think they are ever ever going to drop this BS?

The 9-11 Truth movement -- A bigger fraud than ever

I care about the truth of 9-11 not a fraudulent "truth" movement

John Albanese:

i think you are just an endless apologist for the controlled demolition disinformation campaign.

truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48797#48797

This next one really reminds me of the way the same clique try and spin the Pentagon NoC eyewitnesses:

“Evidence of some steel melting was suggested by the photographs.” —Ahmed Ghoniem, PhD, MIT, Ronald C. Crane Professor of Mechanical Engineering

this is your scientific evidence? it is suggested by the photographs?

“I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.” –Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Structural Engineer

eyewitness intepretation of an event? no possibility of human error here? how did he mean this? we know steel loses strength at high temperatures. COuld he have meant twisted sagging girders? how does this equate to the "Pools of molten steel" the CD advocates continually attempt to foist on the public.

this is what you call irrefutable evidence? a couple of opinions based on visual confirmations?

You've moved from being an apologist for disinformation to being an actual disseminator.

what is the scientific standard for claiming "irrefutable proof?"

truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48809#48809

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, need to run in a minute, but if I had the time I could point to so many more examples by JimD, kdub, Snowcrash, John Albanese, Zombie Bill Hicks, Jeffrey Hill, and others.

What's interesting is that these individuals are now attacking controlled demolition, they are trying to marginalize Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan over the NOI thing, and they have also been the ones defending the official account of the hijackings. Now, of course, in past years these were the same people whose main goal seemed to be to run Kevin Barrett, Pilots, CIT and others out of town. Now that they feel we've been marginalized, they are now turning on the same people (Gage, Ryan, LeftWright, etc.) who used to be on their side when it came to those non-WTC issues. The individuals toward whom LeftWright used to offer his "Cheers!" and his "Love!" are now attacking him. The people with whom Kevin Ryan was in complete solidarity with regarding the Pentagon, CIT, Blogger and the Nov. 2010 Rock Creek Free Press article are now turning on him.

It is quite clear what is going on. Sunstein infiltrators are trying, peacemeal, slowly but surely, to rehabilitate the official story.

To individuals like LeftWright and Kevin Ryan, who are now hopefully seeing the SnowCrashes and Jeff Hills for what they really are, you don't have too much sympathy from me now that it's you who is under attack. You know the old saying:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

I wonder if LeftWright still considers it an "honor" and a "privilege" and a "pleasure" to work with those people? I wonder if he's still "proud" to be a 911blogger moderator??? If you happen to read this Mr. Wright, do you still believe that the Barrett/P4T/CIT supporters who had been purged were all violating the rules? That was such a blatant falsehood that you are either an operative of the most incompetent blog moderator in the movement's history for supporting that notion. Now the inmates are running the asylum. At least three dozen people can't log in and vote up your comments and protest against the likes of JimD3100 and the nonsense he spouts. Enjoy your just rewards.

[Atomicbomb]

Well now that the paid operatives posing as truthers "THINK" they have done their job with regard to P4T and CIT they have to work on something in order to get paid by their boss in Langley.

As for John Wright I sent the following e-mail 7/13/2011 which I CC'ed to him:

"Mr. Syed,

I agree that John is probably a dupe and not an operative however it makes very little difference in the end because he is carrying water for the anti-truthers in either case. He is helping them carry out their agenda and defending them while they do it by the way. Notice how he refuses to acknowledge your point about Larsen deceptively promoting as a light pole downing witness a person who was not even in the state at the time of the attack. A person who cannot admit a blatant truth such as that one cannot call himself a truther and be taken seriously. Notice how he still tries to justify gagging Barrie Zwicker and still refuses to address the gagging of Dwain Deets. John blatantly lied about the purged truthers deserving what they got and lied about them being warned prior to purging when he knew it wasn't true. John has no backbone and no real integrity and therefore will never be able to stand up for the truth when the going gets tough. As to your other points about the anti truthers who have turned their venom on John now, I have to tell you, I was unaware of that because I do not read that propaganda rag 911Blogger at all anymore. It does not surprise me though that the inmates are running the asylum over there because they systematically purged everyone else. The Chinese have a saying that "the fish stinks from the head" which fits 911Blogger to a tee.

John,

If any of you anti CIT charlatans had a leg to stand on regarding the pentagon you would not flee from debate about it. If your position had merit you could articulate it, but it doesn't, which is why you can't. I bet you still have not studied the pentagon in any real depth to this very day other then perhaps skimming through a few pseudo-intellectual hatchet jobs put out by your bay area buddies and yellow journalists extraordinaire Chandler, Hoffman, and Ashley. If I am wrong then by all means let's set up a debate and see all the impressive evidence you and your friends have put together which establishes that CIT are the crack smoking con men you all say they are. Care to put your money where your mouth is John? I didn't think so.

Sincerely,

Adam Ruff"


After his pathetic reply I sent this on 7/14/11:


"John,

No, you personally have not called CIT crack smokers and con men but your friends Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley who's work 911Blogger clearly endorses have. 911Blogger is a sleaze pit that condones and supports yellow journalists and yellow journalism John and if you had any self respect or backbone you would have left there long ago. You work directly with and support 911Blogger and therefore you directly support their yellow journalism. You support their anti CIT agenda and you are a direct part of it. You support and defend a group of people who are viciously, baselessly, and relentlessly attacking honest 9/11 truthers who have contributed to the truth movement enormously. Do you know what that makes you John? Benedict Arnold comes to my mind, I mean you may as well call yourself a the govt loyalist site'er at this point because there is no substantial difference between them and 911Blogger. Not one of your beloved CIT attackers has the courage or the personal integrity to back up their flimsy claims about the pentagon attack in a debate with CIT and I know exactly why that is John. It is because their positions against CIT hold as much water as the official story of 9/11 does. Instead of doing the right thing, the honorable thing, like a genuine truther would, and admitting that CIT's evidence is both powerful and important to the movement and then supporting it, you and your fellow the govt loyalist site'ers have chosen to protect your fragile ego's (CYA's) from the unendurable pain of admitting you were wrong. You choose to protect your ego over the truth John, it is as simple as that. For the record John there is nothing subjective about CIT's witnesses or about what they said."

[Tamborine man]

Just found this link on the truthfraction forum today!

Combined with the above posts by Syed and Atomicbomb,

i don't think anyone over there will be laughing over this essay:

http://www.911truthy.org/


Cheers