Debate Challenge And Questions For 911blogger, Letter just sent to 911Blogger. Options

[Atomicbomb]

I just sent the following letter to the entire 911Blogger team:


"911Blogger Owners and Moderators,

My name is Adam Ruff. I am a former contributor to 911Blogger and reporter for Unspun Newz http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz?feature=mhum. I would like to ask you all some questions on the record regarding your involvement with 911Blogger and would appreciate your response to them for my upcoming report on 911Blogger and the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT). Please reply back individually or as a group with your thoughts about each question written below the question itself so your responses will not get confused or be misunderstood. Thank you.

Q: Now that such a large number of people have been banned from 911Blogger apparently without violating the site rules and without an explanation do you feel the site is fulfilling it's purpose better today then it was prior to the mass banning? If so can you explain how the site has improved or how the truth movement has benefited from the mass banning?

Q: What is official 911Blogger editorial policy regarding CIT's pentagon evidence and regarding CIT supporters posting on 911Blogger?

Q: What is 911Bloggers official position in regard to censorship and the 1st amendment to the US Constitution? Can you elaborate on that position specifically as it relates to private property rights vs. free speech rights?

Q: In light of the recent endorsements of CIT from Barrie Zwicker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc and Dwain Deets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGkiYmVUmg , endorsements which were very critical of censorship efforts against CIT within the truth movement, do you feel that it may have been ill advised to take such a harsh stance against CIT yourselves or do you feel as though your stance is justified and correct? Could you explain your answer?

Q: How involved were each of you personally in deciding who would be banned from 911Blogger? Did you make the decisions in each case yourself or was it a committee decision involving all/some of the other moderators as to who would be banned?

Q: Do you contend that those individuals banned without explanation over the last few months were not banned because of their support for CIT but for some other reason? If so why were they banned and how do you explain the large numbers of CIT supporters in the banned group?

Q: Do you consider 911Bloggers efforts to suppress CIT's evidence and purge CIT's supporters from your site to be successful? If so how do you measure that success?

Q: If it should turn out that CIT, Barrie Zwicker, Dwain Deets, and the many CIT supporters purged from 911Blogger were proved correct in their conclusions about the pentagon attack (I.E. the fly over happened, the pole damage was staged, etc) how will you restore 911Bloggers reputation and make up for the tremendous damage that has been done to the truth movement and to it's members who were wrongly silenced?

Q: Are you willing to debate CIT on the subject of the pentagon provided a neutral debate setting, established debate rules, and equal representative teams can be arranged? If not can you tell us why you choose to decline such a debate?

Q: If none of you are willing to answer any of the above questions is there any statement you would like to make on behalf of 911Blogger that you would like me to include in my report?

I look forward to your timely response,

Adam Ruff
Unspun Newz

P.S. I have BCC'd a number of truth movement members on this message in order to keep all this out in the open."


I will post any replies I get here.

[amazed!]

Good luck with THAT dude! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[onesliceshort]

They'll have to answer some time.

Ridiculous that they can't refute and refuse to publically debate the evidence. They've smeared themselves into a corner.

[DoYouEverWonder]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for their reply.

But from what I remember the original group running the site gave control of it to Rep. (aka Reprehensor on DU) When I got banned for quoting David Ray Griffin, he was the only person moderating the site.

[Atomicbomb]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for their reply.

But from what I remember the original group running the site gave control of it to Rep. (aka Reprehensor on DU) When I got banned for quoting David Ray Griffin, he was the only person moderating the site.

Yeah I am definitely not holding my breath waiting for an answer but I thought I would ask the questions and give them an opportunity to speak up for themselves before I do my report. Michael Moore never got in the GM building to see Roger Smith either in Roger and Me but he managed to get the news out just fine. In fact Michael Moore has been stone walled and shut out of hundreds of places and yet his message still gets out. The stone wall of silence made Moore famous if you really think about it regardless of what you think of him personally. It is my honor to be given the silent treatment by 911Blogger and what it really means to me is that I asked the right questions. Who knows though maybe they will surprise us all and say something.

[StefanS]

You won't get a response from any of them, except perhaps LeftWright who does seem on the level.

It's a pretty simple formula - if someone actually believes in what they are saying - they want to discuss it, want to draw attention to it, want to debate everyone they can on it.

If someone is being dishonest and knows they are wrong, they will attack it, but will never, ever debate it, draw attention to the facts, or acknowledge any counter points to their arguments let alone respond to them.

9/11 Truth - wants to debate and respond to all counterpoints against the research in detail
Debunkers - want to attack from sidelines and refuse formal debate, ignore counterpoints and fail to respond to them

People aware of CIT's evidence - want to debate and respond to all counterpoint against the research in detail
CIT detractors/smear campaign - want to attack from sidelines and refuse formal debate, ignore counterpoints and fail to respond to them

If they actually believed the lies they spam they would be happy to see them tested in debate.

Instead all they can do is attack viciously and censor all responses.

Thankfully most people are smart enough to see through it but it's surprising how many gullible people get sucked into it.

I just sent the following letter to the entire 911Blogger team:


"911Blogger Owners and Moderators,

My name is Adam Ruff. I am a former contributor to 911Blogger and reporter for Unspun Newz http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz?feature=mhum. I would like to ask you all some questions on the record regarding your involvement with 911Blogger and would appreciate your response to them for my upcoming report on 911Blogger and the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT). Please reply back individually or as a group with your thoughts about each question written below the question itself so your responses will not get confused or be misunderstood. Thank you.

Q: Now that such a large number of people have been banned from 911Blogger apparently without violating the site rules and without an explanation do you feel the site is fulfilling it's purpose better today then it was prior to the mass banning? If so can you explain how the site has improved or how the truth movement has benefited from the mass banning?

Q: What is official 911Blogger editorial policy regarding CIT's pentagon evidence and regarding CIT supporters posting on 911Blogger?

Q: What is 911Bloggers official position in regard to censorship and the 1st amendment to the US Constitution? Can you elaborate on that position specifically as it relates to private property rights vs. free speech rights?

Q: In light of the recent endorsements of CIT from Barrie Zwicker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc and Dwain Deets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGkiYmVUmg , endorsements which were very critical of censorship efforts against CIT within the truth movement, do you feel that it may have been ill advised to take such a harsh stance against CIT yourselves or do you feel as though your stance is justified and correct? Could you explain your answer?

Q: How involved were each of you personally in deciding who would be banned from 911Blogger? Did you make the decisions in each case yourself or was it a committee decision involving all/some of the other moderators as to who would be banned?

Q: Do you contend that those individuals banned without explanation over the last few months were not banned because of their support for CIT but for some other reason? If so why were they banned and how do you explain the large numbers of CIT supporters in the banned group?

Q: Do you consider 911Bloggers efforts to suppress CIT's evidence and purge CIT's supporters from your site to be successful? If so how do you measure that success?

Q: If it should turn out that CIT, Barrie Zwicker, Dwain Deets, and the many CIT supporters purged from 911Blogger were proved correct in their conclusions about the pentagon attack (I.E. the fly over happened, the pole damage was staged, etc) how will you restore 911Bloggers reputation and make up for the tremendous damage that has been done to the truth movement and to it's members who were wrongly silenced?

Q: Are you willing to debate CIT on the subject of the pentagon provided a neutral debate setting, established debate rules, and equal representative teams can be arranged? If not can you tell us why you choose to decline such a debate?

Q: If none of you are willing to answer any of the above questions is there any statement you would like to make on behalf of 911Blogger that you would like me to include in my report?

I look forward to your timely response,

Adam Ruff
Unspun Newz

P.S. I have BCC'd a number of truth movement members on this message in order to keep all this out in the open."


I will post any replies I get here.

[SanderO]

The problem is that blogger has acted improperly in their bannings (me included and nothing to do with CIT). They don't tell the banned person why they were banned, respond to email requests for an explanation or publish any comment even if it is in agreement with one of the posts.

Their "behavior" is irrational and indefensible and so they can't respond because if they did it would reveal how hypocritical they are about "truth" and openness. And most of the people who read Blogger have no idea about their censorship policy because it is never a topic of discussion there.

This is a very troubling aspect of the "truth movement" and AE911T exhibits a bit of the same type of "behavior" at times.

One has to ask, Why? What purpose is this censorship serving? Cui Bono? Whose standing/stature is being protected? If a mistake was made, why can't it be acknowledged and then move on?

This will be the undoing of the truth movement if it becomes widely known. Message control - exactly what we are fighting against.

[Atomicbomb]

The problem is that blogger has acted improperly in their bannings (me included and nothing to do with CIT). They don't tell the banned person why they were banned, respond to email requests for an explanation or publish any comment even if it is in agreement with one of the posts.

Their "behavior" is irrational and indefensible and so they can't respond because if they did it would reveal how hypocritical they are about "truth" and openness. And most of the people who read Blogger have no idea about their censorship policy because it is never a topic of discussion there.

This is a very troubling aspect of the "truth movement" and AE911T exhibits a bit of the same type of "behavior" at times.

One has to ask, Why? What purpose is this censorship serving? Cui Bono? Whose standing/stature is being protected? If a mistake was made, why can't it be acknowledged and then move on?

This will be the undoing of the truth movement if it becomes widely known. Message control - exactly what we are fighting against.

SanderO you and StefanS make excellent points. Message control is exactly what we are fighting against, well said. I think that CIT's evidence since it is not related to CD is seen by some small thinkers as a threat to their status as "leaders". Of course CIT's evidence does not diminish the CD argument in the slightest nor does it lessen the contributions of ae911truth or the scholars for truth and justice at all. In fact CIT's evidence compliments and enhances the CD evidence simply because it shows another clear cut deception on 9/11 seperate and distinct from the demolitions of the towers. It speaks to the MO of the perps using misdirection and staged evidence in both cases. CIT's evidence should be embraced and openly discussed by everyone. It is very unfortunate that a few small minded individuals who think they know better then the rest of us are in a position to shut down the discussion at Blogger. It really is a shame because this attempted "message control" will be the undoing of the truth movement as you say. It really is the same thing the mainstream media is attempting to do on behalf of the 9/11 perpetraitors. Attempting and failing. MSM has no credibility at all precisely because they are attempting "message control".

StefanS your analysis is as usual right on the money, their behavior is the same as the "debunkers" and reflects very poorly not only on them but also on the strength of their arguments. I agree with you that if they had any substance to their anti-CIT arguments they would be falling all over themselves to debate it in the open. The fact that they refuse all comment, silence all opposing views, and hide behind a stone wall of censorship tells us their arguments are worthless and they know it. StefanS I half way expected LeftWright to respond because like you I thought him to be more reasonable however he has not responded and as each day passes his credibility is reduced in my view. The fact is he is aware of exactly what the issue is and he says nothing about it publicly and still lends his support to 911Blogger knowing the whole time what they have done and are still doing. I used to work as a recruiter and I found out one day that the company I worked for had taken on a new client called Blackwater. I told the owner the day I found out that I would not recruit for blackwater or work for a company that did. They choose to keep their new client so I collected my final paycheck that day and left. So if LeftWright cannot take a meaningful stand against 911Blogger's blatant censorship, total message control, and silencing of good truthers then frankly I consider him an accomplice to those doing it. In my book if you are a real truther you don't work with and lend support to people who do what 911Blogger has done. I hope he will surprise me and take a strong stand on this issue but Obama ran on the "hope and change" platform and you can see how that turned out for us.

This post has been edited by Atomicbomb: Sep 13 2010, 05:37 PM

[amazed!]

Humans tend to censor. They tend to suppress ideas and thoughts that are unpleasant to their position. It's normal behavior, all things considered.

Not really respectable behavior, but normal behavior. Controlling the conversation.

[Atomicbomb]

Humans tend to censor. They tend to suppress ideas and thoughts that are unpleasant to their position. It's normal behavior, all things considered.

Not really respectable behavior, but normal behavior. Controlling the conversation.

Very true it is human nature to some degree but we truthers already have the mainstream media doing a fantastic job of attacking the truth movement and censoring our evidence so we don't really need 911Blogger helping them do the job. We truthers have to hold ourselves to a higher standard or quit calling ourselves truthers. I find it especially offensive that the 911Blogger cabal attack people who are banned and have no opportunity to respond to their attackers. It is cowardly and cheap, again just like the mainstream media.

[albertchampion]

it is just not the msm. virtually no purportedly progressive online site wants to air any of the realities about that day.

so, for instance, if you try to talk about ted olson[bushits sg] and his prevarications about telephone calls, your msg will be disappeared.

if you try to talk about daniel hopsicker and his research into atta, shehi in venice, your msg will be disappeared.

might make one think that the internet is controlled by the state.

if you try to air a disquisition concerning the impossibility of anyone aiming for the wtc/pentagon when so many strategic targets were available and vulnerable, your post will be disappeared.

the department of war created the net. does it continue to run it?

and are there any real anti-statists out there?

[onesliceshort]

This sums up the current situation IMHO.

Not to say that all of the public faces involved in this "coup" of information control are "agents of the state", but they have been directly involved in a proven disinfo and smear campaign for over 4 years now.
This was a coldly calculated political move to marginalize researchers and scholars and browbeat them into compliancy. Scholars such as Dwain Deets and Barrie Zwicker had the morals and cojones to see right through them.

Who are these people??

Watch for the sudden "coups" they will make to paper over the cracks.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/zwickergate...ft05oct07.shtml

Acrimony can be diminished in a proportion to facts being brought to bear on the discussion. Because of the suffocating secrecy that attends operations by agents of influence, finding direct evidence is next to impossible. That is why those who want to investigate this intensely troubling and important situation are obliged to turn to circumstantial evidence, intuition and principles of inquiry such as the identification of contradictions, pattern recognition, and the Latin cui bono? (To whose benefit?)

There are other possible, and possibly overlapping, explanations for near-uniform 9/11 blindness on the part of the Left leaders and alternative media. These lead back, in part, to the CIA. Left media increasingly have been seeking and receiving funding from the likes of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation. Bob Feldman of San Francisco has been a tireless researcher of Left-foundation connections. His articles paint a picture rarely mentioned because both Left and Right have an interest in perpetuating the paradigm and keeping quiet about it.

(...)

During the cold War, the CIA utilized foundations such as Ford "to set up and finance a 'parallel' organization to counter known left-wing bodies.55 In 1975, the radical US feminist group Redstockings asserted that: "one major CIA strategy" during the Cold war was "to create or support parallel organizations which provide alternatives to radicalism and yet appear progressive enough to appease dissatisfied elements of society."56 There are no grounds to imagine the CIA or their partners in the foundations have changed their tune or their methods - except to make them more effective.

Barrie Zwicker

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 14 2010, 09:07 AM

[SanderO]

While the censorship may be the work of "infiltrators" or CIA plants, it's also possible and likely that this is an ego and power play situation. This is recognized as the founder's syndrome. So what you have is someone... take any 911 leader who starts out with the best of intentions as a researcher/activist and finds he has become a leader (though this may not have been part of his agenda) Now he discovers that he has a franchise, a following and the ability to control and influence others and steer "the movement" as per his agenda... even if it was to get the truth about 911. I would assert that virtually all the 911 leaders are suffering from Founder's Syndrome of one form or another. It's almost inevitable unless a person is especially careful AND the hierarchical system of almost everything out there forces leaders to "catch the Founder's Syndrome bug. From Wiki:

Founder's syndrome is a label normally used to refer to a pattern of behavior on the part of the founder(s) of an organization that, over time, becomes maladaptive to the successful accomplishment of the organizational mission . The term is anecdotal/unofficial and does not actually refer to a medical syndrome. It is particularly common where there has only been one person leading the organization or the board of directors since its inception [1] and commonly occurs in both non-profit and commercial organizations as they develop.

An organization faces founder's syndrome as the scope of activities widen and number of stakeholders increase. Without an effective and inclusive decision making structure and process there is potential for conflict between newcomers, seeking effective involvement with organizational development and the founder(s) who seek to dominate the decision making process. This can be very disruptive, both to the organization and to the individuals concerned and should be carefully and clearly diagnosed and addressed quickly and decisively[1].

There are a number of negative effects that may occur when an original founder CEO seeks to maintain disproportionate power and influence beyond the initial growth phase of an organization.

* Exclusion of newcomers: First, a founder's passion and charisma, initially essential to the successful establishment of an organization, becomes a limiting rather than a creative and productive force. As an organization matures, professionally-trained and talented people are normally engaged and the board is expanded. The founder's domination of the decision making process may frustrate effective and inclusive group decision making.[2].

* Identification with a single person: The organization may, over time, be overly identified with the person or personality of the founder and may experience diminished public trust.

* Nepotism: In its early development, the board is often selected by the founder and thus is often composed of friends and colleagues of the founder, this may limit the independent functioning of the board and deprive the organization of more diverse and representative views.[2]

Coping effectively with Founder's syndrome requires frank, careful discussion of the problem, a plan of action, and ideally interventions by the founder, the board and or by others involved in the organization. The objective of the plan should be to allow the organization to make a successful transition to a mature organizational model without damage to either the organization itself or to the individuals concerned.[

[Sanders]

While the censorship may be the work of "infiltrators" or CIA plants, it's also possible and likely that this is an ego and power play situation. This is recognized as the founder's syndrome. So what you have is someone... take any 911 leader who starts out with the best of intentions as a researcher/activist and finds he has become a leader (though this may not have been part of his agenda) Now he discovers that he has a franchise, a following and the ability to control and influence others and steer "the movement" as per his agenda... <s>

Generally, these situations develop with the help of someone whispering in someone else's ear. I can think of one "close-to-home" incident, albeit some years ago. (Concurrent with the establishment of this site actually - wink wink.)

[onesliceshort]

Generally, these situations develop with the help of someone whispering in someone else's ear. I can think of one "close-to-home" incident, albeit some years ago. (Concurrent with the establishment of this site actually - wink wink.)

I think that SanderO hit the nail on the head with the "founder syndrome" observation in all of this and Sanders pinpointed the nefarious shenanigans that have been moulding and shepherding this development over recent years.

I recently had a delve through just what the hell was happening in the early days when the entire Pentagon issue was crudely brushed under the carpet. Years of speculation on A3 Sky Warriors, missiles, no planes, etc (purposely pushed and propogated by counterintelligence IMO) had been blown away and serious focussed research on the Pentagon was forming with Rob (JohnDoeX) digging into the aircraft, flightpath, etc and earlier in 2006 when Craig, Aldo and others went to Arlington and literally stumbled across the first NOC witness.

Just previously Alex Jones and his forums began branding the Pentagon as a "honeypot operation".
This coming on the heels of the release of the surreal Pentagon video released under FOIA to Judicial Watch.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...06moretapes.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...6giantpsyop.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/170506farrell_clip.mp3

There was a flurry of activity that year on the FOIAs of Judicial Watch.

The Citgo "video" was released weeks after Robert Turcios was brought to the limelight.

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/2884
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsoug...ttack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFisl6zk&eurl=


Chris Farrell, the spokesperson for Judicial Watch on Jones' program first coined this "honeypot" phrase which the likes of Hoffman, Arabesque and Jones himself were to bandy about every time the Pentagon was mentioned.
What surprised me was delving into actually finding out who Judicial Watch were and who funded them.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/dirbios

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judicial_Watch

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...d_Mellon_Scaife

It was from early 2006 that the wheels were set in motion to marginalize, disrupt and blatantly lie about anything emanating from CIT and subsequently Pilotsfor911Truth (among others).

I have a rough dossier of the radical change in stance by certain individuals and disinfo attempts made during those months (and subsequent years)

Now, I believe that "founder syndrome", pigheadedness and ego played a major part but there was definitely a hidden hand in all of this, whether the main figures were oblivious to it or not.

If you want to have a peek at how this all unravelled early on Atomickitten, I'd be more than glad to post what info I've collected to you. They aren't revelations but it might show the mentality of these people. And how similar the nonsense is now as it was then.

[Atomicbomb]

I think that SanderO hit the nail on the head with the "founder syndrome" observation in all of this and Sanders pinpointed the nefarious shenanigans that have been moulding and shepherding this development over recent years.

I recently had a delve through just what the hell was happening in the early days when the entire Pentagon issue was crudely brushed under the carpet. Years of speculation on A3 Sky Warriors, missiles, no planes, etc (purposely pushed and propogated by counterintelligence IMO) had been blown away and serious focussed research on the Pentagon was forming with Rob (JohnDoeX) digging into the aircraft, flightpath, etc and earlier in 2006 when Craig, Aldo and others went to Arlington and literally stumbled across the first NOC witness.

Just previously Alex Jones and his forums began branding the Pentagon as a "honeypot operation".
This coming on the heels of the release of the surreal Pentagon video released under FOIA to Judicial Watch.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...06moretapes.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...6giantpsyop.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/170506farrell_clip.mp3

There was a flurry of activity that year on the FOIAs of Judicial Watch.

The Citgo "video" was released weeks after Robert Turcios was brought to the limelight.

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/2884
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsoug...ttack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFisl6zk&eurl=


Chris Farrell, the spokesperson for Judicial Watch on Jones' program first coined this "honeypot" phrase which the likes of Hoffman, Arabesque and Jones himself were to bandy about every time the Pentagon was mentioned.
What surprised me was delving into actually finding out who Judicial Watch were and who funded them.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/dirbios

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judicial_Watch

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...d_Mellon_Scaife

It was from early 2006 that the wheels were set in motion to marginalize, disrupt and blatantly lie about anything emanating from CIT and subsequently Pilotsfor911Truth (among others).

I have a rough dossier of the radical change in stance by certain individuals and disinfo attempts made during those months (and subsequent years)

Now, I believe that "founder syndrome", pigheadedness and ego played a major part but there was definitely a hidden hand in all of this, whether the main figures were oblivious to it or not.

If you want to have a peek at how this all unravelled early on Atomickitten, I'd be more than glad to post what info I've collected to you. They aren't revelations but it might show the mentality of these people. And how similar the nonsense is now as it was then.

Yes I would like to talk to you about all this and if possible talk about your research in my report. I think that would be very enlightening and add a lot to the report to illustrate the evolution of the stated positions on CIT. I will send you my e-mail address in a PM so we can connect. I also think the Founders Syndrome information is dead on accurate and I think accounts for a good portion of the problem over at 911Blogger but I like you think the Founders Syndrome has been nurtured and helped along by individuals with an agenda far afield from 9/11 Truth. It seems clear to me that there is more going on here then just founder’s syndrome ego and territoriality. Some of the more prolific players in this ongoing drama show a clear pattern of repeating debunked talking points and disinformation long after they have been confronted on multiple occasions with decisive counters. That behavior indicates a pattern of dishonesty to me and I don't think it is an accident. For example there are some who continue to promote as witnesses people who have been proven to have not even been at the Pentagon during the attack. These same individuals who were not present during the event are still featured on lists as witnesses who contradict CIT. It is impossible to believe that they are not aware that the so called witnesses they promote were not even there at the time so they must be doing it intentionally. After thinking about this for a while now it really doesn't make much difference if 911Blogger is just suffering from a bad case of Founders Syndrome or if they have been infiltrated and taken over by paid shill operatives or a mixture of both has taken place because the net effect of what they are doing is the same and it is very bad for the truth movement. In either case it must be exposed and stopped if at all possible.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Any forum that kicks off good researchers for the slightest whim but still allows Col. Jenny Sparks to have free reign, should tell you something about their purpose.

[SanderO]

This "problem" is not only found at Blogger, but at all the "established" groups and the more established they are the more this phenomenon is manifest.

I consider myself an orphan in the truth movement having been on the inside (a board member at AE911T), but I can't abide the censorship, message control and unwillingness to correct mistakes when proven wrong or even seriously debate issues. So I stay unaffiliated, independent and do my own research and produce my own hypothesis.

As an architect I continually find myself trying to debate the structural failure, collapse and dismemberment of the twin towers with "truthers" who have little technical understanding and mostly parrot the talking points of the major truth groups/leaders. And it is impossible to discuss anything which does not fit into their narrow BELIEF system.

Kinda sad that is.

[onesliceshort]

Any forum that kicks off good researchers for the slightest whim but still allows Col. Jenny Sparks to have free reign, should tell you something about their purpose.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Atomicbomb]

Could everyone who has been banned by 911Blogger (for discussing or defending CIT or P4T evidence) please drop me a note here so my upcomming report will be accurate as to how many people have been banned or blocked from posting there (I suspect when all is totalled up it will be dozens if not more). Please include the name you use on Blogger to post and let me know if you know of anyone else who was gagged and disappeared from Blogger that is not listed here.

Right now these names are the ones I know of for sure that have been blocked from posting at Blogger.

1. Craig and Aldo from CIT
2. Rob Balsamo
3. Kevin Barrett
4. Stefan
5. Adam Syed
6. Onesliceshort
7. Lillyann
8. Myself (Adam Ruff)
9. SanderO (what is your screen name on Blogger, is it also SanderO there?) Were you banned after discussing CIT or P4T issues?

I am not sure if Barrie Zwicker and/or Dwain Deets have been blocked from posting or not but I do know their endorsements of CIT never saw the light of day at Blogger. I would like to publish as complete a list as possible in my report so any help any of you can be towards that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by Atomicbomb: Sep 25 2010, 11:33 PM