Last update07:36:08 PM

Back Forum Tatorte Pentagon Dwaine Deets und Barry Zwicker unterstützen CIT
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Dwaine Deets und Barry Zwicker unterstützen CIT

Aw: Dwaine Deets und Barry Zwicker unterstützen CIT 22 Sep 2010 21:12 #952

  • stefanlebkon
  • stefanlebkon's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 762
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 2
"Was 911blogger da umtreibt, ist uns ggw. auch ein Rätsel"

Solche Leute nennt man Gatekeeper
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Aw: Dwaine Deets und Barry Zwicker unterstützen CIT 22 Sep 2010 21:30 #953

  • Red Dwarf
  • Red Dwarf's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 126
  • Thank you received: 10
  • Karma: 2
stefanlebkon schrieb:
"Was 911blogger da umtreibt, ist uns ggw. auch ein Rätsel"

Solche Leute nennt man Gatekeeper

Das mag ja sein, aber an dem Grundmuster von Woodys Recherchen hat sich seit langem nichts
geändert, siehe seinen Blog. Es könnte höchstens sein, daß er mit seinem letzten Artikel zu
dem doppelten AA11-Gate in Boston-Logan etwas zu nahe an das reale Geschehen gekommen ist.

The basic rule of false flag and other disinfo operations is that, if you can keep your basic story in the forefront of the media for three clear days, it doesn't matter what is said after that: everyone will remember the original story as the truth. But this was before the days of the Internet.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Aw: Dwaine Deets und Barry Zwicker unterstützen CIT 27 Oct 2010 11:59 #1224

  • stefanlebkon
  • stefanlebkon's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 762
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 2
Neuer, kritischer Artikel zur Zensur auf 911blogger. Man muss aber nicht wie der Autor soweit gehen, Desinformanten hinter dieser Politik zu sehen...

Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?

In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.

Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.

But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.

The mass bannings are not random, but directed at, among others, users who support the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). (The RCFP ran front page articles about CIT in the April 2009 and July 2009 issues. All back issues are available as PDFs at

The uninitiated are urged to read those 2009 articles to get the full picture, but a drastically reduced summary is: no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT showed, through interviews of seventeen eyewitnesses, that the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon flew over it and away, as explosives simultaneously detonated inside the building. This created an enormous fireball, filling the sky with dense, black smoke, which obscured the escaping plane. Observers who saw the plane head toward the Pentagon, and next saw the fireball, falsely but understandably concluded that the plane had hit the building. However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer.

CIT has been endorsed by many of the leading figures of the 9/11 truth movement, including Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, University of California at Berkeley professor and author Peter Dale Scott, author David Ray Griffin, and actor Ed Asner. In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon. For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?

Before looking at the evidence that 911blogger is censoring the truth about the Pentagon and promoting disinformation, let’s look briefly at why this matters and what their motivations might be.

Although the entire 9/11 story is full of holes, the evidence proving that no plane hit the Pentagon stands in a class by itself, because a deception at the Pentagon is unspinnable. It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon. The military headquarters for the most powerful nation on earth is a very secure place, and evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government. Hence, for those trying to keep a lid on the truth, it is absolutely imperative that the facts about what happened at the Pentagon not get out.

Infiltration of the enemy is a common tool of warfare, and it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement, to prevent it from doing them (the perps) any damage.

Why activists are so alarmed

Barrie Zwicker is an award-winning journalist, lecturer, author and documentary producer. He was astute enough to question the official 9/11 story from day one, as it was happening. He produced one of the first 9/11 Truth documentaries, “The Great Conspiracy”, in 2003. His most recent book, Towers of Deception, explores the media’s role in covering up the truth about 9/11. Based in Toronto, Canada, Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements. When Zwicker peaks, people listen.

This summer, via YouTube, Zwicker created a ringing endorsement of CIT’s “National Security Alert” video. He not only enthusiastically applauded CIT’s work and their conclusion (that the plane seen at the Pentagon overflew the building as explosives were detonated), Zwicker delivered a stinging rebuke to CIT’s detractors:

“To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”

Zwicker submitted the video endorsement to 911Blogger on July 22, 2010.

Now, this is big news in the truth community. For someone of Zwicker’s stature to provide unambiguously enthusiastic support of citizen investigators, on an issue that has not (until now) had clear answers (namely, what happened at the Pentagon), is important to everyone in the truth community. But incredibly, Zwicker’s post to 911blogger was never published.

Zwicker, ever the gentleman, politely emailed the 911blogger moderators,
asking why his entry wasn’t approved. He never received a reply from any of
the four moderators.

However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.” The amateurish writing and ad hominem attacks are evident from the very first paragraph:

“Some time ago I wrote an article about 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 fl awed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.”

In part because of this decision by 911blogger, to reject Barrie Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT while publishing a childish hit piece from an anonymous source, Southern California 9/11 truth activist and We Are Change LA member Adam Ruff wrote:

“In my view it is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth
movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good

The RCFP interviewed Zwicker via email

RCFP: What do you find most compelling about CIT’s work?

Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.

RCFP: What do you make of those who say they appreciate CIT’s work but do not think they proved “flyover?”

Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.

RCFP: Have you read the criticisms of CIT’s work from Arabesque, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and do you think they have merit?

Zwicker: They lack merit because they do not provide counter-evidence. They have no firsthand eyewitness interviews from people who specifically place the plane to the south side of the gas station. Those I could weigh against the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT. As far as I can see, Arabesque, whoever that is (I don’t care for anonymity), Hoffman and Ashley have provided none at all. They take snippets of third-hand printed media quotes, none of which are actually South of Citgo witnesses, just statements by people who said they saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, one particular detractor blog by “Caustic Logic” quotes a few people as “witnesses” who were not even in the area at the time of the attack! One was in North Carolina, arrived in DC the afternoon of 9/11, saw the downed light poles, and was thus presented as a “light pole witness.” This is in a blog entry titled “The South Path Impact: Documented.”

RCFP: What conclusions do you draw from 911blogger refusing to post your endorsement of CIT?

Zwicker: Actually, my endorsement was briefly posted for about 30 minutes, then withdrawn. It’s painful for me to learn that 911blogger, which I consider to be the premiere 9/11Truth site, is censoring CIT and those who support CIT. Even more distressing is that 911blogger has failed to censor some quite rude comments about CIT’s work and its team members. So it’s clearly one-sided. One conclusion that can be drawn is that there are players behind the scenes who have prevailed upon the moderators at 911blogger to stultify CIT and its findings. Since the censorship is so blatant and carries with it obvious penalties in the form of loss of credibility, those behind the censorship orders must really have their knickers in a knot about something. It’s a clear sign that those who control that website are trying to control thought when it comes to the Pentagon. Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon. That the most visited 9/11 truth website would be so hostile towards evidence that supports this widely held belief within the ranks of Truthers is at the least disconcerting.

A little more than a month after Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT was rejected, the situation repeated itself, when retired NASA aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets recorded a video endorsement of CIT on August 30, 2010 and submitted it to 911blogger. Once again, 911blogger refused, without explanation, to post the endorsement of a highly qualified professional.

Prior to 911blogger rejecting these video endorsements from Zwicker and Deets, nearly all users at 911blogger who were vocal in their support of CIT had been banned. An informal poll easily came up with 25 former users of 911blogger who had been banned without explanation—about half of whom are CIT supporters.

Three of the most well-informed, articulate and prolific CIT supporters were banned simultaneously on May 24, 2010, while in the midst of a heated online debate with 911blogger moderator Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke). Truth activist Stefan S. of London, England explains it:

“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.

“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.

“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.

“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.

“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”

Response from 911blogger

Other than from moderator John Wright (aka LeftWright), who stressed that he was giving only his own personal views, not those of the website, there has been no response from 911blogger to questions emailed to them on September 15, 2010 about their treatment of Citizen Investigation Team. The email, which stated that the Rock Creek Free Press was working on an article about 911blogger and wanted to include their side of the story, was sent to the current email addresses for site owner Justin Keogh and moderators Erik Larson, Ted Tilton, Jr. and John Wright, as well as to the joint email address for the “blogger team.”

John Wright stated on September 16 that he was available for a phone interview, but, as of press time on October 23, has not replied to an email sent on October 5 to arrange that interview.

The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.

Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?

Truth activist and professional orchestral musician Adam Syed of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was banned during the debate with Larson in May, offered this comment on the censorship at 911blogger:

“Arguments in an online forum may at first glance seem to be of interest only to diehard keyboard warriors. But without the Internet, most of us would never have learned about 9/11—certainly the traditional media won’t go near it. 9/11 truth lives or dies on the Internet, and when the most heavily trafficked truth site decides to suppress certain evidence, it obviously makes it harder for people to learn the truth and figure out what happened. In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon. Now, why would any genuine truther ask us to turn our backs on such damning, unspinnable evidence?”

Answer: they wouldn’t.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Aw: Dwaine Deets und Barry Zwicker unterstützen CIT 27 Oct 2010 19:25 #1226

  • HerrKoenig
  • HerrKoenig's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 197
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 2
Kommentar dazu von John Bursill auf
Title: "" Accused: Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?

Commentary by John Bursill - Contributor and supporter of

"Is working for the other side?" This question has been asked in an article written by the "staff writers" at the Rock Creek Free Press.

I found this article I have attached below rather corrosive and it appears to me some people ("staff writers") want to perpetuate some sort of civil war within our movement over the Pentagon? Or is it only that many people truly believe that no plane hit the Pentagon and need a plausible scenario to make that theory work for them? And the limiting/censoring of CIT's exposure and other advocates of no plane theory, is just too much to bear and they have to speak out for their important theory?

Now any reasonable person could accuse of being, too careful, too reasonable, too responsible and pro positive public relations, fair enough. But to insinuate they are working for the government is laughable, ridiculous and very hurtful to some very hard working 9/11 Truth Advocates at this site!

So here's my take on it..."the censorship of CIT"?

Well firstly it is not just who has limited or removed support from groups and or people over the years, such as CIT, Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, Pilots for Truth, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and David Shayler to name but a few. This is a very common thing within political movements to stick to the best evidence and information and to only support people who behave civilly and responsibly regarding their dealings with people and subjects associated with the case being advocated. The 9/11 Truth movement is probably the loosest political campaign in history and is so full of misinformed people and theories it is already nearly impossible to get any high level support for such a rabble.

So who gives sites like the right to chose who they support? Well in a nut shell, they do! It's their site and they do what they please based on their experience and the advice they chose to take from the experts they trust around them.

It is obvious to us that watch the "deep politics" within the 9/11 Truth Movement why these people and groups have been marginalised. For the editors here at other major site have found their material either not sound on closer examination or they have done or said things that bring us as a movement into disrepute. In our "9/11 Truth World" where nearly everyone in the media is looking to attack us, it makes association with dubious or problematic characters and or ideas simply impossible for sites like In the case of the Pentagon issue it can be argued that it needs to be sidelined simply because of the disruption the debate has cause our cohesiveness and our effectiveness as a movement.

Sites that have taken stands on people and groups like the ones I've listed above include,,, and to name just a few. And it's not just web site editors that have made a stand against controversial information and or bad behaviour. Organisers of events like WAC's Luke Rudkowski, Jon Gold and my self have not allowed many of these people access to the stage because there were simply better people and ideas available that were not controversial. So would you accuse Luke, Jon and myself of being agents for being careful with information and our associations? Do people think that experienced editors, organiser and web site owners are idiots or people who don't understand the issue's, the evidence or the science? Do you think they follow along with one persons view, say someone like Michael Wolsey or Victoria Ashley? Do you think these hard core seditious types, these 9/11 Truth seekers, are all owned or controlled into one way of thinking, are you serious??

It is a fact that, myself and many, many others let the CIT information be seen by the public and got the word out about their film National Security Alert, so initially they were not censored. But for the editors, scientist, engineers, web site owners and organisers of many groups and sites the non-negotiable "fly over" became a cause of great concern, while the spamming by CIT et al of bloggs also became simply too much to bear. The CIT so called "censorship" in my view is of their own creation. I believe it was their aggressive take no prisoners approach to their pet theory "the flyover" and their absolute inability to see the reasons people thought their research proved very little that they have been pushed aside by so many websites. They are now seen by the most reputable editors and bloggers within our ranks as simply problematic and disrupting to our cause.

So who exactly does support CIT's non-negotiable "flyover"? Well it's not Peter Dale Scott or Richard Gage AIA as they often try to claim. They actually have specifically said they do not support "the flyover". There is also no such support from any of the editors of our premier science journal, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Rather Ryan, Legge and Jones are sceptics of the no plane theory and are slowly, scientifically, with other colleagues moving to the position that a Boeing 757 or similar did "likely" hit the Pentagon on 9/11, just as most of the witnesses believe. So I suppose that means that three of the writers (Jones, Legge and Ryan) of the Nano-Thermite Paper are also all agents? Although it is true that we do have some high profile supporters of the "no plane" at the Pentagon theory and of the "flyover" theory it is also true that CIT wanted support from many, many more but were refused. Even though most researchers, leaders and organisers like myself supported their gathering of witness testimony, they could not be tied to the unsupported "flyover" theory. As I have pointed out this is true of their two most important supporters with Gage and Scott by their clarifications on the matter.

I personally fully support's choice to post what the experienced editors deem fit for public consumption. I also understand that there are many CIT supporters who want "the flyover" to feature in our top 5 strategies to awaken the masses. All I can say is good luck to you and yours and there are many web sites that support your claims and ideas, so go there and do your thing to your hearts content. One of these sites that allows debate is one that I do have some editorial control over; Alas even though I am not trying to get them censored at my home site I still see I'm being targeted as an agent as well, go figure?

So here we are apparently divided once again....what now?

Well I think first those that are upset about "censorship" of content here and at the other premier 9/11 Truth Sites should ask yourselves three questions;

Q1. Why is it that is the #1 9/11 news site if it is censoring so much?

Q2. If experienced 9/11 Truth Researcher's question the validity of groups like CIT and chose not to support them, how on earth does this make them agents of the state when the information they do provide in abundance destroys the official story of 9/11?

Q3. Who are the staff writers for the "Rock Creek Free Press" and do they have a score to settle with

In closing, please judge me on my record and do the same for the #1 source of 9/11 News on the web. But hey, please do me small favour, please stop your moaning and winging about censorship at "your" favourite sites! Just get your own site and build your own reputation there and make it the #1 9/11 Site, it's is still a free web world you know!


Mein Kommentar:
Dieser Angriff auf 911Blogger stinkt mir zu sehr nach einem Spaltpilz! Und wer oder was ist die "Rock Creek Free Press"? Ich stimme Bursill in dem Punkt absolut zu, daß wenn die qualitätserhaltende "Zensur" auf 911Blogger einigen Überfliegern von CIT und anderen Anhängern fragwürdiger Theorien nicht passt, dann sollten diese ihre eigenen News-Blogs eröffnen und zum meistgelesensten Seiten machen, wie es zur Zeit ist.
Zensur ist nicht, wenn man fragwürdigen Mist und im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes verschwörungstheoretischen Abfall aussortiert.

PS: So eine Art von "Zensur" würde übrigens diesem deutschen Forum ganz gut tun! Aber ich bezweifele daß dies passiert.
Last Edit: 27 Oct 2010 19:28 by HerrKoenig.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 0.174 seconds