I Was A Professional 9/11 Truther (And I Gave It Up)

The thing that gets me most about the 9/11 conspiracy consensus is that it ignores some evidence that might point to a different conspiracy altogether. For example, this video was prised out of the FBI in 2002 after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (the stage when you've exhausted internal appeals processes). It shows the Pentagon explosion... but no plane.



The video isn't 25fps, but it's certainly rapid enough to have captured a crashing aircraft, as you can see from the traffic movement also caught in the same recording. So where's the plane?

The kicker to this is that although it might appear to lend circumstantial support to the theory that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile, the video doesn't show a missile either.

So what was really going on there? We may never know, because the focus has shifted away from the original theory that no plane hit the Pentagon, to the alleged controlled demolition of WTC 7 instead. Personally, I think this is odd.

originally posted by: Phage
A professional Truther?
Who signs their checks?

The architects and engineers for 911 truth sell coffee mugs and t-shirts on their website. They will even sell you an open letter from one of their members (who I've never heard of) to some government contractor (who I never heard of). Seriously. An open letter. They are also happy to send a member to speak at an event, for a speaking fee of course.

originally posted by: audubon
The thing that gets me most about the 9/11 conspiracy consensus is that it ignores some evidence that might point to a different conspiracy altogether. For example, this video was prised out of the FBI in 2002 after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (the stage when you've exhausted internal appeals processes). It shows the Pentagon explosion... but no plane.

The video isn't 25fps, but it's certainly rapid enough to have captured a crashing aircraft, as you can see from the traffic movement also caught in the same recording. So where's the plane?

The kicker to this is that although it might appear to lend circumstantial support to the theory that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile, the video doesn't show a missile either.

So what was really going on there? We may never know, because the focus has shifted away from the original theory that no plane hit the Pentagon, to the alleged controlled demolition of WTC 7 instead. Personally, I think this is odd.

I know that video. It's taken at one frame per second, which was hot # in 2001 for a parking lot camera! The plane hit the West Northwest side of the Pentagon. The camera, which was located at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, 300 Army Navy Dr, Arlington, VA 22202, did not have a view of the path taken by the plane, nor did it have a view of the impact area of the plane. What you are seeing is the fireball cloud of the impact to the backside of the Pentagon, rising above the Pentagon. To understand the camera position in relation to the Pentagon, find both the Hotel and the Pentagon on google maps. The impact site is near the center of the West Northwest side. It should now be obvious why no plane appeared in the video.

Interesting piece of modern fiction.
Looking at the blueprints while talking to the engineer and an invite to the Pentagon stretch it a tad beyond belief.

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Phage
A professional Truther?
Who signs their checks?

The architects and engineers for 911 truth sell coffee mugs and t-shirts on their website. They will even sell you an open letter from one of their members (who I've never heard of) to some government contractor (who I never heard of). Seriously. An open letter. They are also happy to send a member to speak at an event, for a speaking fee of course.

OMG how horrible!!! They sell t-shirts and coffee mugs???? Dear Lord, what is this world coming to!?!?!?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Phage
A professional Truther?
Who signs their checks?

The architects and engineers for 911 truth sell coffee mugs and t-shirts on their website. They will even sell you an open letter from one of their members (who I've never heard of) to some government contractor (who I never heard of). Seriously. An open letter. They are also happy to send a member to speak at an event, for a speaking fee of course.

OMG how horrible!!! They sell t-shirts and coffee mugs???? Dear Lord, what is this world coming to!?!?!?

When commenting on a post that was made in context to a previous post, it's always a good idea to make your comment with respect to the original context, i.e. bring the context forward in your post lest your post be meaningless to the discussion.

Phage: A professional Truther? Who signs their checks?

Here Phage is obviously asking how a professional truther can make money.

RKWWWW: The architects and engineers for 911 truth sell coffee mugs and t-shirts on their website. They will even sell you an open letter from one of their members (who I've never heard of) to some government contractor (who I never heard of). Seriously. An open letter. They are also happy to send a member to speak at an event, for a speaking fee of course.

Here I give three examples of the way professional truthers make money: selling merchandise, selling documents that should have been free, and speaking fees on the conspiracy circuit.

Then comes your post which appears to mocking someone who has just unilaterally expressed a negative opinion about selling merchandise on the internet, rather then someone who answered a question about the source of income for "professional truthers".

While it's possible to put a distasteful slant on the commercial activities of conspiracists, it has to be remembered that independent research (i.e., not in the course of employment) is not a cheap activity. Even when it doesn't cost much, the researcher still has to live, eat, and meet other expenses (this is recognised in the principles of business expenditure declared for tax, although I doubt many 9/11 truthers are that organised).

Example: I have just completed a three-page appeal against an FOIA refusal. That cost me electricity, paper, and printer ink, and is about to cost me around £6 to send special delivery (guaranteed and signed for, so no possibility of it conveniently 'going missing'). In all, I should imagine that my activities over the last hour or two have cost me £10-12 in total, and that's without really doing very much at all.

Recently, I filed a Special Access Request with the US National Archives. I got three photographs in return and it took two months and cost $90. So you can imagine how these kinds of costs would snowball on their own, never mind if I needed to travel anywhere or buy anything not obtainable by other means.

Caveat: I'd turn a bit more of an unforgiving eye on fund-raising if it were demonstrated that the person who benefited was turning a handsome profit and not achieving anything significant. I don't know whether that applies to the people in this instance.

a reply to: audubon

Caveat: I'd turn a bit more of an unforgiving eye on fund-raising if it were demonstrated that the person who benefited was turning a handsome profit and not achieving anything significant. I don't know whether that applies to the people in this instance.

You mean like Richard Gage ?
His entire income centers around perpetuating this conspiracy.

I've not seen any evidence for that. But on the other hand, I can quite believe that his normal income from architectural contracts has been much diminished for the last 15 years.

originally posted by: audubon

Example: I have just completed a three-page appeal against an FOIA refusal. .

I know that in certain cases, such as after a court case has been completed, the status of restricted information changes. How can one be certain the information they seek through the FOIA is actually restricted?

originally posted by: audubon
While it's possible to put a distasteful slant on the commercial activities of conspiracists, it has to be remembered that independent research (i.e., not in the course of employment) is not a cheap activity. Even when it doesn't cost much, the researcher still has to live, eat, and meet other expenses (this is recognised in the principles of business expenditure declared for tax, although I doubt many 9/11 truthers are that organised).

Example: I have just completed a three-page appeal against an FOIA refusal. That cost me electricity, paper, and printer ink, and is about to cost me around £6 to send special delivery (guaranteed and signed for, so no possibility of it conveniently 'going missing'). In all, I should imagine that my activities over the last hour or two have cost me £10-12 in total, and that's without really doing very much at all.

Recently, I filed a Special Access Request with the US National Archives. I got three photographs in return and it took two months and cost $90. So you can imagine how these kinds of costs would snowball on their own, never mind if I needed to travel anywhere or buy anything not obtainable by other means.

Caveat: I'd turn a bit more of an unforgiving eye on fund-raising if it were demonstrated that the person who benefited was turning a handsome profit and not achieving anything significant. I don't know whether that applies to the people in this instance.

AE911Truth takes in around $500,000 per year. Richard Gage's salary in that organization is $85k/year and all the ego strokes/fame he can possibly drag to himself. With that kind of money one would think the organization would take the time to utilize the proper process provided in the Scientific Method to challenge the published Building Performance Studies that were conducted on those structures that were damaged or destroyed on 911.

a reply to: RKWWWW

I know that in certain cases, such as after a court case has been completed, the status of restricted information changes. How can one be certain the information they seek through the FOIA is actually restricted?

It's a bit of a game of chess. They cite the exemptions that they claim apply to your request (i.e., why they aren't going to release material) and you try to overturn them with logic.

Illustration: I am after transcripts of a police interview with a suspect who died before being brought to trial. The police have cited the exemption in the UK's FOI that applies to personal data. They are wrong to do so, since the suspect is dead and thus has no privacy rights, so bang goes that objection.

They have also cited an exemption that applies to preserving the integrity of a criminal investigation. After searching laboriously through cases heard by the First-Tier Information Tribunal, I find that the exemption has been ruled to apply strictly to live pre-criminal proceedings only.

Since there will never be a trial in this instance, the integrity of the investigation isn't worth a button. So bang goes that objection too.

There are five of these objections in total, each with their own characteristics, some being applied in a more substantial way than others, and I have to overturn them all by power of argument alone and then argue that the five weakened grounds for exemption are collectively outweighed by the public interest served by disclosure.

You have to trust the system to do its thing. So many people have oversight of the process, and input into the decisions at each stage, that they all act as checks on each other. For all of them to be corrupt with the same purposes in mind, at the same time, and in total agreement on each point in question, would be very difficult. Bureaucracies can frustrate and foil insiders as much as outsiders, if not more so.

Sorry, this is nerdy talk. FOIA is a fascinating pursuit, and one that anyone can play. If you are of a mind to drag the truth out of officialdom, it is the most effective weapon in your arsenal.

/anorak

a reply to: audubon


Good god man this camera is on the other side of the building and at a bad angle at that. Not to mention the low trajectory of the craft coming in.

a) I was not claiming that it proved anything, only saying I found it odd that this CCTV recording was not better-known among 9/11 truthers
b) The post to which you are responding was made over a month ago

originally posted by: cuckooold

No one suspected Osama or was looking for SA Nationals. They were looking for more traditional operatives or established pilots, the US wasn't even first pick as target but was mentioned by intel as secondary, source was questionable at time and no one really figured the fight training approach.

a reply to: Logarock

The facts are not in your favour.

That morning of July 10, the head of the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office. “And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof's fallen in,’” recounts Black. “The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.” Black and his deputy rushed to the director’s office to brief Tenet. All agreed an urgent meeting at the White House was needed. Tenet picked up the white phone to Bush’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. “I said, ‘Condi, I have to come see you,’” Tenet remembers. “It was one of the rare times in my seven years as director where I said, ‘I have to come see you. We're comin' right now. We have to get there.’”

Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

(And I think you meant 'No one suspected Osama' not 'Obama'. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident on this point.)

a reply to: audubon

There nothing there about details, this only suggest something was afoot. Nothing about hy-jacks ect. The reason Osama caused alarm was his involvement with Oklahoma City ect.

a reply to: Logarock

Hmmm.

a reply to: audubon

Tim MacVeighs attorney wrote a book about the thing and mentions Osama in it as the source of proxy training for bomb making. They were looking for something big like small yield nuke maybe of they don't want to say to much about their "multiple sources" as not to give them away.

a reply to: Logarock

I see. Do go on.