Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Air America to Spread PentaCon Hoax to the Nation (16 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    Seems to be a new push to spread the hardcore Pentagon hoax stuff, "Air America" style, including Barrett and the rest of the crew.

    Couple of interesting posts at truthaction --

    Richard Greene's show "Clout" on Air America will begin at 9:00pm EST on Thursday the 15th. http://airamerica.com/clout/ It will feature CIT and PfT on the truth movement side but for some odd reason Greene is having problems finding someone to represent the official story side. http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3531

    Maybe someone should email Mr. Greene and voice their opinion.

    And this humorous one . . . interesting how many ex-CIA and ex-Bush admin people are now UFO advocates. Strange, or predictable?

    John Lear is a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He has an incredibly impressive record as a pilot... and CIA operative. He claims that there are cities and sunny meadows on the far side of the moon. And underground alien bases on Earth. And no planes on 9/11. Rob Balsamo seems to think that only a government apologist would possibly question Lear's credibility. What do you think? http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3528

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. chrisc
    Member

    Predictable :-(

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    This keeps getting worse. I see the forces of distraction and division at work.

    First we had the Week of Truth that was mired by the attitude and strategy of some of those doing most to promote it. What ever happened to 'David Watts?' Guess he cared more about "The Shell Game" than the WOT. Of course that was obvious at the time. Bill Douglas also caused a lot of problems and hasn't stopped.

    As the remaining group was trying to figure out what to do for the next week of truth, Bill Douglas started advocating that the second WOT be focused on the Air America Month of Truth. It is not clear how this came about, but the host of Clout announced the Month of Truth while interviewing Bill Douglas and Steve Alten.

    The Month of Truth has turned out to be a total big tent fiasco. Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, the Pentocon people, and someone over at TA suggested that Barbara Honegger would be on. So who is responsible? If this Month of Truth was inspired by the Week of Truth, how did they get people on who have nothing to do with it? Did Bill Douglas facilitate this process? And did Bill Douglas want the WOT to promote the MOT knowing who would be involved?

    And now we have people debating what hit the Pentagon over at the TruthAction forum and that violates the guidelines of the project.

    This all stinks!

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. Victronix
    Member

    You can post on the blog --

    http://airamerica.com/clout/blog/2008/may/15/clout...

    Griffin cut down the eyewitnesses with the Holmgren claim 1) there were actually only about 30 when you look at them closely and 2) most of those were "government employees" and so cannot be trusted.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. truthmod
    Administrator

    My comment:

    This looks like a setup to make the 9/11 truth movement look bad new

    You don't have to go to Ron Wieck or 911myths to find 'debunkers' for the no plane at the Pentagon theory. Most reasonable people in the 9/11 TM have already accepted that this is likely mis/disinformation and there is actually no compelling evidence that anything OTHER than a 757 hit the Pentagon.

    http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. Arabesque
    Member

    If you look at the vicious attacks that CIT makes against researchers, it makes you question why anyone would take them seriously.

    The fact that they accuse witnesses of being involved in the attack makes their agenda even more clear.

    It appears that Barrett is influencing the selection of Webster Tarpley and CIT for this radio show.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    Don't we have responsible people in high places who know (or can get in touch with) Richard Greene or whoever it may be, and warn them sternly about the latest disinfo push? Someone like Janice Matthews, perhaps, who could call/email and authoritatively speak for us?

    Is Greene naive or in cahoots with the disinfo crowd? Did he trust KB to set this up?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. Victronix
    Member

    The person who advocated this to Richard Greene was whomever AJFan is on blogger. He said Greene asked him who to have.

    "Air America" -- I doubt he is naive.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    Frankly, it is amazing that we have made it to the point of having an article in a civil engineering journal with the level of nonsense that is attached to each and every credible and sincere effort. I was looking on YouTube for videos of Gage and Jones and almost every video is either posted by someone who also posts Morgan Reynolds and Barrett videos, or are tagged by sites advocating nonsense, are from Alex Jones, etc.

    It really is a miracle we have gotten as far as we have.

    I expect that if we could look in from the outside at the swamp of crap we are treading in everyday, we would be shocked.

    And yet, we continue to move forward in small but persistent steps.

    I saw Gage's new DVD being filmed the other night and it was amazing. To hear the engineers talk was really something. All this time we've waited, and now they are coming out.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. terrykoch1
    Member

    Hello Truthers: I've heard Barbara Honeiker(sp?) speak and also seen Pilots for 9-11 Truth videos etc etc. and I'm slowly buffering thru the videos at the Pentacon website. So far, the circumstantial evidence looks fairly convincing that we need an official investigation -which is the ultimate goal of the 9-11Truth movement....correct?

    Even if I wasn't fully convinced by the evidence currently presented by Pentacon, I would support the CIT and it's goals because it builds skepticism of the official conspiracy theory. The average person will view this and many other 9-11 Truth viewpoints and ultimately join us in demanding an investigation to find the actual truth.

    I can't find anything wrong with putting forth one, or several hypothesis's, supported by credible witnesses and evidence, and using them to argue for an investigation.

    So, what is the beef with the "Pentacon Hoax?" Please educate me.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. Arabesque
    Member

    I would support the CIT and it's goals because it builds skepticism of the official conspiracy theory.

    We do not need "skepticism" about a whether or not the U.S. government faked a plane crash. This is like saying we need skepticism of the moon landing to gain members questioning the U.S. government.

    What we need are critical thinking and facts, not unsupported speculation and hoaxes.

    I'm afraid you are wrong about CIT too. They only build on the skepticism of the gullible since the witnesses they quote as evidence can't even get the location of the light poles correct or even their own location right. And you seemed to miss the fact that they all claim the plane hit the Pentagon. The CIT theory is a mass hallucination theory in which even their own witnesses claimed the plane hit the Pentagon. This is about as absurd as it gets. If there was a prize for dumbest conspiracy theory within the 9/11 truth movement, it would be that 100's of witnesses hallucinated a plane crash when it actually flew over the building without anyone noticing.

    Please read these articles to see many other misleading claims that CIT has made and have done to damage the 9/11 truth movement:

    CIT "Happy to Oblige" when Asked to Provide "Gossip" to Future Author of Hit Piece Against the 9/11 Truth Movement http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/09/cit-happy...

    "You are irrelevant, Pickering. . . . You can keep on sucking official story dick, and we'll keep proving 9/11 was an inside job."

    CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig...

    A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’ http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig...

    Pentagon Flyover Theory: RIP http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. truthmover
    Administrator

    Here's my recent estimation of the topic in question.

    "I credit Craig and CIT for gathering evidence. Expanding the historical record. But it does not appear to me that the "flyover" hypothesis stands up to the inclusion of all available data."

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20838...

    That's all I have to say for now.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. terrykoch1
    Member

    I'll take truthmover's point that he/she isn't convinced. But it is surely a long reach from being unconvincing to being labeled a 'hoax' - which implies deliberate deception.

    Using Scientific method, one postulates one or more hypotheses and then sets out to prove or disprove them with evidence. No hypothesis is rejected out-of-hand because it appears to be unconvincing or unlikely when first proposed.

    It seems to me that a common mistake by some is to reject the use of scientific method. It is usually the same people who think that the truth can be uncovered by independent, amateur civilian investigation instead of creating a formal group of professionals. Commonly these same people resort to crude sexual imagery and ad hominem remarks to make their points, leaving me doubtful that they can even be counted upon to write a decent high school book report, much less a through investigation of 9/11.

    We should confine ourselves to creating an atmosphere that demands a formal investigation, either in the States or internationally and not automatically question the motives of those who we disagree with.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. Arabesque
    Member

    But it is surely a long reach from being unconvincing to being labeled a 'hoax' - which implies deliberate deception.

    Yes, PentaCon is a hoax.

    They claim that the north side is "proven". This is an example of "deliberate deception". Here's another example:

    Lloyd England has been proven to be the first known accomplice (willing or not) to the crime. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread285317/p...

    Blaming the taxi cab driver is an example of "deliberate deception" and "hoax".

    If you want more examples of "deliberate deception", read my articles on CIT that I already linked to here: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1073?replies=...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. truthmover
    Administrator

    Using Scientific method, one postulates one or more hypotheses and then sets out to prove or disprove them with evidence. No hypothesis is rejected out-of-hand because it appears to be unconvincing or unlikely when first proposed.

    Actually, the primary goal of a scientist is to disprove her or his hypotheses. Scientists would never say that they have proven anything. I made this point several times over on the TruthAction thread related to this issue. And yes, hypotheses are most certainly initially rejected if they do not appear to have any reasonable foundation.

    The 'north side flyover' hypothesis HAS been quite adequately disproven. I think Arabesque did a fine job demonstrating that to my satisfaction.

    Further, as suggested above, CIT's arguments are rife with deliberate deceptions, not the least of which is their tendency to claim that something has been proven.

    The 'flyover' hypothesis and CIT are not making any kind of important or beneficial contribution to this movement, and I think quite the opposite is true.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. JohnA
    Member

    why doesn't someone contact Janice Matthews and see what you get?

    i'll keep my predictions to myself.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.