The 9-11 Controlled Demolition Movement It Is

One of the Troofers posts this video with the note that "The 9-11 Controlled Demolition Movement cutting edge: Announcing the truth to the officialdom. The politicians."



As you can see, it's the usual fruitcake stuff. Note that when Gage gets off onto the other "evidence" presented, he actually mentions the put options. Seriously.

In the comments at the post on Flogger, someone asks about the new term, 9-11 Controlled Demolition Movement. The poster replies:

Now, the 2009 Nanothermite report of Dr. Jones and Prof. Harrit proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 is a controlled demolition, therefore an inside job. The invaluable scientific research of Richard Gage and his foundation only confirms this. And this is also being presented in their public education campaigns and their attempts to initiate a new investigation.

So, 9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement is a group of people who understand that 9/11 is a controlled demolition. The intellectual potential required for making this deliberate conclusion, in my view, must be around IQ70 and higher.

About half of the Troofers qualify under that standard.

Grifter, Gage and Asner Endorse CIT-Heads

Yeah, I know, Griffin's an idiot, and Gage is a buffoon, but Ed Asner? One of the proposed commissioners on the NYCCAN ballot initiative says this:

“Citizen Investigation Team have presented a reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th. As stated in their presentation, National Security Alert, it behooves every citizen of conscience to question the offical story after viewing CIT's labors towards seeking the truth of what happened that day in 2001".

Richard Gage:

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

David Ray Griffin:

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film's thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."

Apparently the CIT theory is getting more popular among Troofers; as I have pointed out before CIT is supposed to make presentations at Lukefest 2009 as well as Sander Hicks' Real Accountability Confab. Jim Hoffman and his wife, Victoria Ashley have put up extensive debunkings of the flyover theory. Of course, since they're a pair of fruitcakes themselves, they indulge themselves in a little, "there are still unanswered questions about the Pentagon" whataboutery, and Ashley goes into a particularly useless digression about TWA Flight 800.

But They Love America

Victronix (aka, Victoria Ashley, wife of Jim Hoffman) over at Truth Move, responds to this comment:

In other words, if Obama is Hitler, as some have very inappropriately suggested, aren't we all just a little bit as well.

Her response:

Indeedy. That's what being Amurican is all about . . .

Op-Ed News Sidelines Troofers

I had not seen this before, but apparently Rob Kall has gotten tired of the annoying and pesky "Truther" contingent at his site and is putting them into their own little portion of the sandbox, called "Edges". He explains (quoted in one of the comments):

Most progressive sites refuse to cover 911 truth and more exotic topics, like UFOs, NWO and conspiracy theories. OEN has covered them and it has brought some problems, particularly a crew of unpleasant, negative commenters who attack just about every article published, particularly ones by higher visibility writers. We've decided to clean things up, so we're cracking down on this crew, holding firmer to rules aganst spamming articles and personal attacks and name calling. The goal is to maintain our open forum for discourse-- a forum that this small group has effectively intimidated and turned off.

(Snip)

We plan to continue publishing solid, well documented and supported articles on all subjects. If the focus is on edgy topics like 911 Truth, UFOs, NWO, JFK or other conspiracy theories, the articles, upon passing the test of new material and documented claims, will be posted to our EDGES hot page.

Kall's site is apparently pretty successful (he mentions a write-up in the New York Times), and so it's not surprising that he's realizing the downside of allowing the Troofers unrestricted access to the site, just as Arianna Huffington, Democratic Underground and Kos learned years ago.

And before anybody moans that I'm approving censorship, let's remember that SLC is the only site dedicated to covering the "Truth" movement that allows virtually every comment posted here to stand on its own merits. And while we're on that topic, check out Michael Morrissey's post on OpEd News about how he got banned from the Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice, its forum, and his comments got put on moderation:

Shortly after I published my article "9/11 Aletheia" on OpEdNews, I was removed from the membership list of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, shortly after that from their forum, and on May 20 I was put on "probation" (the "moderation queue") at 911Blogger.com. I offer myself, therefore, as Exhibit A in my case against the closed-mindedness I criticized in my article.

I have been a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911.org) since its founding in 2006, when it split off from the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth (911scholars.org) founded by Jim Fetzer. I remained a member of both organizations, because I saw no reason not to. Both, it seemed to me, had their merits. I joined 911Blogger.com at about the same time, and since September 2006 I have made 62 postings to that site.

This history is important, because I am not a "no planer" or proponent of theories of video fakery or exotic weaponry, and I can prove it. My only, cardinal sin is this one recent article where I dared to defend the principle of free discussion.

Morrissey's original piece was inane, but it does point out the hypocrisy of the Troofers bitching about gatekeepers when they are gatekeeping themselves.

Still More Hoffman

Here's the final segment of the Hoffman/Arcterus interview; I have not bothered to listen to parts 5-7, because it all seems to be the same.

Where Hoffman goes off the rails is on the assumption that certain theories he finds nutty are being pushed forward by forces malevolent to 9-11 "Truth". The reason that certain nutty theories are being pushed forward are that small "Truther" factions have formed around individual aspects of 9-11. So you've got your folks who think the missile at the Pentagon is the best evidence. You've got others (like Hoffman) who insist it's controlled demolition. You've got others who think Val McClatchey's photo proves inside job, or North of the Citgo, or video fakery. And they're all convinced that they've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

They're all paranoid nutbars, of course, which is why Hoffman, despite seeming more sensible than, say, Aldo and Craig, is still convinced that people pushing the theories he disagrees with are government agents, not just paranoid nutters like himself.

If anybody bothers to listen to parts 5-7, I'd like to know if Arcterus ever asks Hoffman about a debate between him and Mark (Gravy) Roberts. I confess that I can only take Hoffman in small doses.

Jim Hoffman Theorizes...

And shows why theorizing is so discredited in the 9-11 Troof Movement:



Yep, explosive ceiling tiles. Now in fairness, he does note that these are not exactly something you can pick up at Home Depot:

All of the equipment is available off-the-shelf from commercial vendors or special operations supply depots except for the wireless explosive ceiling tiles, which have to be specially manufactured.

And Hoffman has figured out the time problem as well:

With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of two tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of fourty workers 187 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in three weeks and weekends of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage.

Sounds completely credible to me. Then again, I am still waiting for that inheritance from my uncle who died in the plane crash that the nice bank manager told me about.

Arcterus Interview with Hoffman

I like that Hoffman starts out by saying that the proponents of "false theories" are mostly well-meaning people. I am listening to see if the topic of a debate with Gravy comes up.

Part II.
Part III.
Part IV.

Arcterus to Interview Hoffman

One of the newer Truth Action guys is going to interview Jim Hoffman on Friday and eventually post it on YouTube.

One question I hope will be asked is whether Hoffman would care to debate Mark Roberts as Arcterus himself suggested a few weeks ago:

Mark Roberts seemingly debates only with those who fall for all the hoax theories or are ill-informed. I've never once heard him debate with Jim Hoffman, one of the best researchers in the movement I think, or any other such discerning researchers.

I obviously can't speak for Roberts or the Hardfire folks, but I personally believe that they would be willing to entertain such a debate.

Kids Dressing Up As Adults

That's kind of the way I feel about this official-sounding "San Diego Citzen's Grand Jury". Apparently it took place last weekend.

Jim Hoffman is the "chief investigator", and so he gets roped into doing a lot of, um, speaking, um, which, um, is a, um drawback because, um, he tends, um, to stammer, um, a lot. Not trying to make fun of the guy, just giving you a real feel for the way this poor man speaks, which is excruciating to hear.

I found it interesting that Pilots for 9-11 Denial endorsed this meeting, even though there is no discussion of the Pentagon, which Rob Balsamo focuses on.

Journal of 9-11 Studies Boldly Debunks Nutty Theory

That was originally presented in, you guessed it, the Journal of 9-11 Studies. Jim Hoffman takes apart the "elephant plane". Of course, the Journal of Debunking 9-11 Studies took on this ridiculous claim ages ago, but it's nice to see that even JONES admits that one of the first articles published in their journal was a bunch of hogwash.