Hello everyone

[Chris Sarns]

I have been involved in the TM for 4 years now. I have spent over two years "debating" with the JREFers and a great deal of time "debating" with other OCTers. This is the equivalent of an AA degree [Associates with Assholes] in JREFer detection. [I use JREFer as a metaphor for psy-ops/disinfo agent]

They are very useful in spite of themselves. "Debating" with them, although very trying and sometimes frustrating, is very educational. Mark Roberts, the head JREFer, gave me the link to the NIST appendix L report and his band of merry men have given me links to a host of relevant documents. It's a great way to "test drive" arguments and learn their stock rebuttals. Occasionally they prove me wrong and that is useful too.

There's a great line in the movie "Patton" - "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"

I know their play book, their tactics, and I can recognize them when they pretend to be "one of us".

[NinjaPuppy]

Welcome to the forum Chris!

[Scepcop]

Welcome Chris!

Glad you accepted my invitation. We definitely need more people like you.

If you have any articles or websites, maybe I can add them to the links section or home page?

In the conspiracies board here, I also announced the upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast on July 31, which you are advising on as well. Everyone here is looking forward to it.

I wonder if Mark Roberts will be selected by JREF for the debate? If so, it will be interesting.

[Indigo Child]

Welcome Chris.

Nice to have another genuine skeptic on board

[Chris Sarns]

Scepcop,

Thank you for inviting me to this forum.

I have a blog [comments turned off] where I have posted a Summary and Analysis of CIT/NSA - Citizens Investigation Team and their video National security Alert.

The inability of many in the TM to recognize infiltrator/disruptors is a very serious problem. It is ironic and frustrating to hear people say "But he has contributed so much to the TM". An infiltrator will make them self seem invaluable and gain the confidence of key members of the TM. Some disruptors are agents and some are not so it is necessary to point out the results and not speculate as to the motives.

I invite you all to read my Summary and Analysis. Let me know if you see ways to improve it. So far it has not been effective in getting CIT/NSA supporters to withdraw their support.

[Scepcop]

So TM stands for Truth Movement, as in 9/11 Truth Movement right?

I thought the NSA film was impressive too.

Do you mean the makers of it are government disinfo agents? They seem pretty passionate about their conclusions, and they look like laypeople.

So what about the witnesses to the 757 that flew into the Pentagon? Were they government agents you think? If not, why was there no significant debris at the Pentagon crash site, esp no large engine part, and why was the hole only 16 feet?

I can't explain that either way.

Did you ever see this film? It features a Nobel Prize Winner, expert pilot, FAA expert, and a senior journalist for the Dept of Defense, among others. Highly credible people. In these clips from it, the Pentagon Crash is debunked thoroughly with superb arguments and facts. I'm surprised the skeptics on this board have zero skepticism toward the Pentagon Crash after watching this. They must choose to be ignorant.

[Chris Sarns]

Scepcop,

TM = Truth Movement

I was very impressed with NSA until I investigated it, Please read my S and A before commenting again. It will answer your questions.

Bottom line, we don't know what hit the Pentagon. The Government could end the controversy by releasing the videos but they are using the ambiguity for psy-ops. They put out a lot of conflicting info and bogus theories to divide and conquer the TM. For instance, the hole was about 108 feet wide. This is a composite of the damage:

Damage from both sides of center:


Arguing the conflicting evidence is buying the con. Don't go there. That's what they want us to do, waste our time arguing endlessly.

CIT uses JREF attack tactics to create division and acrimony. Their flyover theory is baseless and Craig is a professional con man. This is not some schmuck with a big ego, this is very professional work. CIT/NSA has been the most successful psy-ops to hit the TM.

Adam Syed, whom I met in DC at the AIA convention last Summer, never mentioned NSA even though he is their chief spokesperson. He joined AE team so he could gain credibility but dropped out right after the convention. He "came out of the closet" as a "Revisionist" [Holocaust denier with a smiley face] on Kevin Barrett No Lies Radio. The Govt has been trying to tie the TM to Holocaust denial for a long time. When you look at the whole picture, it's just too pat, too consistent to be anything other than psy-ops.

Intent is irrelevant so there is no need to discuss that. The result is division and acrimony in the TM. The govt will call Richard Gage and DRG nutjobs who will buy something as absurd as flyover. They already alluded to it in the CBC hit piece and now with the added 'Revisionism" they can paint them with that. It does not have to be true. They can make the connection and make it stick. If RG and DRG don't withdraw their support of CIT/NSA and distance themselves from Adam they will be successfully smeared when we break into MSM, which is starting to happen.

[Scepcop]

How can you be sure that CIT are disinfo agents though? Is there any smoking gun that they are?

What about all those witnesses including the policemen and the attendants at the gas station? Were they paid disinfo agents? If so, with that many disinfo agents, aren't they worried that some will blow the whistle?

I don't see why they needed to hit the Pentagon at all. Wasn't the WTC collapse enough?

And why did the craft or missile have to do such crazy maneuvers rather than just fly straight into it? Wouldn't the perpetrators want to cause as little suspicion as possible?

Do you think that Flight 93 was meant to hit Building 7 rather than the White House?

[Chris Sarns]

Scepcop,

The smoking guns are in my Summary and Analysis.


There are dozens of witnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon including 4 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed. CIT did not mention those in NSA. That is fraud. Had they included those statements they would not have been able to con so many people into thinking the plane flew over the Pentagon.

There are many witnesses who say the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Obviously, some of the witnesses are lying, but which witnesses? There are NO witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Asking me to speculate is buying into the con. Whatever my answers would be, they would be argued endlessly and that is what the govt wants. WTC 7 is the mother of all smoking guns and the govt is doing everything it can to divert attention away from it.

[Chris Sarns]

Scepcop,

This is not what you expected when you invited me here. I can only remind you what
Forest Gump said about a box of chocolates.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . . . . . . . .

What did you think about the outline I started? My primary concern is the first half hour. It needs to be precise and "catchy". We have to grab them [the uninitiated] in the first few minutes.

C

[Scepcop]

[Eteponge]

Wait, is this particular brand of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory arguing that there was no plane at all in either the towers or in the pentagon? That it was something else, like a missile?

The main skeptical question going that route is: What about the people allegedly ON the planes who lost their lives? Are all of their family members lying about them getting on the plane that day, and getting killed, and were all star level actors who feigned sadness and tears and depression and internal trauma for months and years after their alleged deaths, and in your minds, are part of the conspiracy?

Or, were they indeed killed, but not aboard a plane?

If so, what about the families who dropped them off at the airport that day and watched them board the planes that day, and watched as their planes took off that day, on the exact same flight and flight number as those which allegedly crashed into the towers and pentagon?

I've heard stories of the 9/11 individuals on the planes who cell phoned their families back home as the planes were about to plunged into their targets. Were all of those people lying too?

The no plane theory makes no sense because of the above objections, that all of those families of the dead passengers would all be lying in a universal conspiracy together, just doesn't make any logical sense.

Unless of course, you have a reasonable theory to present concerning all of that, which is backed by evidence.

[ProfWag]

[Scepcop]

Chris,
Check this out. On my other forum, I'm whipping this guy who is staunchly defending the official story. He cites this aerospace cites which cites ANONYMOUS pilots who claim that the 757 that hit the Pentagon could have been flown by an amateur. Then he says I have no real pilots. So I show him a ton of names and statements from REAL expert pilots! Yet he doesn't concede and won't watch my films.

It's so easy to whip these guys in debate. Even when you meet their challenge they don't give in. Look!

http://www.happierabroad.com/phpBB2/vie ... 4&start=10

Also, in this forum, ProfWag is too chicken to watch the three clips I posted above from "Zero an investigation into 9/11". I've asked him so many times. But he can't stomach watching experts debunk his paradigm so he keeps making excuses. He can't handle being wrong. So he won't touch what he knows is a brilliant masterpiece from real experts. See here and watch his avoidance: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=119&start=80

I can't believe or understand why so many fear the truth. It astounds me.

[Scepcop]