I agree that blogger is whole different animal, so deserves a special location within the range of animals. The jump to suggest I'm questioning motives is unfounded. I'm certain that dz and others involved are sincere. Unfortunately, so are the majority of those who end up spreading disinfo unwittingly. People have posted their concerns about blogger's broadcasting of obvious disinfo links on that site but it went nowhere.
Does blogger do us all a service? Indeed. And most of us rely on it heavily, and are thankful for it. But what if there were a "blogger" site without all the disinfo links?
Often the only way that disinfo can enter a scene is to come with a special gem to buy its way in. Blogger is a gem, sure, but also a swamp, despite the likely good intentions of it's creators - while some may disagree, it appears that this amounts to treading water more than moving ahead. I don't say this to attack the site, but in the hopes of advising a continuing move forward toward truth and not promotion of "everything." I see endless positive promotion of hoax stuff on there by the readership, especially around Loose Change. In fact, the site seems like a portal for the promotion of Loose Change completely uncritically, and this has been the front of center of mainstream media attack on us. Similarly there was massive massive promotion of Jim Fetzer on there, no matter what lunacy he put forth mixed with the real stuff, and no effort whatsoever to note the problem with this until the damage was already done. Those attempting to educate people on that situation were endlessly attacked by the no plane promoters that Fetzer supports. Those trying to point out the hoaxes were described as agents over and over.
Blogger is a similar model to indymedia -- everyone has a say and the reader is trusted to figure things out on their own. Fine. But the unfortunate reality is that time has shown that that model actually does not work in 9/11 truth. In 9/11 truth there is an information war going on, so hoax and disinformation areas typically have endless resources with which to overwhelm sincere efforts (can't imagine why!). By linking to every site uncritically, blogger buys into the disinfo trap of "its all good," albeit with sincere and well meaning intentions, but in the end, flooding the good stuff with unsubstantiated hoaxes and a complete unwillingness to engage in self-critique. Those who question the claims that planes were swapped in Cleveland are attacked relentlessly by the no planers. Today, take a look, many many 9/11 "truth" sites say that a plane was never even IN Penn, but was swapped.
This was never the case before Loose Change. I know, I've been here and working well before the film. This is direct evidence of the way misinformation is spread.
This is related to the model that blogger espouses, "Big Tent." But Big Tent -- "it's all good" -- primarily helps spread disinfo, and the wide propagation of a completely baseless claim of plane swapping in the case of FL 93 is evidence for the way Big Tent functions. Here is a description of the idea:
"One technique which has recently been promoted in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the "Big Tent" idea -- that all theories must be embraced in order to grow the movement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to quickly realize that this technique benefits the disinformation promoters, not those promoting competent scientific analyses, like Steven Jones. Rational analyses of what happened on 9/11 will ultimately expose the truth, while nonscientific analyses can only be counterproductive to that end. Indeed, the association of ideas like pods, no planes, and missiles with Jones' analyses will tend to drain credibility from Jones' paper, while benefiting nonscientific or disinformation promoters. Interestingly, many of those promoting the most extreme ideas appear to have unlimited cash, unlimited free time, and unlimited bandwidth to promote their efforts -- resources that individuals like Jones cannot match.
Importantly, Big Tent preys on good people. Those who want to expose truth are the same people who often want to help other people and consequently, can often be victimized or manipulated when their values -- a hope for equal treatment of all peoples in the world -- are exploited to shame them into embracing nonsense theories in order to 'treat all fairly.'
Ultimately, the Big Tent approach can be expected to limit the 9/11 Truth Movement to those willing to digest hoaxes along with the real information.** Inevitably, this will keep credible media and researchers away from the movement in order to distance themselves from what they might describe as laughable, or ideas which would negatively impact their careers if they were associated with them.**"
Some good examples of the relevance of inserting nonsense into legitimate claims to tank them is here:
"During the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw (1967) in the JFK assassination, a witness showed up who linked Lee Oswald and Shaw. Despite warnings from his staff, Garrison used this witness. But once he was on the stand, the witness claimed that he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent substitutions by "them".
During the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976), the committee made a point of calling a witness who claimed that the open umbrella by the motorcade route in Dallas was actually a poison dart gun that had fired a dart at JFK to paralyze him, in order to make him an easier target. The actual umbrella was then displayed amidst jokes and laughter and great rolling of eyes, and shown to be merely an umbrella.
More recently, Congressional hearings into abuses by the BATF featured one witness, dressed in camo and identifying himself as a member of a free militia, who claimed that the US Government had built and was testing a machine that made tornados.
In all three cases the witnesses were plants by the government whose job it was to taint any real questions of what the government was up to with silliness that the media could use to make fun of the whole issue and those who dared question the official story.
The media focused on the "fingerprint man" to ridicule Jim Garrison. (Years later Richard Helms admitted under oath that Clay Shaw had been a CIA contract agent after all). The story about the umbrella at Dealey Plaza was focused on by the media to show how silly the entire issue of questioning the Warren Report was (but fell flat on its face when the HSCA concluded that there had been more than one gunman in Dealey Plaza that day) and, of course, "Tornado man", camo and all, was the featured video clip on the news reports of the hearings into BATF, to the exclusion of the family members of dozens of people mistakenly shot by the BATF when the BATF raided the wrong homes. BATF, it should also be remembered, was the agency which, in an attempt to stage a news-worthy raid on "gun nuts", initiated the Waco disaster.
The game is an old one, to plant bogus and easily disproved claims in any inquiry into what the government is doing, in order to ridicule those asking questions. In the old days it worked, because the media was under government control and could be counted on to withhold exposure of the fraud until it could most damage those who asked questions. These days, in the age of the internet, such planted hoaxes do not survive because the questions the media should ask but refuse to do so ARE asked and answered.
For example, the claim is that the 9-11 masterminds used a missile on the Pentagon to simulate the impact of the aircraft then spirited away the actual plane and killed the crew and passengers. Why would anyone bother? If the end result is the death of the occupants, why not go ahead and carry the crash out?
Those who argue that there was no plane at the Pentagon are either spooks, or those whose knowledge of physics is based on cartoons where characters leave clear outline shapes in walls they penetrate. Airplanes are built to fly through the air, not burrow through solid objects. Built for economy, not combat, passenger jets are, compared to a building, as light and as fragile as a glass Christmas tree ornament.
The "No plane at the Pentagon" story has failed to catch on to the degree where it can be used to discredit those who wonder just who was really behind the 9-11 staged terrorist attacks. Those spooks who promoted the story realize that they are at risk of exposure so their only remaining tactic is to try to claim that anyone who does not agree with them must be the government plant. If I directly responded, their goal would be not to conduct a debate, but simply to tie up as much of my limited time as they could in an endless unwinnable argument while they stand there with their hair on fire claiming they cannot smell any smoke.
The internet has become the high ground in the war for the minds of America. The claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon is a diversionary attack by an enemy that survives only by secrecy and deception."
But should I dare to question the idea that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon on blogger, I would be attacked night and day. Instead of saying that we literally do not have enough information to know what happened, sites like blogger have an ongoing selective bias towards "no 757" on there, and endless attacks on anyone who questions that. Those who like Loose Change apparently feel they must defend each of its claims rather than reach neutral territory for the sake of the entire movement. The uncritical promotion of Loose Change is a part of the association of "no planes," literally, with the real questions.
I think the quality of posting is quite high, and the number of wingnuts at a minimum.
It's slowly getting better but I wouldn't agree. I see John Albanese attacked endlessly on there for his good comments, constantly called an agent, etc.
You should come join the conversation. I guarantee you won't be brainwashed.
I have done some posts, but like most, I have a day job and can't be sitting on there night and day the way many disinfo people are.
What is the solution? I don't know. But think about it. Discuss the problem rather than exclusively defending blogger. I think the site is slowly moving forward, but still it serves as a portal to funnel hoax stuff into the movement until a few people who are critical and call for strong evidence, like myself, work overtime and have to be attacked endlessly to expose the misinformation. How can blogger make it easier to keep misinformation to a minimum? Promoting every single viewing of LC all over the country without a single link to anything critiquing that film spreads no plane stuff into our movement. This is a huge problem that people like myself have to spend way way too much time trying to correct when the damage has been done.
Not all news is good news.
I recommend this video . . . good use of video -
Physicist Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood