PDA

View Full Version : Widening Rift In 9-11 Truth Community - Chance Differences or Design?



Peter Lemkin
10-29-2010, 06:35 AM
Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
BY RCFP STAFF WRITERS

In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.

Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.

But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.

The mass bannings are not random, but directed at, among others, users who support the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). (The RCFP ran front page articles about CIT in the April 2009 and July 2009 issues. All back issues are available as PDFs at rockcreekfreepress.com.)

The uninitiated are urged to read those 2009 articles to get the full picture, but a drastically reduced summary is: no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT showed, through interviews of seventeen eyewitnesses, that the plane that was seen approaching the Pentagon flew over it and away, as explosives simultaneously detonated inside the building. This created an enormous fireball, filling the sky with dense, black smoke, which obscured the escaping plane. Observers who saw the plane head toward the Pentagon, and next saw the fireball, falsely but understandably concluded that the plane had hit the building. However, the airliner was seen after the fireball by several people, including a Pentagon police officer.

CIT has been endorsed by many of the leading figures of the 9/11 truth movement, including Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, University of California at Berkeley professor and author Peter Dale Scott, author David Ray Griffin, and actor Ed Asner. In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon. For starters, plane crashes leave wreckage, and there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. No wings or tail, no fuselage, no luggage or bodies, no skid or burn marks on the pristine green Pentagon lawn.

Many 9/11 truth researchers had strongly suspected for years that no plane hit the Pentagon, then CIT came along and proved it: the plane flew away. And yet, the leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence and aggressively promoting the view that the plane hit. What is going on?

Before looking at the evidence that 911blogger is censoring the truth about the Pentagon and promoting disinformation, let’s look briefly at why this matters and what their motivations might be.

Although the entire 9/11 story is full of holes, the evidence proving that no plane hit the Pentagon stands in a class by itself, because a deception at the Pentagon is unspinnable. It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon. The military headquarters for the most powerful nation on earth is a very secure place, and evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government. Hence, for those trying to keep a lid on the truth, it is absolutely imperative that the facts about what happened at the Pentagon not get out.

Infiltration of the enemy is a common tool of warfare, and it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement, to prevent it from doing them (the perps) any damage.

Why activists are so alarmed

Barrie Zwicker is an award-winning journalist, lecturer, author and documentary producer. He was astute enough to question the official 9/11 story from day one, as it was happening. He produced one of the first 9/11 Truth documentaries, “The Great Conspiracy”, in 2003. His most recent book, Towers of Deception, explores the media’s role in covering up the truth about 9/11. Based in Toronto, Canada, Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements. When Zwicker peaks, people listen.

This summer, via YouTube, Zwicker created a ringing endorsement of CIT’s “National Security Alert” video. He not only enthusiastically applauded CIT’s work and their conclusion (that the plane seen at the Pentagon overflew the building as explosives were detonated), Zwicker delivered a stinging rebuke to CIT’s detractors:

“To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”

Zwicker submitted the video endorsement to 911Blogger on July 22, 2010.

Now, this is big news in the truth community. For someone of Zwicker’s stature to provide unambiguously enthusiastic support of citizen investigators, on an issue that has not (until now) had clear answers (namely, what happened at the Pentagon), is important to everyone in the truth community. But incredibly, Zwicker’s post to 911blogger was never published.

Zwicker, ever the gentleman, politely emailed the 911blogger moderators,
asking why his entry wasn’t approved. He never received a reply from any of
the four moderators.

However, just ten days later, 911blogger published a 3100 word article from an anonymous poster, titled “CIT is useless.” The amateurish writing and ad hominem attacks are evident from the very first paragraph:

“Some time ago I wrote an article about not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that’s not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn’t mean they won’t be zipping around spouting their fl awed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.”

In part because of this decision by 911blogger, to reject Barrie Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT while publishing a childish hit piece from an anonymous source, Southern California 9/11 truth activist and We Are Change LA member Adam Ruff wrote:

“In my view it is now 100% confirmed that 911blogger is an enemy of the truth
movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good
truthers.”

The RCFP interviewed Zwicker via email

RCFP: What do you find most compelling about CIT’s work?

Zwicker: A historically significant deception has been revealed by these eyewitnesses. The simplicity of CIT’s findings is also significant, as they don’t lend themselves to being undermined by obfuscations or convoluted scientific discussion. It comes down to this: South side of the gas station = official story, North side = inside job. Not even CIT’s detractors have found a way around this, try as they might. Any honest person who watches the interviews has to agree that the plane was on the north side proving inside job. It’s as good an example as any of critical truth, the primary goal of the 9/11 Truth movement.

RCFP: What do you make of those who say they appreciate CIT’s work but do not think they proved “flyover?”

Zwicker: Commercial airliners cannot make startling turns to left or right in such limited airspace, nor can they vanish into thin air. Flyover is the only rational explanation, not to mention that CIT provides a witness who saw the plane flying away. If this ever gets to a fair and uncorrupted court of law, I am as confident as I am of anything, that such a court will determine this plane overflew the Pentagon.

RCFP: Have you read the criticisms of CIT’s work from Arabesque, Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and do you think they have merit?

Zwicker: They lack merit because they do not provide counter-evidence. They have no firsthand eyewitness interviews from people who specifically place the plane to the south side of the gas station. Those I could weigh against the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT. As far as I can see, Arabesque, whoever that is (I don’t care for anonymity), Hoffman and Ashley have provided none at all. They take snippets of third-hand printed media quotes, none of which are actually South of Citgo witnesses, just statements by people who said they saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, one particular detractor blog by “Caustic Logic” quotes a few people as “witnesses” who were not even in the area at the time of the attack! One was in North Carolina, arrived in DC the afternoon of 9/11, saw the downed light poles, and was thus presented as a “light pole witness.” This is in a blog entry titled “The South Path Impact: Documented.”

RCFP: What conclusions do you draw from 911blogger refusing to post your endorsement of CIT?

Zwicker: Actually, my endorsement was briefly posted for about 30 minutes, then withdrawn. It’s painful for me to learn that 911blogger, which I consider to be the premiere 9/11Truth site, is censoring CIT and those who support CIT. Even more distressing is that 911blogger has failed to censor some quite rude comments about CIT’s work and its team members. So it’s clearly one-sided. One conclusion that can be drawn is that there are players behind the scenes who have prevailed upon the moderators at 911blogger to stultify CIT and its findings. Since the censorship is so blatant and carries with it obvious penalties in the form of loss of credibility, those behind the censorship orders must really have their knickers in a knot about something. It’s a clear sign that those who control that website are trying to control thought when it comes to the Pentagon. Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon. That the most visited 9/11 truth website would be so hostile towards evidence that supports this widely held belief within the ranks of Truthers is at the least disconcerting.

A little more than a month after Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT was rejected, the situation repeated itself, when retired NASA aeronautical engineer Dwain Deets recorded a video endorsement of CIT on August 30, 2010 and submitted it to 911blogger. Once again, 911blogger refused, without explanation, to post the endorsement of a highly qualified professional.

Prior to 911blogger rejecting these video endorsements from Zwicker and Deets, nearly all users at 911blogger who were vocal in their support of CIT had been banned. An informal poll easily came up with 25 former users of 911blogger who had been banned without explanation—about half of whom are CIT supporters.

Three of the most well-informed, articulate and prolific CIT supporters were banned simultaneously on May 24, 2010, while in the midst of a heated online debate with 911blogger moderator Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke). Truth activist Stefan S. of London, England explains it:

“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.

“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.

“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.

“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.

“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”

Response from 911blogger

Other than from moderator John Wright (aka LeftWright), who stressed that he was giving only his own personal views, not those of the website, there has been no response from 911blogger to questions emailed to them on September 15, 2010 about their treatment of Citizen Investigation Team. The email, which stated that the Rock Creek Free Press was working on an article about 911blogger and wanted to include their side of the story, was sent to the current email addresses for site owner Justin Keogh and moderators Erik Larson, Ted Tilton, Jr. and John Wright, as well as to the joint email address for the “blogger team.”

John Wright stated on September 16 that he was available for a phone interview, but, as of press time on October 23, has not replied to an email sent on October 5 to arrange that interview.

The lengthy emails from Wright explaining his view of why CIT has been treated so badly at 911blogger amount, in our view, to implausible excuses: he’s been busy; as a fulltime truth activist he has higher priorities; despite their best efforts, rules are not always enforced fairly; the site has been in a state of transition; and personality conflicts have gotten out of hand.

Most shockingly, Wright claims that Barrie Zwicker broke the site rules by stating in his endorsement that there is a “cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11.” Is Wright really saying that the leading 9/11 truth site will not allow discussion of disinformation or even acknowledge that such a thing exists?

Truth activist and professional orchestral musician Adam Syed of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was banned during the debate with Larson in May, offered this comment on the censorship at 911blogger:

“Arguments in an online forum may at first glance seem to be of interest only to diehard keyboard warriors. But without the Internet, most of us would never have learned about 9/11—certainly the traditional media won’t go near it. 9/11 truth lives or dies on the Internet, and when the most heavily trafficked truth site decides to suppress certain evidence, it obviously makes it harder for people to learn the truth and figure out what happened. In the case of CIT, we are being told to disregard one of the most incriminating facts about 9/11: no plane hit the Pentagon. Now, why would any genuine truther ask us to turn our backs on such damning, unspinnable evidence?”

Answer: they wouldn’t.

Editor’s note: We welcome your comments on the situation at 911blogger; please send them to editor@rockcreekfreepress (dot) com

Magda Hassan
10-29-2010, 06:57 AM
Sad isn't it? I think Ed J might have something to say on this too. In the 911 scenario there are at least many facts and this is what needs to be in center place. Theories are where they get you divided. Like the old Stalin/Trotsky divide in the left.

Peter Lemkin
10-29-2010, 07:07 AM
Sad isn't it? In the 911 scenario there are at least many facts and this is what needs to be in center place. Theories are where they get you divided.

It parallels what has happened with JFK and all other research fields. Sad. It is likely the usual mix of egos, different world views, and a 'pinch' of infiltrators from Disinfo Central. :driver: Sadly, the left and progressives/free-thinkers have often been less tolerant of differences than the right :damnmate:

Personally, I see no evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon and lots of evidence that a missile instead hit. However, I'm not offended nor do I refuse to work with someone who still claims a plane hit. I only ask them to try to support that....like some pieces of the plane perhaps or appropriate damage to the building.

The perpetrators of 9-11 are running scared, IMO, they realize that their 'perfect deception' has fallen apart for the vast majority of Americans and even greater number of non-Americans. They can't admit to their crime and can only accelerate to a police state where they can fully control all information and dissent...and sadly, this is what we see happening.

Peter Presland
10-29-2010, 08:16 AM
Sad isn't it? I think Ed J might have something to say on this too. In the 911 scenario there are at least many facts and this is what needs to be in center place. Theories are where they get you divided. Like the old Stalin/Trotsky divide in the left.
Spot-on Magda.

There should be NO taboo theories whatsoever. No matter this oh-so-convenient "it makes the truth movement look ridiculous" crap. Collect the facts then massage and adjust theories to best explain them - no matter how off the wall they may appear at first blush.

Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and Michael Green have produced good stuff on 9-11. The problem is that once anyone achieves a modicum of expertise in a particular subject area they tend to assume the role of gatekeeper of what is or is not a viable explanation/possibility. Filters (blinkers) are progressively applied such that there are acceptable facts and there are unacceptable facts.

Exactly the same is happening on 7-7. The J7 web site and forum is a massive and impressive resource but get this from one of it's principles in relation to the available videos on the subject:


A number of documentaries about the events of 7th July 2005 have appeared over the years, both mainstream and independent. However, not many of them are of a very high standard and the end products add to the confusion that surrounds the events of 7/7 or, in near-perfect examples of the perfidious method Nietzsche described, attempt to create an alternative narrative based on faulty arguments, flawed logic, and the same lack of evidence upon which the official narrative is based. You can read J7's views on one of the more scandalous and utterly reprehensible 7/7 related films here (http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html).
"Scandalous and utterly reprehensible" eh? and that about one of the most widely circulated and plausible pieces of amateur sleuth-dom available on the matter. But "tut tut - you mustn't watch that my child, it might damage your innocent faith in the goodness of Authority and we can't have that now can we?" It's a good example of the superior 'we know best' attitude among those who, on the face of it are the most high profile official narrative skeptics but simply cannot allow the possibility that the farmer has anything other than the sheeples' best interests in mind - or else they KNOW the score and are doing their damndest to hide it.

It is at the very root of the near impossibility of getting information deeply subversive of any official narrative widely circulated.

Ed Jewett
10-29-2010, 04:20 PM
Yes, I am aware of the Rock Creek Free Press article and its allegations and the debate, centered on and around 9/11 blogger. It might be premature for me to say too much at this time. Very recently I have been in contact with some key figures in the 9/11 community and I do not wish at this time to speak for them. I have invited one (and will eventually invite others) to join us at DPF. Then, they get to speak for themselves.

Certainly I am in agreement that any theory on anything is valid if it is open to inquiry, debate, rules of debate and logic and critical thinking, everyone's willingness to "put up" and defend sources (and more importantly retract or change as appropriate when they have been proven wrong). This is how I find myself here at DPF.

I have had some concerns about the 'cognitive infiltration' of the 9/11 movement for some time; since then, we have had Cass Sunstein's published ideas, Griffin's masterful rebuttal in book form, and more. And many of us are aware of the background experience in and around JFK (the CIA memo noting disinformation tactics and strategies, the actual histories of the debates and arguments -- about which I am a distant observer --, the Vincent Salandria thesis, and the Evica/Drago model). I openly point to the Salandria thesis and the Evica/Drago model as examples which can be mimicked in the 9/11 debate.

As I am but a small bit player and newcomer in the 9/11 world, I shall bide my time and watch for further opportunities to help shape the direction.

As I noted in the recent discussion, the 9/11 movement needs:

to adopt some serious effort -- I suggested concept mapping technologies, which is not unalike what is done here in re: Dealey Plaza with maps, charts, threads, films, photos, etc. -- in the assembly of the evidence and argument;

needs to strategize its approach, figuring out where its energies need to be focused, assessing the context and background of the debate (in light of the economics, war issues, politics, etc. of the US); and

conduct an assessment or create a map of the power versus salience factors among protagonist and antagonist groups, people, and organizations (in other words, to chart who has the impact and visibility for both advancing and restraining the public debate).

James H. Fetzer
10-30-2010, 12:55 AM
Yesterday, 06:47 PM Post #37

All,

My own personal experience with 911blogger confirms the view that it has long been operating to suppress dissenting opinions from its own narrow-minded take on 9/11. I was given the boot years ago for raising questions about the thermite theory of Steven E. Jones, which I do not believe can account for the conversional of the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. See

"New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html

And I am the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, where Steve was my pick for my original co-chair. Kevin Barrett, prominent 9/11 activist and co-founder (with A.K. Dewdney) of Muslims for 9/11 Truth, was also later given the boot. We were not the only ones.

In relation to the work by CIT, I am on their side where their research has substantiated the findings of PIlots for 9/11 Truth, namely, that a Boeing 757 flew toward the building on a due east trajectory but was too high to take out any of the lampposts and flew over the building instead of hitting it. Read

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon",
http://www.rense.com/general86/911s.htm

for example, for substantiation. Those who have attacked CIT, including Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, and Victoria Ashley, are some of those who have attacked me repeatedly over the years. See, for example, two rebuttals I published exposing Jim Hoffman's modus operandi, namely,

"The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green",
http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html

"What's the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to attack Scholars for 9/11 Truth",
http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html .

911blogger is not the only prominent web site that appears to be committed to distorting or misrepresenting the movement. See, for example,

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

Congratulations to The Rock Creek Free Press for exposing this charade.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Charles Drago
10-30-2010, 01:11 AM
I openly point to the Salandria thesis and the Evica/Drago model as examples which can be mimicked in the 9/11 debate.


The value of the referenced thesis and model may be measured in direct proportion to their applicability to, among certain deep political events, the 9/11 affair.

Ed Jewett
10-30-2010, 06:39 AM
Thank you, Mssrs. Fetzer and Drago.

Communication continues among a few; where it will go remains to be seen. As everyone here can probably imagine, or have experienced in this or other topical arenas, it is sometimes difficult to sense who people are from a distance, especially when new to one another and in a world where there is only "virtual" communication, and not face-to-face (thus allowing for the all-important right brain-oriented soft inputs). There is a lot of uncertainty, possible mistrust, and sometimes a less-than-helpful withholding, as well as the omnipresent factor of ego. But many are focused on transparency, and science, and critical thinking. Therein lies, in the holistic brain approach in which the corpus callosum is constantly checking back and forth, the path to progress.

It is not my job or nor my right to report out to you the dialogue now underway about the 9/11 versus CIT controversy, nor even to document who is involved.

I have, however, tonight further explained several thoughts for future mechanisms. As their author, I feel I am allowed to share them here:

Originally, I said to my primary contact:


a) In the past -- in small discussion board context -- I have argued for a systematic use of available technologies to "map" and chart the vagaries of theory and evidence in re: 9/11.. Google up some sources for "concept mapping", some of which is downloadable for team use for free.

b) I was taught .. a long, long time ago, in a conference center not far from here -- the use of a three-dimensional labeling and tagging visualization technique to assess the power and salience of organizations and people in policy issues. It comes from the world of health planning and simply utilizes a numerical scoring technique of five degrees ( -2 to +2) for two categories: the ability to move (or obstruct), and the degree of importance of the matter to the person or organization.

c) Some thought should be given to short-term and long-term threats and opportunities relative to future action, activism and policy. Specifically, I speak at the moment of three potentially pending changes in the socio-political environment:

1) cyber-war and cyber-crackdown, either from a censorship perspective, or a wholesale restriction, or as an act of interference;
2) expanded war and its effects (in particular with regard to Iran >> global war);
3) severe economic distress or collapse.

When asked for explanations, I offered up the following:

The fastest way to understand this is to Google for concept maps; there is already a great deal of information on what it's about, how to do it and why, and where you can get the software. [It's actually not terribly far removed from what has been and is being accomplished here in re: JFK & Dealey Plaza, the photos, the Plaza map, the videos, the threads, the debates...]

Who should do it? An organized, self-selected but open group of existing people who are knowledgeable, credible, and willing to sustain debate. It does require some financial support but it is essentially something that requires a server, a coordinator or three, some team direction and management (hey, the content we're talking about is mammoth, right?), and some mechanism to cover the expenses. It can be done "virtually" and asynchronously. But I am a huge fan of meeting face-to-face on occasion because of the "soft" issues in communications, authenticity, veracity, etc. Anonymity in this venture is destructive. So the process before the process requires some facilitation.

Keep in mind that much of what we are talking about here in terms of text, software, films, photos, and the like IS ALREADY IN PLACE at a number of web sites. At this point, negotiating openness, rights, etc. may be more of a challenge than conceiving the idea. There has to be a "we're in this for free and posterity" attitude, not a "but I paid for this" or "I control the rights to this footage" approach.

I see it as a HQ/HD version of a people's commission. Who should select who will be involved? That's the $64 dollar question. But there are a lot of people already 9/11 signatories who have sound scientific, peer review, evidence-assessing, "legal minds" skills... and they can write some rules or establish a committee or a process by which judgment can ensue. I once challenged an online debunker to this... to assemble the 9/11 problem like a legal case with evidentiary rules (when I knew, but he had forgotten that I knew, that he worked for a state bar association), and he folded like a house of cards.

I would take a page out of what Ben Franklin once wrote about fundraising.. .yes, we needs the $$ but we need the commitment and the involvement first -- and that is to go back to the beginning (once we have a "package" or a proposal) and go to key insiders who were instrumental in getting this thing off the ground at the very beginning... strategic thinkers, people who know how to get things done.

Item B is about perception, and argument/discussion relative to strategy or movement inside a social field.

This is going to sound a little touchy-feely-NewAge for a moment, but bear with me.

Close your eyes. Clear your thoughts. Take a deep breath or two.

This part is about visualization. Envision that you are sitting in a three-dimensional room with no windows or doors The room is 8 feet high, 8 feet long, 8 feet wide. The walls are painted an off-white. At the four foot mark on the horizontal (side to side) axis is a 2" wide black line demarcating the "0" point on the room/scale. Similar 1" grey lines are painted at the two-foot and six-foot heights to depict +1 and -1 scores on the scale. The horizontal axis depicts power.

At the four-foot marks on the vertical (up/down) scale (demarcating halfway or "0" values), there is a 2" red line. Similar 1" dull red lines are painted at the two-foot and six-foot heights to depict +1 and -1 scores on the scale. The horizontal axis depicts salience.

Make a list of all relevant organizations, publications, agencies, perhaps even key people, in the 9/11 field. Survey the field widely to set this list. Eliminate the truly fringe. A simple e-mail or letter process will suffice, even an online survey which will allow widespread input.

Now execution of the concept. Construct a spreadsheet with all the names. Create two fields for power and salience and allow scores in each field ranging from -2 (on the floor or in the lefthand corners of the room) to +2 (on the ceiling or the right hand corners). Someone with great math/spatial intelligence can work this better.

Conceptually, or in visualization, construct a simple small 1"x1" card with an organizational or personal avatar or icon or identifier and both scores in tiny print and, using nearly-invisible fishing line, hang the cards for each organization at the right height and location given the scores. The scores, of course, would be a consensus or everyone's scores (perhaps after a conference call debate or a online discussion). Who should participate? Anyone who wants to. Ideally, the leadership of all organizations noted on the first draft.

Someone with a computer and some date entry skills or mechanisms, and ideally someone with a computer software program that could translate the consensus scores into a 3-D map through which someone could walk or scroll, would be ideal.

Having the end-product, now all organizations can simply see "the field" for what it is as seen by everyone in the field.

I might give high positive scores in both categories to History Commons, David Ray Griffin, etc. I would give a high power score and a high salience score to Cass Sunstein.

Salience is the state or condition of being prominent. The Oxford English Dictionary defines salience as "most noticeable or important." The concept is discussed in communication, semiotics, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and political science. ...

Power is seen as the personal or organizational ability to "move" or "block" actions and discussion about 9/11.

A third score (perhaps a simple color code like chess pieces) might be rendered in terms of openness to the issues...

But I am not important here... My scores have little if any weight.

The process, then, allows people to see clearly what tactics and strategies in terms of alliances and activism might be useful.

But the theory of the idea is that you, or I, or anyone can examine this "map" with greater clarity in terms of how he/we might approach this individual/organization to do what and in what order. It becomes a three-dimensional chess match. Taking the idea a step further, obviously pilots have salience in one area of expertise, engineers and architects in another, etc. The idea here is not to joust for position and ranking as "king" or "queen" of the 9/11 movement, but to see the field... To know when one key 9/11 Truther is being attacked by one key 9/11 Truth antagonist, and how to counter that with movement of another 9/11 Truth organization or an "attack" against a weaker or supporting 9/11 antagonist.

It may also help us all from bloodying our knuckles banging on doors that won't open to us, or in terms of building momentum and log-rolling.

An individual can construct one of these in his or her own geographic or mediated area of influence.

It can be used by someone to decide which folks should receive that particularly juicy e-mail.

It can be used by media personalities to decide who to invite for an interview, discussion, etc.

It can be used by organizers to determine whom to approach in terms of placement of a news item, or whom to approach with misprision of treason material packets, or it can be used in a variety of ways I haven't thought of.

It is a mechanism by which someone can "take the temperature" of a social group or climate.

Ed Jewett
10-31-2010, 08:02 PM
if you Google for the term "concept map", you will see a good link to the Institute for Human Machine Cognition within the first five links, as one of the graphics, etc.

They have a wonderful concept map on concept maps. http://cmapskm.ihmc.us/rid=1064009710027_1483270340_27090/CmapTools%20-%20Concept%20Map%20About%20Concept%20Maps.html

On later pages, there are examples in nursing, science education, etc. I am sure there are many, but they are private in nature, not necessarily posted on the net.

You can find articles on why to do it, how to do it, free software, a Java-based approach (most PC users have Java or can download it) and lots of other info. There is a good basic Wiki entry.

"If MS Office is on your computer, let's get started making a concept map in Excel."
http://www.internet4classrooms.com/excel_concept_map.htm

Here's something on types of concept maps: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmargeru/conceptmap/types.htm (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Ejmargeru/conceptmap/types.htm)

Here is on on the Mississippi: http://www.nps.gov/history/delta/maps/map_compcon.htm (http://www.nps.gov/history/delta/maps/map_compcon.htm%20)