• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

911Blogger - Fading Away?

Orphia Nay said:
To re-rail, I've assumed for a long while that 911Blogger was the hub of 9/11 Truth news. If it's been superceded, by what?
Click to expand...


Used to be the Loose Change forum was Twoofer Central now they're lucky to get 3 posts a week. Funny, they also had a policy of ruthlessly stifling dissent. Doesn't seem like a healthy tactic does it?

Compus
 
dannyb said:
The motive. Why did 19 men hijack planes and fly them into buildings? I know what I think; but that would be a discussion for the politics forum.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that topic qualifies as "had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories."

Remember also that the reason for this sub forum being established was to keep all the 9/11 discussion in one place and away from other 'normal' business.
 
ozeco41 said:
I don't see how that topic qualifies as "had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories."

Remember also that the reason for this sub forum being established was to keep all the 9/11 discussion in one place and away from other 'normal' business.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it does, unless one is suggesting the hijackers were agents of the US government/Mossad.

As I'm sure you're aware, a public discussion would extend beyond the realm of this particular internet forum.

I will follow Orphia Nay's suggestion when I have the time to put something substantive together. It's not a subject that can be tackled flippantly.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Don't pretend you don't know what I mean.

Do you post at 911Blogger?

If not, why not?

Is this lack of comment a sign that 9/11 Truth is declining?
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean. You mean to categorize and label anyone who expresses skepticism over the state issued account. It's a transparent and cowardly tactic.

Now to your more specific questions. Yes, I've posted over there. No, it's not as busy as it used to be, but so what? Aidan Monaghan(sp)'s contributions alone make the site worthwhile. Can you put up a so-called debunker who has tracked down more research than Aidan?
 
RedIbis said:
I know exactly what you mean. You mean to categorize and label anyone who expresses skepticism over the state issued account. It's a transparent and cowardly tactic.

Now to your more specific questions. Yes, I've posted over there. No, it's not as busy as it used to be, but so what? Aidan Monaghan(sp)'s contributions alone make the site worthwhile. Can you put up a so-called debunker who has tracked down more research than Aidan?
Click to expand...

Can you put up a so-called truther who has dodged more questions than Red?
 
RedIbis said:
I know exactly what you mean. You mean to categorize and label anyone who expresses skepticism over the state issued account. It's a transparent and cowardly tactic.

Now to your more specific questions. Yes, I've posted over there. No, it's not as busy as it used to be, but so what? Aidan Monaghan(sp)'s contributions alone make the site worthwhile. Can you put up a so-called debunker who has tracked down more research than Aidan?
Click to expand...
Aidan Monaghan? Where is his book? He is a truth-NAZI, you can't post your ideas at his blog, they are banned. He acts like a NAZI, is he? Does he believe in Bigfoot and Chemtrails?

Aidan Monaghan, he has produced a lot of woo on 911. Please be specific, which is his greatest article, and please produce what about 911 official story is wrong? Go ahead, be specific, something you have never done before.
 
Orphia Nay said:
On the main page of 911Blogger the stories garner very few comments these days.

Currently, the story with the most comments has just 12 comments, and those are mostly about how few truthers there are posting replies to another story on the web. :)

Truthers, do you post at 911Blogger?

If not, why not?

Is this lack of comment a sign that 9/11 Truth is declining?
Click to expand...

Probably a big sign it is declining. The conspiracy theories have been incredibly repetitious and I know in my case I no longer have an interest in discussing 9/11 conspiracies. I had them repeated to me enough that it's gotten old and frankly I'm no longer patient with the discussions, so I'm moving on.

I wish 911blogger luck but beyond it's net presence it hasn't changed a thing in my personal affairs, nor has it made any impact in the kind of work I do now that I'm employed with an architecture firm. Clearly, the movement, whatever name it wants to go by... hasn't achieved its goals, not by a long shot. The conspiracy theory about this stuff however will persist even if only in a zombie state.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Aidan Monaghan? Where is his book? He is a truth-NAZI, you can't post your ideas at his blog, they are banned. He acts like a NAZI, is he? Does he believe in Bigfoot and Chemtrails?

Aidan Monaghan, he has produced a lot of woo on 911. Please be specific, which is his greatest article, and please produce what about 911 official story is wrong? Go ahead, be specific, something you have never done before.
Click to expand...

I realize I'm about to ask a very stupid question, but do you have support for your childish attack on Monaghan, calling him a Nazi?

Either he has promoted genocidal ideology or he hasn't. If he hasn't and you can't provide any support for it, you diminish the word, Nazi, and reduce the historical import of such an evil institution.

You can attack his work, but unless you can provide concrete support for your childish namecalling, you owe him a retraction and an apology, in the name of basic decency if nothing else.
 
NoahFence said:
16.5 said:
Can you put up a so-called truther who has dodged more questions than Red?
Click to expand...

Major Tom.
Click to expand...
If we don't distinguish "trolls" from "truthers" we would need to include C7 and Tony Sz. There may be others therefore ergo my list is not complete.

I haven't done the count but based on total number of posts and allowing for evasions of multiple questions in some posts I doubt that M_T would top the list. He posts a lot less than C7 and does not post in bursts of frenzy like TS.

BUT if you count the proportion of his posted material which is dedicated to avoiding answers M_T may rank higher. Both the other two candidates posts routinely contain a fair proportion of sciency or engineering looking padding. Usually male bovine faeces but still legitimate on topic bull droppings.

In comparison Red is merely an occasional visitor to these pages and selective in what he says. However he may have been playing the game for longer which could compensate.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that you can look at comments as any kind of barometer for the simple reason that more comments on a blog usually indicate bickering back and forth by two or more individuals. At SLC, for example, our newest post has 48 comments and the one below that has 79. On the face of it, that's a fair amount of comments; I can't imagine 9-11 Blogger having that many comments on any post in the last few years. But most of the comments are back and forth sniping between Truther Snug Bug (Brian Good) and a couple of debunkers.

Our traffic is way, way off. Some of that may be due to the infrequency of the posts there; it is becoming common for there to be 5-6 days between posts. But I suspect it's more just that the general interest level has faded. In 2011 we did have an upsurge in traffic (probably caused by the 10-year anniversary); we had about 475,000 page views as compared to 429,000 the year before. But in 2012? Page views YTD are only 121,000, which means we'll probably have more than a 50% decline. And our posting was every bit as sporadic last year, so that can't be the cause.
 
RedIbis said:
I know exactly what you mean. You mean to categorize and label anyone who expresses skepticism over the state issued account. It's a transparent and cowardly tactic.

Now to your more specific questions. Yes, I've posted over there. No, it's not as busy as it used to be, but so what? Aidan Monaghan(sp)'s contributions alone make the site worthwhile. Can you put up a so-called debunker who has tracked down more research than Aidan?
Click to expand...

Mark Roberts has probably forgotten more about 9/11 than Monaghan ever knew. Our very own Brainster, as well. And Ryan Mackey. And John Farmer and the rest of the guys who took apart the CIT nonsense. And probably a dozen more I've forgotten.
 
dannyb said:
I don't see how it does, unless one is suggesting the hijackers were agents of the US government/Mossad.....
Click to expand...

I think you're getting warm but not about the hijackers.

Unfortunately certain subjects border on being taboo here.

Any suggestion of Mossad involvement and the accusations of anti-semitism and/or Holocaust denial start flying.

For the record, I totally believe that the Halocaust occurred as recorded in the historical record, and I am not anti-semitic.

MM
 
ozeco41 said:
I haven't a clue what you refer to.

My own concern about the 9/11 discussion is that it has focused strongly on the big 4 (or 5) technical issues and given little effort into discussing the actions of the US Government and it's agencies. Label them "MIHOP", "LIHOP" or "LIHOOI" is you wish.

The classic example being AE911 truth which premises an alleged (alleged because I don't accept that they are genuine) -- an alleged need for a "new investigation" premised on a claim of demolition at WTC. And they started that initiative in 2007 by which time no honest person could accept CD at WTC as a viable hypothesis.

So I think the socio-political side of 9/11 conspiracies has been neglected whilst the false claims in the technical arena have taken all the focused energy.

The cynic in me says this is exactly what a Government would want. People concentrating on false technical claims which therefore will go no-where. Meanwhile no call for inquiry into political actions. That is a guaranteed "all parties' winning strategy which few politicians could resist.

So what is the aspect you think needs public discussion but "had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories."?
Click to expand...


The following thread does exactly that, focus on discussing the actions of the US Government and it's agencies.

"CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary"
 
paloalto said:
The following thread does exactly that, focus on discussing the actions of the US Government and it's agencies.

"CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary"
Click to expand...


ozeco41 told us time and time again that he is not interested in what he calls "political aspects" of 9/11. Same with the white knight Oystein. They prefer to argue from a very limited perspective that "twoofers" are wrong. Strawman central.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Mark Roberts has probably forgotten more about 9/11 than Monaghan ever knew. Our very own Brainster, as well. And Ryan Mackey. And John Farmer and the rest of the guys who took apart the CIT nonsense. And probably a dozen more I've forgotten.
Click to expand...

None of those guys have elicited the reams of info from FOIA requests that Monaghan has.
 
Brainster said:
...
Our traffic is way, way off. ... In 2011 we did have an upsurge in traffic (probably caused by the 10-year anniversary); we had about 475,000 page views as compared to 429,000 the year before. But in 2012? Page views YTD are only 121,000, which means we'll probably have more than a 50% decline. ...
Click to expand...

Similar to what the AE911T petition has been experiencing:

2011-20120622AElineargrowthmonthly.jpg


They had higher numbers of signers per day from summer 2009 to 2010, since then it's been in decline, with a marked surge in the summer 2011 until october 2011, around the 10th anniversary. Since then, interest has dropped dramatically. (Note: I don't have values for a 3-month period from mid-july 2011, when the WayBayMachine stopped crawling ae911truth.org, until end of september, when we started posting figures in the "juggernaut" thread, so the peak at over 1/month actually covers a period of over 2 months)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom