Focusing on a one line proof
The crux of the conspiracy argument is that demolition is the only
possible explanation for the destruction of WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7. One
need only raise the single question: How could a collapse, caused only
by the damage of the plane collisions and subsequent fires cause the
remaining still intact structures to fall to the ground at the speed
of a free fall in a vacuum? No explanation can be produced for this,
because it would require breaking the laws of physics. It cannot be
done.
This scientific fact is the corner stone. It should be stressed and
focused on because it is undeniable. It is the truth that will
convince the skeptics. It certainly convinced me.
I, like many others, was very skeptical about the demolition theory,
mainly because the only evidence I was shown were the squibs.
Furthermore, I (also like many others) was completely ignorant of the
WTC7 collapse. It actually took over a year for me to see the light,
when I finally saw the on line videos of WTC7's collapse.
It does not take a physics degree to understand that the collapse of a
steel girder concrete reinforced building cannot occur in less time
than it takes for a bowling ball to fall from the top of the building
to the sidewalk. Not even a building hit by a 767.
This fact dispels the belief that planes brought down those buildings,
like therm-ate cutting through steel. It is the key argument that
should be used when convincing skeptics and combating arguments from
Bush supporters and those who seek to cover up the truth. Focus on it.
If the entire 911 Truth movement were to focus on this one question
and demand an answer, much could be achieved. Not that the other
issues are not important, they are very important. But this is the
one question that can stand alone, is easily understood, and for which
only one answer is possible: the buildings were demolished. Seeking
to establish this fact as common knowledge is the best strategy. No
one can deny it. This is the way to win over the skeptics, and pave
the way for understanding the other evidence, that in some incidences
could be cleverly used as an argument for the opposite side.
- Canadian Truth Seeker's blog
- Login to post comments
physics
Absolutely...the laws of Physics are the strongest arguements we have. Its what got me here.
And the icing on the cake is...
...the now well known video of Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center (mosquito netting quote):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY&mode=related&search=
When people see this, it can be the final piece in the demolition puzzle for them.
Ratio vs. Emotio
This line of reasoning, one might reasonably assume, is completely failsafe. And yet...
The problem may be, to employ a tired cliché, that people would rather not think. Through constant bombardment with decontextualized chunks of information practically devoid of any underlying logic (I'm talking TV news here mostly), many seem to lack the intellectual capacities to follow through anything more complex than your average football game. Not inherently, but through utter lack of exercise. Instead, they appear to rely on good 'ol brain stem functions for purposes of "finding" truth - if it doesn't feel good, it's not true. Bye bye, age of enlightenment; Hello, age of entertainment!
Or maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
In any case, the biggest obstacle we have to overcome is NOT one of providing sound logic, it's one of disabling unsound emotions.
How to disable the emotion and plant the seed of truth
A very valid point. But I think you underestimate the power of making
the logic clear and concise. People, however brainwashed by the
media, can tell the difference between black and white. So the closer
you distill your argument to black and white terms, the sooner the
spell is broken.
Here is a case in point ...
In discussing these issues with a friend who has been brain washed by
CNN I encountered an interesting sequence of responses to my
irrefutable arguments:
1) The buildings were designed to fall in on themselves so as to
conveniently not hit those around them.
2) There were no 'other' explosions.
3) Your all just a bunch of liberals who do nothing but complain.
And as I pushed my argument (put it in black and white terms):
4) How come people don't think Al-Qaeda had the power to pull this off?
(suggesting its racist to think that they could not have done it).
When I had finally sunk the message home he lapsed into the following:
5) Who cares, there is nothing you or I can do about it anyway ...
6) If you don't have the money, you can't play the game (i.e. you
and I don't have the money so we'll just have to let those who do
run the world as they see fit)
We're still friends, but at least I've got him thinking. He seems to
have gone from totally buying the official story to some sort of state
of denial or angst.
My point here is, it took that clear logic to get him to see the
light, or at least the light at the end of the tunnel.
Maybe an analogy would help, as in:
Believing that the plane/fire damage caused the collapse is like
believing you can crush a brick and turn it into molten lava by
jumping on it. (I'm sure there are better ones, but you can see
my point)
Hm...
Sadly, I haven't had problems getting people to this defeatist stage, but past...
I'm hoping that at this point, the mere acceptal of the painful reality and the ensuing paradigm shifts just take their time. Unfortunately, I've come across chillingly large numbers of people that appear to be immune vs. any means of logical persuasion, I wish I had some statistics on how many professional shills we're dealing with. Somehow, I hope the quota's quite high, or all hope is lost for humanity :/
Could it be that a certain percentage...
...of the human population are genetically predetermined to be followers; that no amount of reason or persuasion will break them out of this programming? That's what it seems like at times, and would explain the frustrating resistance to 911 facts that we encounter, even among otherwise intelligent people. They just don't want to rock the boat... want to go along to get along.... or whatever other cliche you'd like to use.
Yea, that might apply
I've often wondered what insights MK ULTRA and similar projects have turned up. I mean, from what we know, they seem to have explored every conceivable avenue for manipulation, civilized or not, for more than a decade. I'm sure they've learnt quite something, not to forget in this context public experiments like Milgram's, the Stanford Prison Experiment as well as Asch's Conformity Experiment. The latter is what to me suggests that there are significant efforts to create artificial consenters, i.e. shills, in large numbers.
Unfortunately I'm unable to prove anything beyond doubt, but I've once had someone I figured to be just that, a paid shill, confess, though so nonchalant as to qualify as no more than anecdotal evidence. Yeah well, nevermind that, I guess.
Take care