Forget NP, forget CD.. It's time to start summarizing the most concrete 9/11 evidence for mainstream consumption
Recent political developments due to the midterm elections are cause for concern to the 9/11 Truth Movement, and it is a good time to rethink strategies for the manner of communicating the most relevant information. This article details the importance of effectively summarizing information for potential newcomers to the movement, as well as explaining why it is not a good idea to focus on controlled demolition and no plane theories.
Time to Summarize the Most Concrete Evidence
Following is a list of topics which could be considered to have concrete evidence of government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, relying mainly on declassified documents, mainstream media reports, as well as audio and video testimony by key individuals...
- prior examples of government sponsored terrorism
- prior stated intentions related to the attacks
- prior knowledge of the attacks
- blocked investigations before the attacks
- behavior during the attacks
- blocked investigations after the attacks
- disinformation put out about the 9/11 Truth Movement
Most, if not all of the necessary information exists in order to form an airtight case for government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, however the information is generally not being properly summarized and presented for consumption by mainstream newcomers. It is not enough to communicate only to those who are already familiar with the issue.
For example, try this.. type "summarize 9/11" into Google. Obviously some information is showing up, but where are the hundreds of different summary pages which need to exist? This is a problem!
Reasons not to focus on controlled demolition theories
No matter how much evidence may exist of controlled demolitions being used in the 9/11 attacks, the issue of Building 7's collapse seems to boil down to the following issues:
There was damage to Building 7 from the collapse of Tower 1, the exact amount being disputed. Little photographic evidence exists of a gash in the building's south side, and whatever photographs do exist are unclear about what they show, each allowing a variety of interpretations depending on one's viewpoint.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225868/pg1
Due to the lack of strong photographic evidence, conflicting recollections of emergency workers about the day of the attacks are apparently the best information to work with regarding the initial damage to Building 7. Following are two conflicting reports from emergency workers about the damage to the south side of the building. Please note that I am not trying to create an argument about which person is correct, but rather trying to illustrate the point that recollections about that day can vary..
View a video clip of NYC police officer and rescue worker Craig Bartmer, claiming relatively minimal damage to Building 7 as well as discussing many other issues:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2479540022152730536
Read an article with firefighter Captain Chris Boyle claiming substantial damage to Building 7:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
Also there is debate about the interpretations of how the building could collapse with the varying amounts of potential damage it could have received, and let's not forget that nearly all of the evidence has been destroyed.
An article by Steven Jones discussing the collapse of the buildings:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
The NIST report on Building 7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf
An accumulation of many factors contributes to the evidence for the case of CD, but the amount of individual pieces of evidence which could be considered absolutely concrete is debated. Although there is a large variety of potential topics to discuss, the 9/11 Truth Movement seems to be focusing much of it's energy on the CD debate, despite the fact that the issue could arguably be considered a 'stalemate' in terms of it's lack of much concrete proof as well as important conflicting interpretations and recollections.
As the website oilempire.us states, "demolition theories are not the best evidence of complicity."
http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html
Reasons not to focus on 'no plane' theories
Apparently a more commonly accepted strategy is one of steering clear from the issue of no plane potentially hitting the Pentagon. There are arguments on both sides of this issue, but being so heavily debated among the 9/11Truth Movement is an indication of the theory being relatively unreliable and unnecessary, not to mention potentially being a distraction from more easily proven theories.
Summary
Perhaps most importantly, the theories of controlled demolition and no plane hitting the Pentagon are perceived as being particularly 'bizarre' by those not yet familiar with the more fundamental issues of the 9/11 Truth Movement. This contributes to turning off many potential newcomers before they have an opportunity to become more fully informed on the range of issues.
Please look at my website which helps to summarize some of the topics of the 9/11 attacks using audio and video clips as well as such information as Alan Miller's list of 50 patriots questioning 9/11. I feel that the 'summary' format of this website has potential to effectively inform many newcomers about the issue. Following is the link:
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911.html
- edward35's blog
- Login to post comments
Controlled Demolition and No Plane at the Pentagon are the BEST
This is based on my discussion with by now hundreds of people--those who know the truth, those who don't but are open to it, and those who know and are trying to block it.
I spend about 20 hours a week standing in crowded public places and I can tell you what people find most disturbing of all, and most incriminating. Building 7 is right at the top. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that buildings only fall that way from well placed explosives.
The disinfo campaigns are easy to identify--they urge you to stay away from the real issues where solid physical and forensic evidence exists and ask you to focus instead on the he said/she said of various shill newspapers quoting various shill agents, as if those claims were somehow more convincing or easier to prove to people than something they can see with their eyes happening in front of them, with just a little science involved in understanding it.
Your fellow citizens are not the fools that the shills and MSM and Bush/PNAC take them for. Go out and meet them, you'll see.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
CD, NP are legitimate topics, but certainly not the 'best'
I agree that many people are open minded about the issues of NP and CD, but I find that most people who are currently not familiar with the issues 9/11 Truth are not open minded about those two issues.
As the results of the midterm elections unfortunately show, if we want real political change we need the entire spectrum of the population to be familiar with the overall picture of what happened on 9/11. Be wary about claims of poll results saying 80% of the population thinks it was an inside job, ect.. the majority think the government handled the investigation improperly but thats a far cry from knowing that the government was actually involved.
Also, many know that there are questions of government involvement but do not know the specifics, and when they try to find information about it they invariably fall back on watching "Loose Change," then check the internet and find hundreds of sites debunking it ( legitimately in some cases, even. )
No matter what one's view is about NP and CD, it is uncontested that there is a great need for more summarized concrete information intended for mainstream consumption about government involvement in the attacks.
I definitely disagree with the assertion that NP and CD are the best topics to focus on. While both have good evidence supporting their claims, they cannot yet be technically considered to be 'airtight' cases. The Building 7 issue comes down to conflicting recollections about the damage the building received as well as conflicting scientific analysis about how the building would collapse.
Im not so much trying to rule out the issues of CD and NP as I am trying to show that there are other issues to talk about as well, many of them being more tangible to newcomers and people who currently disagree with the idea of government involvement.
i totally agree
just wanted to say i totally agree with you edward35 -- especially about what to focus on with newcomers.
there is so much iron-clad info re: what the NSA and CIA and FBI knew about the hijackers and their movements, all the warnings from countries all over the world, the money trail, the 7 different versions we've been told of how the military reacted that day, and everything the Regime has done to subvert any investigation.
not to say the other theories are not worthy of discussion -- they certainly are -- but the other stuff edward is talking about is provable and would probably impress a newcomer more than thermite or laser beams.
oh, ok..
I'm not sure if the 'laser beam' post is meant as a joke or not, but in any event I suggest that first we put them behind bars for the obvious evidence, then we can worry about whether they had the help of thermite, laser beams, big green lizards, or just gravity to make the buildings fall.
A suggestion.
I think the idea of reviving (if that's the word) a strong argument based on witness testimony and using it actively is a very good one. However, when you group thermite/thermate/controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon with obviously outrageous theories like green lizards or gravity-based collapses causing pulverization, you're instantly alienating people here whom you might otherwise persuade. Like it or not, some of the physical evidence, especially the work of Steven Jones, is what got a lot of people to look critically at 9/11 in the first place, maybe especially people who are part of the dramatic 2006 influx of activists. So by all means, encourage them to look at the many other pieces of the puzzle, which may be persuasive to some chunk of the unpersuaded public, but try to avoid unnecessarily pissing off potential allies.
I agree..
You are right about that.. I know that there is a lot of evidence for controlled demolition, but I think there is so much evidence for more straightforward aspects of the conspiracy that we should be careful about overly promoting ideas that could be perceived as "odd" by those who are unaware or disagree with the idea of government involvement in the attacks.
The "Complete 9/11 Timeline" on Cooperative Research has an ocean of necessary proof laid out and cited, ready to go! If anyone is not yet familiar with this resource, check it out here..
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
I have the Complete 9/11 Timeline.
It's a fantastic resource, but obviously it doesn't provide an effective argument in and of itself. The material is there to back all kinds of arguments -- in spades -- but what is that argument going to be? I don't think things like Able Danger are a good place to start, because they reinforce the idea that 19 Muslim guys should be the central focus of an investigation.
NORAD bullshit, possibly. But what about a theory that doesn't focus on jets and buildings, as someone said to me yesterday? In that case, perhaps the focus should just be on PNAC and the fact that the wars and the Patriot Act were all ready to be rolled out, right after we had our New Pearl Harbor.
A great example..
A great example of the "Complete 9/11 Timeline" resource being put to good use is the film "Press for 9/11 Truth," which may be watched on Google Video at this link..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+for+...
Also, for those of you who have not downloaded the Google Video Player should not hesitate to do so.. It allows you to watch the videos full screen in DVD quality, and most importantly it lets you save the video to your hard drive! This is important because we need to worry about the potential for the switch being turned off on Google Video and YouTube immediately after then next 'event.' Please make a point to download and save as many important videos to your hard drive as possible, including Terrorstorm, ect..
I realize you're not addressing me exclusively
but FYI, I have seen it four times for various reasons and also organized a screening for 300 people. I'm very enthusiastic about it as a movie, but like quite a few other people here on this board, I have to make my endorsement of its central argument very qualified, because it does lend itself quite easily to a "brown people did it" interpretation (although an informed person can more easily see the nuances that go beyond that oversimplification.)
I really don't see what the issue here is....
thermite <---- supported by physical evidence (see FEMA report appendix C, etc.)
laser beams, <---- kooky, no evidence to support
big green lizards <----just stupid
just gravity <------ known to be impossible
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Please consider..
The evidence for controlled demolitions is strong, but there are a number of issues we should take into consideration.
Even though there is much evidence, the issue of bombs in the buildings is not perceived well by the general public who is freaked out by the whole issue of government involvement in first place. Often, 9/11 Truthers are so used to the subject that they forget the horror that the concept creates in general citizens, who often grasp for any idea which could be perceived as showing that the government was not involved.
On top of this, we need to remember that demolition theories are not technically "airtight," anyway.. They boil down to conflicting recollections of damage and conflicting scientific analysis of how the buildings would behave.
I agree right up until those last two sentences.
Of course we do not have an airtight collapse theory -- gee, maybe NIST might have used some of their their multi-million dollar budget to explain events after the buildings were "poised to collapse," but I guess they didn't wanna.
More and more, however, I believe that the physical impossibility (in the sense of violating laws of physics that are evident to anyone without any special training) of the "collapses" and consequent pulverization should be obvious, and only IS NOT obvious to someone to the extent that they were effectively "psy-opped" that day. (I'm not wild about the use of "psy-op" here, but it's the only alternative I can think of right now for "mind-fucked.") I disagree that corroborating analysis by structural engineers is necessary for someone to PERCEIVE the fact that the buildings did not fall down -- they exploded. I don't pretend to know how that was accomplished, but I am going to believe my own eyes.
Therefore, the question is, how do we effectively remedy what is perhaps the largest deliberate disruption of the public's cognitive processes in human history?
Is it even necessary though?
I think the point is that we don't even need to really bother trying with this issue, with the mountains of evidence about the multitude of other issues which exists.. CD is a hard sell to the general public.
Necessary for what?
Here's the rub, in all likelihood -- what are you hoping will happen? A new investigation by a government body, maybe a special prosecuter, that will lead to criminal indictment of the legendary "Ten Americans" whose names Sibel Edmonds saw? Prosecution of the many, many others who were complicit in a cover-up? Nuking Saudi Arabia?
My interest is in cultivating a grass-roots understanding of state-sponsored false flag terrorism, so that they CANNOT DO THIS TO US AGAIN.
Some ideas..
I agree wholeheartedly, what I would like to see is awareness of the big picture about 9/11 spreading to a larger portion of the population. I think the best way to do this is to increasingly summarize the necessary information for mainstream distribution, as well as re-examining how each aspect of the movement is perceived by the general public who resists the idea of government involvement.
Unfortunately the movement seemed to fall slightly short of achieving a necessary threshold for the midterm elections, as Bowman and others didn't make it in. So now it's more of an uphill battle as many mistakenly believe that more Democrats being in Congress will somehow help the situation sort itself out... All the more reason that it's time to re-examine strategies which haven't yet been effective enough.
Theoretically this is a democracy, ( although the voting machines are rigged.. ) so if we want real political change, we need to communicate to a broader spectrum of the population which hasn't been effectively been communicated to yet. Widespread knowledge can obviously have a great effect, including heading off the upcoming "Hillary vs. Guiliani" presidential race before they have a chance try that one.
Another important issue is that a lot of celebrities would like to go public, but many hesitate because they don't have a definitive resource to fall back on which is sufficiently free from unnecessary controversy.
When you think Judy, think Jetson
When you think Reynolds, think Wrap.
When you think of 9/11, think of building 7.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Makes me smile. :)
Makes me smile. :)
Redsock, please point out where the evidence for hijackers is...
And I do mean for hijackers actually hijacking planes on 9/11. Not being followed around while they hired strippers, snorted coke, and ate pork. I mean some images of them going through security at any of the airports where they are alleged to have boarded.
I know what impresses newcomers from having talked to hundreds of them in the streets. Building 7 impresses them. Why on earth would I bother trying to convince them that someone knew about some hijackers who no one can prove actually hijacked any planes?
Only, I would think, to preserve the evil Arab Muslim fairy tale, and distract attention from Larry "Boom Boom" Silverstein!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I agree
Building 7 is the best piece of evidence to show people to get them interested in learning more about what really happened on 9/11.
On one of edward35's previous blogs, he explained his reasoning behind why Building 7 shouldn't be presented to people:
http://911blogger.com/node/4310#comment
Here is what edward35 wrote:
It is reasonable to believe that WTC7 had received a relatively large amount of initial damage from the collapse of Tower 1, according to reports of many firefighters as well as some photographs which are relatively unclear.
It is important to note that the building did not collapse uniformly, but rather in two separate chunks, as the video footage shows on the following link.. ( watch the top clip carefully... )
http://wtc7.net/videos.html
'
Also, it could not have been a completely traditional demolition as there was no blast sounds as it fell. I've witnessed a demolition before, and believe me the blast is loud! "
After reading this I wrote:
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions."
[....]
"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."
Here's the complete interview with Bartmer (thanks to DBLS and the Louder Than Words crew):
SPEAKING OUT - An interview with Craig Bartmer
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2479540022152730536
More witnesses who heard "blast sounds" can be found at this link:
Demo Expert Confirms WTC-7 Was "Controlled Demolition"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2807
Also, this comment by you makes no sense to me at all:
"It is important to note that the building did not collapse uniformly"
Please clarify.
I'm reposting this here, because I didn't get a response from edward35 on his previous blog titled "Controlled Demolition Theories not a Guarantee".
Ed, do you still think there were no "blast sounds" and that the building didn't fall "uniformly"?
Why I think it's legitimate but not the "best"
I agree that the evidence is strong for CD, but I do not think it is the "best" issue to focus on. As I posted on the top of this thread, there definitely is conflicting recollections by emergency workers about the damage the building received. I liked the interview with Craig Bartmer, but there are also recollections on the record by other emergency workers who claim substantial damage to the building, as the following link shows..
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
Now it could be possible to say "well those who claim the massive damage are agents of the government, ect.." but the point I am trying to make is that conflicting recollections of the damage are the only thing to go on, and the conflicting scientific analysis of the collapse is based on it. So how could this be considered "airtight"? The general public will side with the "official" story as they are not pre-dispositioned to believe that their government is possible of such a terrible crime.
I want to be careful not to turn this discussion into "was it a controlled demolition or not," but one thing I find strange about the Building 7 collapse is the fact that there didn't seem to be any deafening bomb blasts when it fell.. I know that there are reports of hearing explosions, but none of the videos of the building collapsing have blast sounds on them, and reports of blast sounds are certainly not unanimous as they need to be. I've witnessed a controlled demolition before, and the blast sounds would definitely be loud enough to be heard by the closer video cameras if it was a purely standard demolition. Also, there were a lot of fires in the building which would have detonated many of the bombs prematurely.
So, maybe the laserbeam theory is the best one! ;-) But even if that could be the case, why bother communicating that, it just sounds too ridiculous. In my opinion, CD and NP are the Achilles heel of the truth movement as they are the main fodder for most of the debunking sites. And on top of it all, it is not even necessary to prove them to show complicity in the first place.
What else do you have...
besides the firehouse article. I've already seen that one. My take on it is that they were confused and were actually talking about the damage to the southwest corner. Their statements may have also been tampered with to suggest there was extensive damage to the South facade. Show me a videotape or photo that backs up the government's claims.
As for the fire in the building, the government has stated that it was caused after a fuel distribution pipe was breached and leaked fuel, which then caught fire and then caused fuel tanks stored in the building to catch fire. However, in order for this to happen, debris would have had to smash through more than half the building to breach this fuel distribution pipe, because the pipe was located in the North end of the building. There are absolutely no photos or videos showing this amount of alleged damage to the building. It's been over five years now and the government can't produce one video or photo showing this alleged damage.
It doesn't matter, though, because fire and structural damage doesn't cause modern steel-framed high-rise buildings to fall straight down "uniformly" into their footprint at freefall speeds. The only time this has ever been documented to happen before or after 9/11 was from the use of explosives being strategically placed in buildings to bring them down.
Here is some more information regarding Building 7 that you may not be aware of:
We have demolition experts and structural experts on public record confirming that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
We have witnesses who've stated that the government is lying about the amount of damage to the building's South face.
We have several witnesses who heard "blast sounds" before and during the building's demolition.
We have audiotape evidence of these "Blast Sounds" seconds before the building came down.
We have witnesses who were told that the building was going to be "brought down on purpose" several hours before Building 7 fell (We also have video evidence of Ground Zero workers admitting to this on 9/11 before the building came down).
We have several different angles on videotape that prove the building fell straight down "uniformly" into its footprint in six seconds.
We have video evidence of explosions occurring during the building's demolition.
We have photographic evidence suggesting that Building 7's steel columns were cut with explosives.
We have the owner of the building admitting on videotape that the building was "pulled".
We have controlled demolition experts on audio and videotape confirming that the term "pull it" is a controlled demolition term.
We have Danny Jowenko, who has nearly twenty years experience working in the field of controlled demolition, on videotape saying that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comments meant to bring the building down using explosives.
We have absolute proof that the government covered up the truth about Building 7.
Every individual that I've ever shown Building 7 evidence to in person have always been very interested in it and can't believe they've never heard about it before. Most people in the 9/11 truth movement usually say that the demolition of Building 7 is what convinced them that the government is lying about 9/11.
The mainstream media refuses to talk about Building 7. Whenever anyone in this movement gets an opportunity to appear on one of these shows and mentions Building 7, the meat puppets always divert attention away from it and bring up the Pentagon, or the no planes, or the jews (Space Beams are probably next, though, thanks to a couple of fucking traitors).
edward35, you're obviously entitled to your own opinions, however, most us in this movement do not agree with your Building 7 observations for good reason. But if you think there is better evidence to present to people, then by all means present them with the info that you feel is best. But don't be all disappointed when your little blogs about why we shouldn't talk about CD aren't taken seriously by most.
nobody has good evidence of what south side damage was
The problem is, I can't show you the damage to the south facade, and neither can you. Recollections from that day are the best evidence to go on, and the recollections conflict.
Im not so much trying to argue if it was a controlled demolition or not, but trying to show that it's a sloppy subject which is not technically "airtight," and fodder for hundreds of debunking sites.
If it was proven that there was no substantial damage to the south side, I would say go for it. But the fact that there is no real documentation of the damage to that side, and reason to believe that there was damage, as well as a testimony claiming massive damage, proves that the whole issue boils down to a "he said / she said," and the general public will side with the official story. Remember it is us as the accusers who need to prove the lack of damage to the south side, not the other way around.
Wether you consider the debunker's case to be legitimate or not, the general public seems to. There are many sites which offer to them what sounds to be a perfectly reasonable explanation of why it fell.
Thanks for exposing yourself as a liar!
First you jump onto this website and declare that no one heard Building 7 "blast sounds". I prove that you were full of shit -- however, you don't acknowledge your false statement and admit there were "blast sounds".
You also declare that Building 7 did not fall "uniformly", which is another one of your exposed lies that you failed to acknowledge and correct.
Now you're siding with the debunkers? HAHA!!!!!1111
Look Ed, you do your thing (which is apparently lying about Building 7 evidence) and the majority of the 9/11 truth movement will continue to do theirs, mmmkay?
notice there are fewer unemployed actors walking around?
9/11 shill -- great work if you can get it!
I, like, can't BELIEVE you people think Building 7 was demolished on purpose. it was, like, so obviously unclear as to why it collapsed. This is like, a mystery we'll never solve, you know? You're so like, hurting the movement.
BRAVO! ENCORE! A little more earnest bafflement and you've nailed it!!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
oh, oh.. ok..
I claimed that I've witnessed a controlled demolition before, and the blasts were deafeningly loud.. I said that there were reports of blast sounds, but the reports were not unanimous, and the blast sounds didn't show up on the well-known footage of the building falling as they should have if it was a traditional controlled demolition.
You haven't addressed the point that the issue boils down to conflicting recollections and conflicting scientific analysis, and the fact that the general public doesn't even receive it well anyway.
Also, your "sporting event" mentality of accusing me of "siding with the debunkers" suggests that you aren't so much interested in knowing what really happened as trying to force the perceptions to fit your preconceived notions.
@ Ed
I claimed that I've witnessed a controlled demolition before
I have too, what's your point?
I said that there were reports of blast sounds
You did? When? Where? When I called you on it on a previous blog, you ignored me and created another wack blog lumping Building 7 information in with No planes. You then go on to say...
but the reports were not unanimous
Says who? How many witnesses have you spoken with who were next to Building 7 for you to make such a statement? How many? How many told you they didn't hear "blast sounds"?
and the blast sounds didn't show up on the well-known footage of the building falling as they should have if it was a traditional controlled demolition.
How many of those tapes have sound on them? I have a tape where explosions can be clearly heard. Here have a listen:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zh5V1i-1NQ0
You haven't addressed the point that the issue boils down to conflicting recollections and conflicting scientific analysis, and the fact that the general public doesn't even receive it well anyway.
This is your "opinion". I disagree with it. It's a fact that reports suggesting controlled demolition heavily outweigh reports not suggesting it. The government's own reports show that the building shouldn't have fallen down from fire and debris damage. Even NIST is looking at CD now. And the public receives the information very well. Because once they see the building fall down with their own eyes they begin to ask "why" and why haven't they heard about it before? I don't know one person (who I trust) who's looked at Building 7 evidence and then concluded that the building didn't come down from explosives -period.
Also, your "sporting event" mentality of accusing me of "siding with the debunkers" suggests that you aren't so much interested in knowing what really happened as trying to force the perceptions to fit your preconceived notions.
I'm not trying to force anything. You're the one that has created blogs about why we shouldn't talk about Building 7, not me. I'm just making it crystal clear to you that no matter what YOU say about CD, most in this movement won't agree with you. You've already exposed yourself as a person who isn't familiar with much of the information I've posted. You didn't even know that people reported hearing "blast sounds". You used this as one of your main talking points on why we shouldn't talk about WTC7. Well that's gone now. It's been proven that there were. You also made some lame point about the building not falling "uniformly" giving you another reason why we shouldn't talk about Building 7. Well that's gone now too, because the building did fall "uniformly" without a doubt. Who are you trying to fool here with such obvious disinformation about Building 7?
My advice to you is; know the facts about something before you encourage others to ignore facts that you yourself weren't aware of to begin with.
As far as what you consider to be better 9/11 info to present to people, I don't have a problem with whatever you decide to present to people. If you think that talking about Building 7 or anything else shouldn't be talked about then fine. No one's stopping ya. Like I said before, you do your thing and the rest of us will do ours.
re:
How can it be an "opinion" that there are conflicting recollections about the damage the building received and conflicting scientific analysis of how it fell? I think the whole issue boils down to those two points in terms of the general public being receptive to the idea, and it makes it a prime target for debunkers.
Also, look at this footage.. where are the blast sounds?
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Anyway, I'm not even trying to say that it wasn't a controlled demolition, but only to be aware that the debunkers like to feed off of this issue due to it's potential for multiple interpretations.
re: video
The video you posted was edited. You can tell this by the two separate shots in the video (the building falls then cuts to people observing), however, the same audio carries over underneath both shots. Also one of the shots is from a camera mounted on a tripod and the other is a hand-held camera. It's impossible to know which camera recorded this audio. The explosions may have also been edited out on purpose.
But like I said before, watch this video, you can clearly hear the explosions:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zh5V1i-1NQ0
No alternatives given
This entry states the possible shortcomings of CD and NP arguments but makes no attempt to list other more "concrete" evidence that we could use instead. What exactly do you have in mind if you don't want to discuss CD or WTC7? These two are the biggest pieces of evidence IMHO. It is physically impossible for the three towers to have collapsed due to any other reason other than CD. There was red-hot metal at Ground Zero for 99 days. Squibs. Thermite residue. Heat flows resembling pyroclastic flows. Concrete pulverised into a fine dust. There is so much "concrete" evidence in the collapses of the buildings, I don't know of any more concrete evidence except perhaps Mike Ruppert's investigation into the 9/11 wargames or Mineta's testimony.
Fuck Judy Wood
Fuck Morgan Reynolds.
Fuck Uncle Fetzer.
Fuck 'em all.
We don't need 'em and we especially don't need their useful idiots who promote their nonsense.
If you're so "shocked & saddened" there's other places for you to go.
Hey Andrew,
I do happen to think you're fair minded and that's why I posted a response to you in another thread about Wood's paper that I intended to be substantive (and not "meta" as one poster has been describing our tendency to overlap discussion of both hypotheses and the way hypotheses are likely to be received.) My opinion is that it is sorely lacking supportive data and pretty much a flight of fancy at this point.
I think there are one or two other threads, though, where posters like Seve B are responding in detail to the content of the paper, and attempting to demonstrate impartially where her work lacks scientific merit. I think Arabesque has, too.
An ocean of alternatives ready to go..
Ive listed many other categories of concrete evidence as well as a link of the resource containing a comprehensive list of cited mainstream news articles containing the necessary proof to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Some categories:
- prior examples of government sponsored terrorism
- prior stated intentions related to the attacks
- prior knowledge of the attacks
- blocked investigations before the attacks
- behavior during the attacks
- blocked investigations after the attacks
- disinformation put out about the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
I think it is better to summarize mainstream news articles, declassified documents, and audio / video testimony by key individuals about the big picture, rather than overly focusing on demolition theories which are legitimate but technically cannot be considered "airtight."
"airtight"?
I think when experts confirm that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, it's safe to say that it can be considered "airtight".
So I'll continue to tell everyone about Building 7 being an "airtight" controlled demolition. If you have a problem with that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Here's a poll I created a while back regarding this:
http://www.jackbloodforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9567
You're welcome to vote for what you think is the best topic to discuss.
aren't you just mr. friendly
aren't you just mr. friendly today!
I'll give you a point for
I'll give you a point for that one :)
absolutely not airtight.
There is no proof of the lack of damage to the south side. And just because a few experts say controlled demolition does not make it airtight, because there are tons who say otherwise as well. You don't understand what I mean by "airtight."
Also, of course a poll on Jack Blood will be receptive to controlled demolition. I'm talking about how the general public feels about it.
There are really two separate issues here
or at least two.
How do you pique people's curiosity and how do you present a credible case for "inside job"? For piquing curiosity, I think Building 7 has it hands down over Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, etc. For taking a person whose curiosity has been aroused and leading them toward information about means, motive, and opportunity, by all means haul out your trusty Complete 9/11 Timeline.
There are many people who just don't care. They aren't curious. That's hurdle number one.
People are anxious to know that it is not the case..
Government involvement in the 9/11 attacks is a stressful issue for the general public, and they will grasp for any explanation which will reassure them that this is not the case.
CD and NP theories draw a lot of attention, and then are able to easily be debunked, either legitimately or not, thus discrediting the entire movement in the eyes of the general public.
People need to know the big picture of what happened including why and how, and the dangers of it happening again.
That's issue number three
and denial due to anxiety is a huge one. Or more simply, you might just label it "denial" in its sense as a psychological term -- irrational refusal to accept facts that cause cognitive dissonance or that produce anxiety for other reasons.
When you say "NP" though, what do you mean? No Plane at the Pentagon is better kept completely distinct from No Plane at the WTC, especially on this board.
CD is not easily debunked on a legitimate basis, in my opinion. I think we're going to agree to disagree about that. And because, as I have said, I personally didn't even think about 9/11 until I ran across Steven Jones' work, I tend to think it's a good tactic to get someone's attention. Not everyone's, I'm sure.
re:
When I say NP I mean at Pentagon.
I don't think CD can be truly debunked easily, but I don't think it can be absolutely proven easily either.. in my mind it is a "stalemate," both sides of the issue can claim "victory" as there are issues where it comes down down to conflicting recollections of damage and conflicting scientific analysis. So taking this into account and factoring in people's predisposition toward information showing that the government wasn't involved, this is a problem for the truth movement, especially when the CD issue takes precedence to people being informed on the big picture. If people don't first know the overall background of what happened, they are all the less likely to accept CD.
It 's absolutely airtight...
Because no matter how much damage the South facade received, the building shouldn't have fallen the way it did -- straight down symmetrically into its footprint in six seconds.
And when you factor in the rest of the information such as:
"Blast sounds" which were recorded on tape and heard by lots of people
Rescue workers who were told to move away from the building because it was going to be "brought down on purpose"
No video or photographic evidence to support the government's claims regarding the amount of damage that the South face allegedly suffered
Controlled demolition experts and structural experts confirming that the building was brought down by explosives
Visual evidence that the building was brought down via controlled demolition
The owner of the building admitting that the building was "Pulled"
Motive for destroying the building, which housed offices of the CIA, FEMA, SEC, Secret Service who've admitted that thousands of cases they were working on went down with the building.
The obvious cover-up of Building 7 by the government, i.e, destroying the crime scene & shipping off the steel to places like china before proper examination for explosives could be conducted, the complete omission of Building 7 from the 9/11 cOmmision Report, the media blackout, and on and on and on...
All of this makes the case for Building 7 being a CD extra airtight.
You'll note that for edward
even theories that can be debunked illegitimately are by definition not airtight. I don't think you guys are ever going to be on the same page about this.
Just for the record
I don't have a problem with almost everything he's posted. I just think he should research Building 7 a little more before telling others not to talk about it. He obviously didn't before he created this blog.
I do regret calling him a liar, though. I think I jumped the gun. Sorry for that Ed and for being less than civil with you at times.