Has the truth movement been damaged by an over emphasis on CD Evidence? PLEASE VOTE
AllendeAdmirer Thu, 11/05/2009 - 4:35pm
A lot of suggestions have been made here recently that the movement needs to change the way in which it has been perceived.
The reason given for this is that people have been put off, and the movement damaged by an over emphasis on evidence for Controlled Demolition.
For what it is worth , I will place two comments below , one to agree, and one to disagree.Please cast your vote for BOTH comments (either up or down)
- AllendeAdmirer's blog
- Login to post comments
People HAVE NOT been put
People HAVE NOT been put off, and the movement is NOT DAMAGED by an over emphasis on evidence for Controlled Demolition.
PLEASE VOTE up or down both answers
Never voted on 911BLOGGER. How do you do it ?
Never voted on 911BLOGGER. How do you do it ?
...
OR
That's where you click to vote comments up or down.
merci
merci
How do YOU make the case for CD to the public?
Everyone voting, please explain as concisely as possible how you present the idea that WTC 1, 2 &/or 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition
How do you do it online, and in the carbon world?
What articles/videos/websites do you present to people?
What are the reactions you get- the questions, objections, agreement? And how do you respond?
EDIT: Personally, I think it's pretty obvious from watching videos of the destruction of WTC 1&2, that there's no way plane damage, jet fuel/office fires and 15-30 stories of building mass could pulverize the lower stories of redundantly-reinforced steel structure and concrete into rapidly inflating dust clouds "essentially in free fall", to quote NIST- and explosives could. WTC 7 is really obvious. NIST didn't explain how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed- they essentially just said it happened, after 'collapse initiation'. And the idea that the failure of a single column brought down 7 just like a controlled demolition, when their own computer model stops short after initiation and doesn't look like the actual event, is absurd.
I think the most compelling research has been done by http://911Research.WTC7.net and http://JournalOf911Studies.com. Richard Gage makes a very persuasive case, primarily building on the research of those 2 orgs. My own summary with recommended links is here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/911-truth-part-7-of-11-lies-about-the-collapses-of-world-trade-center-1-2-7-and-“the-air-is-safe-to-breathe”/
Whenever there's significant developments, such as journal submissions being published, I spread the news online and tell people in my own circle. If I'm starting a conversation with someone, I'll bring up whatever's on my mind- if it's the WTC destruction, I'll probably ask them if they knew a 3rd building collapsed on 9/11, WTC 7, and if they've seen video of it, and I might describe it. When attacked by debunkers while publicizing the Harrit paper, I've pointed out that high tech thermitic material was found in the dust (what's it doing there?), and that the study was published in a refereed journal, and it's being reviewed by peers all over the world. On the web, people are claiming the material is paint, or that it occurred naturally due to rust and aluminum plane/cladding being mixed- but then why has no refutation/rebuttal been published? And paint doesn't ignite explosively and produce molten iron when heated to just over 400C- and nano-engineered material with explosive properties doesn't occur naturally either. The questions raised by the paper have not been answered.
In my experience, the finer details don't make sense to people who haven't looked into it themselves, though it may make them curious. However, so do questions about- why was nothing done by the Bush Administration/CIA/FBI/DOD despite numerous warnings? Who made the insider trades and why were the investigations shut down? Why were there no intercepts/no air cover over DC? Why was the 9/11 Commission stacked w/ insiders and why'd they ignore/distort evidence and questions like these? Etc. These points are often easier to grasp- and the polls show people already know there's been a cover up, and are already supportive of a new investigation. However, people are busy, many are not political, and most people are probably still unaware that the majority of relevant facts point to powerful people in the US govt and military-industrial complex, along with their counterparts in Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, assisting, enabling and even engineering the attacks, and this is what's being covered up. That's a huge concept for a people socialized to be apolitical consumers. But people know there's been a cover up, and that's grounds alone for an investigation. Of course, if it's treason and not just incompetence being covered up, exposing those responsible and removing them from power makes the need for a full investigation even more compelling and obvious- and terrifying. But people have to come to their own realizations and make their own choices about these things. I don't think brow-beating people is going to win anyone over, and it could alienate potential allies. Already, due to the association with bogus claims and evidence, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been turned into a tar baby that credible journalists and govt accountability orgs are skeptical of.
The CD evidence is compelling to many, but it's not compelling to all. As Jon has pointed out, attempts have been made to use it against the 9/11 Truth Movement, while other evidence is usually ignored; the MSM bring up the CD claims and the obviously bogus claims, and ignore other indisputable evidence the OCT is false/not credible. Early on, people like Morgan Reynolds and Wing TV would present CD evidence, as well as bogus claims like no planes or 'only the Zionists' (aka the JEWS). When Dr. Jones appeared on the scene, Fester and Wood also appeared and numerous attempts were made to discredit Jones by association with them and their bogus claims and unfair attacks. Jon has pointed out that Press for Truth has been favorably reviewed, even by people/orgs that are more 'mainstream'. And in recent years, the work of Jones, Gage and now Harrit has gotten balanced coverage by some 'mainstream' media. It may be those in the MIC who aided and abetted/planned 9/11 figured the lie about WTC 'collapse' would be too big to fail- perhaps they didn't count on the power of the web to circumvent Establishment-controlled media. Perhaps it's too late- the NIST reports are a fraud, and no better case is going to be made- how long can they keep pretending, in this Network Age, when the younger generations are the most likely to use the independent media, and the least likely to believe the 9/11 and other lies? But activists should be aware of how certain evidence and claims have been used to discredit and divide the movement.
Anyway, i don't subscribe to the notion that CD has to be the central claim, and that those who don't promote it are traitors or shills. I have an issue with people who make bogus claims and act disruptively. I have no issue with people that make a credible case for CD, or with those who make a credible case there's been no investigation and there needs to be a new one.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Working it out on your own is best
First, take the time to understand the facts, and the rest is simple from there, as then you can make your own arguments and only cite sources for facts as needed. Of course you'll find many so firm with their faith in the official conspiracy theory that they will dance around the facts regardless how you present them, but that is inevitable in any discussion of 9/11 due to the massive emotional effect it holds over people, and all you can do is expose such individuals fallacious arguments for what they are. Being able to always point out fallacies in the arguments against CD is what makes it important, as other evidence can be disputed by arguments of probability, which does take many weak arguments, but not ones which are irrefutably wrong. That said, I do recommend sticking to the fall of WTC7 in particular, as that as the towers require greater understanding of physics to come to terms with the fact that they were brought down by CD, and hence make for a more complicated discussion than that of WTC7.
----------------
KyleBisMe
This is the NEXT thing LN.
This is the NEXT thing LN. I will spend time collecting or inventing both common sense and newtonian proofs of CD next.
The first thing was to establish whether the question of this vote was a widely accepted view.
Just because CD is attacked does not mean it is inconclusive. In fact it means the opposite, as the debunkers can be proven to be fallacious.
I cant believe that you guys are actually using this as a reason why CD should be "demoted."
In the BBC and other programs, CD Evidence was mentioned but not adequately presented and it was Framed within emotional arguments and many propaganda techniques. I actually think that if we ever get anywhere, the 2 BBC conspiracy files programs (and the exclusion of any other real debate on their channels) are very condemning evidence of cynical propaganda and purposeful disinfo. The nano thermite paper has never even been mentioned in the MSM as far as I know.
Personally, the most damning thing I have ever seen in these programs , Is when victims emotively accuse people like Jon of fallaciously representing them when they don't actually believe 911 truth. This is a very damning and effective strategy against 911 truth.
First of all...
When I do talk about the families, I MAKE SURE to mention that I do not represent them and do not speak for them. Secondly, I have never seen a family member say that people like me are fallaciously representing them. Do you have an example of this?
Here is what I HAVE seen.
As I said, the REALITY is that there are family members who don't know how and why their loved ones were murdered. I know A LOT of them personally, and correspond with them regularly.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
The BBC Conspiracy files
The BBC Conspiracy files program for a start. There is one responder who suggests we are muckraking but he was there and knows what happened.
The article on this site a few days ago http://www.911blogger.com/node/21739
I did not mean specifically YOU Jon, but the tactic is very well established and effective
The
REALITY is that there are family members who don't know how and why their loved ones were murdered.
I'm not going to be faulted for crying too many times to count, for doing everything within my power for people like Bob Mcilvaine, Lorie Van Auken, or the 100 other family members that managed to find out about the NYC CAN effort, and willingly put their endorsements to it (do you think only 100 feel as we do? Bill Doyle said 50% do). Or the 2004 statement that had 50 family members endorsing it.
Let them use that argument. Let them bring as much attention to the families as possible.
Edit: The families' experience with regards to 9/11 make them invaluable. I've said countless times, the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, that monitored the 9/11 Commission and went to every hearing, that worked alongside the staffers of the 9/11 Commission, that supplied 100's of well researched questions for the 9/11 Commission to answer, have declared the 9/11 Commission a failure, and have asked for a new investigation. They KNOW what they are talking about, more than anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement, so that is a huge asset, and an argument I wish I would see more people making.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
"the tactic is very well established and effective"
regarding that article about the Hemenways:
"One group disputes the evidence given by the United States government about what happened on September 11, 2001. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth say they have indisputable forensic evidence that contradicts at least part of the government's accounts of what happened. The Hemenways deny the government that their son worked for is behind the attacks that killed so many American men and women.
"It just makes me angry that people can make money off of a tragedy like this by giving people ideas like it may have happened another way or all that kind of stuff," said Hemenway."
It's clearly implied, but not directly stated, that the Hemenways are objecting specifically to CD claims. Strangely, the video doesn't show them making any statements alt claims (including CD)- did i miss it?. And AE911Truth.org doesn't claims "the government" did it; they present evidence of CD, evidence the NIST reports are false, and Gage has gone on record many times saying it's not reasonable to assume Al Qaeda is responsible for the CD.
In any case, the Hemenways example doesn't support your argument, AA, as it's entirely about CD, and as usual, this MSM report ignores the great body of other evidence. The Bush Administration and now the Obama Administrations are covering up the role Saudi intelligence and royals played in funding and providing logistical support to the alleged hijackers- this is treasonous. 6000 family members joined in a lawsuit that would have made evidence public http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/29/supreme-court-quashes-911-lawsuit... I wonder if the Hemenways were part of that? Involvement by Saudi royals/intelligence isn't part of the OCT- it contradicts it. This evidence being made public would obviously raise other questions. The Bush family is very closely tied to the Saudi royals. And that's just one of the very many lines of questioning that have been left open, that the Commission ignored.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
I was talking about
I was talking about propaganda techniques here. In both examples the point made is that the participant/ victim does not support 911 truth.
They are not specific about what aspect of it, just by implication the whole thing.
I was not questioning the number of family on board 911 or their efforts or Jons work on their behalf.
I was making a point that yes CD has been attacked within propaganda, but so has the notion that families are 911 truthers.
By just finding one and telling their opinion, even though the vast majority of families might be on board(I dont know) they excluded the others to distort the reality.
The point was only in the context that if in propaganda , the evidence is misrepresented and used against you, the argument you should not use it again, is false.
(Particularly the first BBC conspiracy file which used a lot of emotive suggestion that families want to let it lie (Disgraceful)
In the same way we have to come back and say look, you misrepresented the views of the families, we can also say look you misrepresented CD.
It was not an argument against the concerns of the family or their profile, it was the opposite saying just because someone twists it against you, you dont give up on it
speaking for myself
as i've said, I've publicized evidence repeatedly on CD, and in these recent threads I've repeatedly said i think it's compelling, and it needs to be investigated. MSM hit pieces don't give a fair presentation of the CD evidence, they appeal to NIST's authority, and paint inquiry as crazy. False arguments like that work on some people, but can be easily exposed as such in dialogue with people that are rational/open-minded, and people that aren't, are unlikely to reconsider their prejudices anyway.
However, Jon has made some really valid points:
1) There's a lot of hard evidence other than CD, but the MSM focus on that instead of other evidence/claims- why give em ground? Why is the overwhelming amount of promotion being done by activists now focused on CD, when the MSM consider it fodder for their hit pieces? Is that a good tactic? Perhaps giving equal time to the other evidence is a good idea- then the case can be more easily made the truth movement isn't just about CD- and some are trying to make it that way.
2) Why DO the MSM in their hit pieces choose to focus on CD (in addition to clearly bogus/unsupported/even more controversial claims, such as holograms, '757 didn't hit the Pentagon', voice morphed phone calls)? Jon has suggested it's cuz 'collapse' is such a BIG lie, the public will have a harder time disbelieving it, even with hard evidence it's not true.
Polls already show the vast majority are already inclined to believe there's been a cover up- which may be why the MSM almost NEVER bring up the other evidence that has been widely publicized by activists; the ignored warnings, obstructed investigations, air defense failures, coincident war games, insider trading, etc. etc. Do you think the MSM will ever focus on those issues in their hit pieces?
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Can you show me where the
Can you show me where the MSM reported the Nanotherite paper.
Can you show me where the MSM actally represented CD evidence fairly and then attacked that?
Its the f**ing MSM for f*** sake !! who do you think they are or what their role is?
Are you insinuating they are not fair and balanced HOW DARE YOU.
Forget MSM they have always been ,are and always will be against us unless we achieve CHANGE
If we change message they will only refocus their lying feedback to that
I have already won this argument. Just because something is twisted against you in MSM
you dont give up on the evidence.You are suggesting this again.Your new comment says nothing new, repeats your previous comments, and does not answer mine you are nit picking
As for point 1 I have said as many times as Jon has posted links to HIS facts that there should be diversity, but not a withdrawal from CD which is the strongest thing.we have. Why keep banging on about "some people" trying to make everything CD, you were the ones suggesting changes in the direction of the movement. Jon said may things undermining CD. That is something else QED
Dont waste my time any more with your distraction from the arguments I did make. You did not bother to address them but nit picked instead.
Jon's selection of alternative evidence was tailored to his personal crusade.
It had problems but he was immune to constuctive criticism.
Dont pretend that his blatant bill posting of his facts was not part of this move to "change the way we are perceived".
along with inclusion of discredited lihop ideas which would not be acceptable to many.
You should have discussed it, canvassed opinion and asked for collaboration , but you just went right ahead with a campaign to change the focus of the movement.
Oh I know, lets all spread the info that Bush was re elected as a proof of 911 criminality? Lets see how good that one works eh Jon?
Which fact...
Talks about the election?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
#46 does not mention
#46 does not mention election so I actually deliberately lied about "election" to discredit you.
Oh well I guess that negates everything I have said that you have'nt addressed yet.
Lets all take #46 (Without election) and use that to change the world- it's bound to work!
The fact is I am really tired of all this, I am continually writing on the fly to counter all the side swipes that are off target anyway.
I am just going to pull the plug now.
Good Luck !
#46...
Talks about how the 9/11 attacks gave Bush massive popularity within this country, and how no one wanted to oppose him (you know... cause that helped him to launch the wars, and stuff that he wanted to do). I have no idea what you're talking about. As for posting my facts piece, I did it because I'm proud of it, not to change the direction of anything. Did you know that was even posted on Rawstory.com? And my "personal crusade" is to bring justice, and accountability for the 9/11 attacks. Justice for the families, justice for us, healthcare for the responders, and an end to the "Post-9/11 World." I didn't know that was a problem.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
And when did you decide to
And when did you decide to spread the Hundreds of links across this site to your selection of the most important evidence Jon?
(Distorting its importance to the Lurkers here you are so worried about.)
It was the same time in the last few weeks that you declared "We need to change the way the movement is perceived", and made repeated comments that "you have to be a structural engineer to understand CD", and although you admitted you weren't ,and could not understand it yourself, you were confident enough in your understanding of it to tell me that "CD was not as conclusive or valuable as I thought it was".
It was not your list that was the problem .it is the blanket bill posting of it with every single comment you make.
No one should have been allowed to prioritize evidence on this site in such a HIGH PROFILE manner.
No one should have been allowed to prioritize evidence on this s
"No one should have been allowed to prioritize evidence on this site in such a HIGH PROFILE manner."
I've repeatedly explained to you that everyone is welcome to put whatever they want in their own blog and comment signature- as long as it does not violate the rules. What is in your own blog and comment sig reflects the individual's views, not 911Blogger policy.
How is it that you are still making that claim?
Obviously, you've noticed that CD evidence is the single-greatest focus of users at 911blogger in recent years, and there's more news posted about CD by more users than any other single issue. Why does it bother you so much that Jon is attempting to reintroduce some balance, and offering his own opinion on the value/dangers of this shift in the movement- which did not start happening until 2005/6?
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
"Obviously, you've noticed
"Obviously, you've noticed that CD evidence is the single-greatest focus of users at 911blogger in recent years"
That may have been true in the past, but an analysis of articles that made it to your front page here in the last month shows:.
There have been more articles demonstrating Islamic terrorism than CD Evidence.
There have been more articles giving credence to Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds who refuse to support CD(Thus undermining it) than articles with pro CD evidence.
There have been quite a few articles about JFK feeding the 911truth=Conspiracy obsession myth.
There has also been concerted promotion within commentary of the idea that there is an over emphasis on CD.
There has been severe hounding of people who question the existence of ANY evidence that proves Muslim terrorists had some responsibility for the 911 attacks .
You have also managed to miss this recent valuable addition to the conclusive nature of CD
http://liamscheff.com/daily/2009/11/06/collapse-or-explosion/
You may argue that this is in part because of the Nidal Hasan story which is current news, so I will reserve judgment to see if this is a policy change or just a 'bad month' for CD here.
Oh no...
Not articles giving credence to heroes Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds... say it isn't so... whatever are we to do?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Straight in to answer the
Straight in to answer the point rather than attack minutiae as always JON.
BTW you still have not answered my suggestion that even if you could prove all the links to Islamic terrorists on 911 that you wanted to, by highlighting that evidence rather than concentrating on criminality of the us in 911, You are sapping the motivation of would be truthers to want to do anything new about 911.
Did you know...
Nafeez Ahmed, one of the biggest contributors to 9/11 Truth in the history of this movement, someone that focuses on "Islamic terrorists" (or "our terrorists"... or to put it another way, "criminality of the us in 911") is a Muslim?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Once again your blindness to
Once again your blindness to the difference between Islamic terrorists being either patsys or controlled black ops, and independant terrorist organizations is astounding. It is your mission to keep promoting this stuff, it has no value either way with regards towards changing what is wrong in the West, and it is detrimental to motivation for would be truthers.
Exposing...
The "War on Terror" as a farce using the fact that elements within the U.S. Government use "Islamic terrorists" to commit terrorist acts has no value with regards to changing "what is wrong in the West?" Sorry, but I don't agree. Incidentally, I know the difference between "Islamic Terrorists" being funded, trained, and used by our Government, and legitimate "Islamic Terrorists" who commit terrorist acts because of America's Foreign Policies in that region, as well as Israel's. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
The "Heroes" will be the
The "Heroes" will be the ones who by their actions cause change.
Change that I assume we all agree is necessary?
In the long run, the 'Heroic' nature of so called whistle blowers who are also simultaneously undermining evidence of US criminality in 911 is yet to be established.
I didn't know...
That they were underminding evidence of U.S. criminality in 9/11. If anything, their actions, and information support it. Oh, you mean because they don't openly endorse Controlled Demolition... did you know that OTHER criminality took place on the part of the U.S. and 9/11?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
So by this argument you
So by this argument you disprove my suggestion that (at least in the last month) the statement that "the greatest focus of evidence on this site is in favor of CD" is not true? Which was my point that you have chosen to ignore as always.
Nailing jelly to a wall ! Pointless waste of time!
Are you totally incapable of debate? you always answer valid points with diversions.
Again no point in continuing this one then, Cheers!
What are you talking about?
Have you bothered looking under "recent headlines?" There are 27 headlines listed. 16 have to do with "Controlled Demolition." Sorry, but it is true. Sorry that some articles not having to do with Controlled Demolition were posted in the last month. Heaven forbid that ever happens.
By the way, I beat a professional 9/11 debunker in a debate.
Edit: Take notice of what this recent article by Curley focuses on.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
I was referring to the
I was referring to the articles that made it to the 'news' section in the last month.
(More diversion away from my point by you here Jon)
Whatever may have been the focus in the past, it clearly has not been this month.
Like I said maybe it was a bad month for CD, but I am going to be wary to the possibility that this is a new policy here,
ie to promote minority interests within the 911 truth movement at the expense of its most damaging evidence.
By the way, what was your opinion on the new CD evidence piece that I mentioned that never found its way here.
http://liamscheff.com/daily/2009/11/06/collapse-or-explosion/
Do you think that is not as valuable or conclusive as I might think?
Did you try posting it?
Oh look, another party heard from with regards to our "most damaging evidence."
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
And what Do You think of
And what Do You think of it?
Myself, I would rather make a point about how efficient this site has become at finding selecting and presenting valuable evidence
The discussion...
Is not whether or not CD is proven. The discussion is whether or not the "over emphasis on cd evidence" has damaged 9/11 Truth.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
On the links you posted
It is not CD that makes Pat Curley write hit pieces.
Arcterus says he has more success convincing people of what I assume you would call 'simple aspects' (NORAD here) before bringing up CD, and worries about hit pieces. Fine. But he misunderstands how proof is obtained. Is it suprising he finds it hard to convince people of something he apparently doesn't understand himself?
His only reference to anyone agreeing with him is yourself and zbh on a truth action thread.
Also, you say the proof of CD is not the discussion but both links you posted 'argue' against it.
Apparently you're the one who doesn't understand "proof"
"Proof" is something conclusive which shows something to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is plenty of "evidence", a very different thing, to support controlled demolition, but there are basic legal clearances we can't bypass without proper authorization if we hope to get anything to "prove" CD.
Meanwhile, evidence of government complicity in and of itself can be easily proven. There are basic, documented facts which simply CAN NOT be ignored if we want to have any real success in the movement.
From the article
"..proof could only be feasibly and legally obtained via a new investigation for the proper clearance."
Poppycock.
By the way, I beat a
"By the way, I beat a professional 9/11 debunker in a debate."
If you are such a master debater then why are you incapable of arguing on point instead of diverting?
I have addressed every point you've made.
I'm done talking to you. You make no sense.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
What's shocking
"It's clearly implied, but not directly stated, that the Hemenways are objecting specifically to CD claims."
I realise only CD is mentioned in the article, but I got the impression the Hemenways were more convinced that some guys in Guantanamo did it, and that someone might be making money. It is biased towards the Hemenways, but I am unsure how the exact wording of articles like that can be manipulated through such blunt, macro-level changes of direction.
If the best evidence was something else, the media would attack that instead. Of course, they also promote and attack disinfo, but CD isn't. That they feel it necessary to attack CD (at least by insinuation) is surely not a good reason to push it less. It is conclusive, after all.
Regarding the family members, why do you think people will not have faith in the supreme courts' decision to quash the lawsuit?
If we're talking about getting people's attention, then everyone knows that Saudi intelligence agencies are dodgy, but they're also complex, secretive and boring. This is not the stuff that successful movements are made from! Jon talks a lot about simplicity and I agree with that. We need the biggest bang for the buck (or the second), and CD gives it.
"I am unsure how the exact
"I am unsure how the exact wording of articles like that can be manipulated through such blunt, macro-level changes of direction."
Not sure what you mean by that; please rephrase
"Regarding the family members, why do you think people will not have faith in the supreme courts' decision to quash the lawsuit?"
Who, the general public? Are you saying among those that actually paid attention to that news, that most people will be of the view the SCOTUS simply did the right thing, by the law/Constitution/treaties, etc.? I bet some will, however others are going to view as an effort by the Establishment to appease/protect the Saudis cuz of oil, or to prevent disclosure damaging to the OCT. Personally, I haven't researched the relevant legal arguments/precedents, but it's clear one ramification is the evidence implicating Saudis isn't going to be aired in that court case. Effectively, it's another obstruction of justice, even if the SCOTUS decision was legally sound.
I think I gave my views on your other points, in reply to AA
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Rephrasing
I just mean that the problem with the article isn't that it mentions CD, rather that they apply the usual spin, and that they would have applied spin regardless of which organization they focused on (AE911 or whoever). We can't change their tendency to do this by simply emphasising something else, they would just spin that.
btw maybe they chose to mention CD/AE911 because that line of evidence has a large organization promoting it. That is, there is no 'secret service members for 911 truth' campaigning for full disclosure of Saudi involvement (say).
With regard to the court case, I was referring to the general public. I assume most people following the case find it very suspect, but this is a minority. To the public, it will probably sound no more suspicious than Bush flying Bin Ladens out of the country in the days after 911, and simply 'business as usual'. They expect intelligence agencies to operate 'above' the law, and any really incriminating evidence is simply declared a threat to national security anyway.
What I'm trying to say is that most everyone is highly suspicious (at least) of the Bush mob, the Saudi RF etc. already. And the establishment already has an apparatus in place to deal with these sorts of issues.
However with CD (and specifically the late demolition of WTC7) the 911 movement has something revolutionary.
good points
true nuf, one reason CD is the sole claim noted in the article is cuz AE911Truth.org is the largest and most visible collection of experts on any 9/11 issue, it has the most active and organized outreach campaign. I agree, video of the destruction is the single most recognizable, memorable 'shock and awe' aspect of 9/11, it's the one thing everyone remembers above all else about 9/11, more than the fact that there were so many warnings and no air defense and bogus 'investigations'. It's also an 'exciting' issue which isn't complex on its face, though the science involved can be complex. Seeing video of WTC 7, it's obvious, while the air defense/ignored warnings may seem more ambiguous, possibly explainable by 'incompetence' or 'negligence, and the pretend investigations which held no one accountable could be attributed to typical govt bureaucrat ass-covering. This would seem to be one reason CD is the main thing many activists focus on- and I would expect architects, engineers, physicists, chemists to be primarily interested in the destruction of WTC 1, 2&7. Political scientists, sociologists, economists, law enforcement/military/intel pros, etc. would be interested in other aspects. When closely examined, and the big picture is looked at, even w/o CD, however, it's still clear the OCT false, and the most logical conclusion is that whatever role Bin Laden/AQ played, the attacks were facilitated by state-level actors, including US persons/orgs.
And if there were no CD, the MSM would still be using disingenuous tactics to make a pretense of debunking, and they would still be highlighting hoaxes
http://www.oilempire.us/media-strategy.html
http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
As I've said, i think CD should be investigated- i don't think it needs to be anyone's primary focus, or the movement's main focus. I think all the evidence eventually needs to be addressed, but it doesn't all need to be addressed by every activist. I think people should speak to what they know, what they're confident of- and I think activists would be wise to research what they're talking about, as well as familiarize themselves with the huge body of other evidence that contradicts the OCT. There have been many bogus claims made and disruptive figures so far- activists should be aware of attempts to disrupt/divide/distract/discredit, and not get taken in- and there have been attempts to discredit good CD research- space beams, mini-nukes, etc.. Claiming that people HAVE to 'believe'/promote CD, or that it HAS to be the central focus, is off-base/divisive, imho- whether those making that claim mean well or not. CD has BECOME the central claim; this didn't begin happening until 2005/6.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Convincing people
I agree with most everything you said, but I do think it's a good thing that some people make CD their primary focus! CD has already been investigated in a way, in that NIST's 2008 admission of freefall is sufficient proof in a scientific sense, and that is really not complex. But of course it should be investigated further (nanothermite etc.), and more people need to find out.
I agree that if the lasers etc. were deliberate disinfo then they were mainly there to discredit CD, as much as the movement itself. I watched those other theories come and go, and never found them at all convincing, but you must admit there was something compelling about Wood going 'Where did the buildings go?' - that was a good thought for people to be thinking. Even wildly incorrect theories are to be expected, and may contain some truth.
Since 2006 CD has been on scientific high ground and has gained us a huge number of experts. I believe it now indirectly lends credibility to whatever other evidence is being presented. It is a shame that it was used against us in the past, but the movement as a whole is more critical now, and resilient to attack.
People shouldn't be required to believe CD. That's a bit religious for my liking, and would obviously diminish the movement. But I do think that people should generally try to stay away from those discussions if their purpose is simply to convince people to focus on other evidence, unless they try to explain why they don't believe CD, or at least present a half convincing argument. This will cut down the friction and benefit everyone.
Finally, I agree that people should try to become familiar with a reasonably broad body of evidence, and feel that the current range of articles on Blogger is quite healthy. I think Blogger benefits greatly from those who choose to focus their attention elsewhere.
[Edit: This post was downvoted within a few minutes of going up. I wonder why?]
more good points
I don't disagree with anything you've said. And evidence of CD in official records is compelling evidence- they may be hanging themselves with their own rope:
"NIST's 2008 admission of freefall is sufficient proof in a scientific sense, and that is really not complex. But of course it should be investigated further (nanothermite etc.), and more people need to find out."
The Fourteen Points of Agreement paper was ingenious, in that it relied primarily on NIST's reports- there were a few important details OMITTED from the report, such as testing for explosives and the size of the steel/structural strength, so they also cited the FAQs, NIST statements and JOM- the omissions are telling as well.
"People shouldn't be required to believe CD. That's a bit religious for my liking, and would obviously diminish the movement. But I do think that people should generally try to stay away from those discussions if their purpose is simply to convince people to focus on other evidence, unless they try to explain why they don't believe CD, or at least present a half convincing argument. This will cut down the friction and benefit everyone.
Finally, I agree that people should try to become familiar with a reasonably broad body of evidence, and feel that the current range of articles on Blogger is quite healthy. I think Blogger benefits greatly from those who choose to focus their attention elsewhere."
Sounds reasonable to me.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
CD is a shortcut
Insider trading means someone knew.
No fighter jets implies someone ordered them down.
The wire transfer points to ISI involvement.
Sibel Edmonds claims OBL was CIA till 911.
CD shows us the US government itself exploded 3000 of its citizens to fine dust for a snuff movie. The proof does not depend on who knew what, how incompetent they were, a paper trail, or witness testimony. It also has greater explanatory power.
But obviously CD should not be the only talking point, it all needs clearing up.
Showing people...
That they lied about the simplest aspects of the official account prepares them to accept some of the bigger lies.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
This much..
I agree with. However, it is possible that something like ISI involvement could 'break', and have little effect on the rest of the movement. This would not be the case for CD (amongst other things); if that becomes widely known then *all* other aspects of the official story will come up for review.
But it leaves two questions:
1. What are the 'simplest aspects' of the official story?
This will depend on who you are talking to, or even whether you are talking to an individual or a crowd. Does it mean most easily understood? Or possibly the simplest in terms of scientific elegance? Perhaps it means most widely known, or involving fewer unknowns? Or even unknown unknowns? ;)
2. What are the 'bigger' lies?
Does this mean how 'unbelievable' the lie is? Or maybe how close to the official theory, or the truth? Maybe this means how serious of a crime it is. To some degree these things will go hand in hand, but not always.
In other words, 'simpler aspects' and 'bigger lies' are complex, subjective terms.
I am not trying to obfuscate here, and think it would be a good idea to try and quantify these things. In a way, that is what we are doing all the time. For example, could you order your 50 facts in terms of how 'simple' the aspect of the official story is that they refer to, or how 'big' a lie they entail? I appreciate this is a lot work, and obviously subjective, but it could be useful, and may highlight the difficulties in using such words. Could some kind of poll be created? We should expect it to be hard.. this is after all the crux of the matter.
But, I would like to add *at least* another category - 'most damaging to the establishment' or 'most likely to cause change/revolution'. And we would need to add at least another fact, to make it fair:
Fact 51. WTC7 Freefall = CD (you could probably word this better :)
We should use the evidence most relevant to the current situation..
Look the discussion between
Look the discussion between you and me has become too personal Jon.
I admit i am in part responsible for this, but the fact is that the problems I personally see in terms of "direction" are most easily identified with you here because of your high profile.I dont think anything more can be gained by re raking the argument, my points have been made clearly (in an attempt of constructive criticism ).
You follow your path and I will try and list CD Proof.
I wish you the best in your efforts, and believe we are trying to achieve the same goal.
IN RE: "How do YOU make the case for CD to the public?"
Well, one thing's for sure. I'd, personally, stay a million miles away from any "tar baby" references. Potentially offending people can create very "sticky situations." If you're tossed into a brier-patch, the Truth won't be heard.
Br'er Rabbit
tar baby- definition
i meant it in the context of the first definition:
"In contemporary usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.[1] Usage with respect to a person is likely to be viewed as controversial as it may have other interpretations.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
Considering people like Jerome Hauer, Harley Guy, media like BBC, NY Times and orgs like NIST told lies about structural failure, it seems clear some powerful people knew in advance and had planned a strategy of obfuscation and distortion if questions were raised- perhaps they assumed the lie would be too big to fail, and could be hand-waved away, and no serious inquiry, as they controlled the investigating institutions, as well as the media. They may have considered the WTC destruction BIG lie to be the 'brier patch', i.e. questions could be raised and nothing would happen.
It's clear the MSM have focused on certain claims and ignored others, and it's good to question why that is. As I've said, I don't know that strategy's going to work for them in the long run- this is the Network Age, and there's evidence of CD in the NIST, FEMA, USGS reports, both in what they omit and distort, as well as documented facts, like the iron spheres and free fall.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
On the contrary
Many people are confused by those in the truth movement who consider CD theory competing with the official story, apparently too willfully ignorant to bother coming to terms with the physics which proves CD as indisputable fact. The more people we have standing up for the truth of the matter, the less others can be mislead into denying it, and those waffling on the issue are hurting the cause in doing so. Here is a video explaining the psychological phenomena working against us here, focusing specifically on perceptions of the fall of WTC7:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5695875352844691386#
In that regard, I implore everyone with the knowledge to do so to stop using the phrase "evidence of CD" and rather empty phrases like "evidence which proves CD" in it's place.
----------------
KyleBisMe
Evidence which proves CD
I think this is a very good point, and am often guilty of this myself. Maybe it's a bit unwieldy though, how about EWPCD? :)
...
HA!
FYI
There used to be a way to create an actual poll with voting buttons at 911blogger, as was the case here.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
Thanks for link. Pleased to know it exists.
Thanks for link. Pleased to know it exists.
7
Building 7 is still the biggest smoking gun IMHO. If it didn't collapse from damage from the collapse of building 1, it must have been brought down by controlled demolition. (Not to mention the suspicious "collapses" of buildings 1 and 2)
If this is true (and the evidence is convincing) then how could the subject be over emphasized?
AE911
need to team up with other creditable celebrities, politicans, ex military folks etc. & that's the best shot we got. period.
Please elaborate how this is
Please elaborate how this is toxic?
Rather than imposing my opinion on others, I am asking what others think.
toxic or timely?
Jon, I agree, AA is asking people to vote on a question, and the thread is open for discussion. Obviously, the value of CD evidence in activism is a hot topic, and needs to be discussed. Take this opportunity to make your case, as normally CD evidence is promoted, without any discussion of the wisdom of doing so, and without acknowledgement of how the Establishment has used it to tarbaby the 911 Truth Movement.
Personally, I see a lot of compelling evidence WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by CD. The NIST reports are badly flawed, and fail to make their case. The evidence for CD needs to be investigated, it's part of the whole collection of crimes that 9/11 is made of. However, i've also noticed how the MSM has focused on the CD evidence, as well as on claims that have been rejected by most people. And it's clear the case for a full investigation, and even the claims of 'inside job' are not dependent on CD evidence.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
I think we should use...
The simplest arguments when making our case. 1) The investigations we got were horrible (insert evidence of this). 2) There are MANY 9/11 Family Members who doubt how and why their loved ones were murdered. 3) There are 9/11 First Responders that are sick and dying. 4) If we were lied to about the event that created the "Post-9/11 World," then we need to know about it.
You should not have to be a "scholar" to understand the need for 9/11 Truth.
We should make the best possible arguments to MAKE people understand why this cause is important, and WHY they need to take part in it.
It is WELL KNOWN that the idea of "Controlled Demolition" is completely unbelievable to A LOT of people. As I have said countless times, our job is to reach people. If "Controlled Demolition" is completely unbelievable to A LOT of people, then in my opinion, the 9/11 Truth Movement shouldn't make that it's main argument. As I have also shown, there HAS been a concerted effort to make the 9/11 Truth Movement synonymous with "Controlled Demolition," and I think the reason why is BECAUSE it is completely unbelievable to A LOT of people. Jeff Wells verified the "concerted effort," as did Michael Ruppert. True or not, there has been an effort, and the reaction (that wasn't to me, but it's a PERFECT example of the "problem" I see) I get from people tells me that it is because of that "concerted effort"
I believe there should be a method by which we approach people. If you want to talk about how those buildings came down, then build up to that with the things I mentioned above.
Look at this...
Buzzflash Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth
DigitallyObsessed.com Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth
Letter To The Editor: 9/11 Press For Truth
Good Video Hunting: 9/11: Press For Truth
Pressing For Truth: A Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth
DVDTalk Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth
Scoop Independent News Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth
Carol Brouillet Reports On The Premiere Of 9/11: Press For Truth
The Hub Weekly Reviews: 9/11: Press For Truth
AMNY Review: 9/11 Press For Truth
Catherine Austin Fitts Gives A Brief Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth
911Truth.org's Brief Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth
Random Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth
That's amazing for two reasons. 1) people were actually WILLING to review it, and 2) gave it GOOD reviews. As I said, this movie destroys the 9/11 Commission like no other. I think in order for people to be willing to fight for a real criminal investigation, we must first show them that the investigations we got were a sham. Then show them why elements within our Government have earned the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11. Again, a method.
Remember that every hit piece, every "documentary" like the BBC, National Geographic, every "media pundit," every "debunker" (for the most part) focus on "Controlled Demolition." I think they have done this to target those people who think the truth we are fighting for is TOO SCARY, and NEED the things I mentioned to maintain their lives.
This isn't a competition. We should do our BEST to get us to the point we want to be... where as many people as possible are demanding truth, and accountability with regards to the 9/11 attacks. Then when we finally get some kind of investigation, hopefully all of our credible collective issues will be addressed.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Why Pussyfoot?
A lot of people are ready for the HARDCORE truth.
Why Pussyfoot?
puss⋅y⋅foot
/ˈpʊsiˌfʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [poos-ee-foot] Show IPA verb, noun, plural -foots.
–verb (used without object)
1. to go or move in a stealthy or cautious manner.
2. to act cautiously or timidly, as if afraid to commit oneself on a point at issue.
–noun
Synonyms:
2. hedge, dodge, sidestep, straddle.
I think people in this movement...
Need to be able to admit to themselves that we don't know the "HARDCORE truth." Look... as I told Dr. Griffin, I have read so much about 9/11... 10x over... so very very very very very very very much. I don't know what happened. I am 5000% sure that there was criminal activity on the part of elements within our Government at the very least. We already have proof of criminality as John Doraemi has pointed to a few times. However, you are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Isn't that what we're fighting for? The laws and principles that are supposed to make this country "great?" This is why I now say that elements within our Government and others have EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11 rather than assume I know everything about the 9/11 attacks because if I'm going to be honest with myself, I don't. I sure know A LOT of problems with the official account though. My focus lately has been the official account that the 9/11 Commission was a godsend.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
I don't think
there's any "one size fits all" Truth. NOr should there be.
People are far too unique and individual for that.
Some people respond to reading, others by watching videos or visiting websites. Some may gain most from discussions, some by lectures, some by listening to the radio, some by blogging, and some by a combination of all of the above -- and others.
And, within each of those categories, there's a huge spectrum.
Particular readers might learn most from 9/11 comic books, while others learn most from the minutely-detailed, exceptional, yet achingly dry, David Ray Griffin books.
Some "movie watchers" may resonate better to "Loose Change-type' videos, while for others it may be the highly technical, scientific, and way over many people's heads, "Blueprint for Truth-type" vidoes.
It is extremely...
Easy to manipulate what happens on a website. We do it all of the time.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
I think it is sad
We'd be a lot better off if you didn't waste time publicising the bigoted morons in the truth movement, and focus your efforts on exposing bigoted falsers instead.
----------------
KyleBisMe
No but we should stay broad with the historical facts!
The MSM and the Governments credibility have been damaged by the CD arguments....not the movement!
Nearly 1000 A & E professional's is a very powerful idea for the public!
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
B7
Great point John!
As we've seen from the videos of Richard Gage's team making the case for demolition to the many building professionals at AIA conferences, the video of Building 7's destruction is highly compelling, even to "experts".
I was initially drawn in to question the official story after receiving this flyer from Jim Hoffman, who was handing them out in Berkeley at the time --
4-Page Building 7 Flyer
And the rest is history.
Here are the main points from AE911:
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
AE911, btw, has amazing outreach materials. I've never seen a more professional set of documents than what they put out. I haven't found that packet on the website, but Jim got one the other day from Richard when they went to Feinstein's office in SF, and it is extremely well done.
"movement is NOT DAMAGED by an OVER emphasis on"
That's such a neutral way of expressing it.
Off topic, but I think this is *very* important:
http://digitaalinenelama.com/?p=3327
Rule through fear and terror can take many forms. It would be nice if the truth movement had all the time it needed to gather evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (of some sort) and try to convince people. Alas, I'm afraid that the trics didn't end with 9/11, and new ones are likely to be in the making.
What I'm perhaps trying to say is that the movement may actually have a slight overemphasis on... 9/11. Sorry if I'm not making much sense, but if you watch the above, you may get a better idea.
That was the point, I tried
That was the point, I tried hard not to skew the question either way.
A first for me last week !
This girl at work told me she knew that the WTC was taken down by CD, but she had never heard about WTC7!
The look on her face when I told her was priceless.
I think any lingering doubts in her mind were erased right then and there.
If only the light bulb would come on in hundreds of millions more.
The thing is that a lot of you are missing the point
I keep seeing people here try to clarify whether or not CD is factual or not. That's relevant, yes, but not to the overall question here which is this: Is focusing on controlled demolition a step in the right direction for the movement? Given the way it has so far been handled, I'd say no.
If we had proof of controlled demolition, and I mean real, solid, no-doubt-about-it proof, then maybe it wouldn't be quite as detrimental, but so many activists are so damn irresponsible with the issue. Years of watching videos and I still see people make the claim that the towers fell down free-fall. In the end, true or not, controlled demolition is just not the best thing for this movement right now.
Proof and clearance
You must be the Arcterus who doesn't understand how proof is obtained:
"..and proof could only be feasibly and legally obtained via a new investigation for the proper clearance."
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2009/11/controlled-demolition-in-activis...
Jon linked to your article there earlier in this thread.
So, it's not surprising you are wrong that there isn't proof of CD. Proof of CD does not require a 'new investigation for the proper clearance'.
Your 'towers not freefall' is a red herring, because WTC7 was (for 2.25 secs).
You say some activists are 'so damn irresponsible'. Hmmm.
"..controlled demolition..not the best thing.."
You may have more luck with NORAD because you don't believe proof of that requires a 'new investigation for the proper clearance'.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong
I already responded to your claim on how "proof" is obtained earlier in this thread. It is clear that you do not understand what "proof" is.
The "freefall" statement is not a red herring because people saying the towers, that is the main two, fell down in freefall are WRONG and it is perfectly legitimate to point that out. For that matter, the point of WTC7 going freefall, even for only 2.25 seconds of the collapse (which would not make the overall collapse freefall, so it would still be invalid) is highly debatable since there are distinct signs of movement in the building prior to the big collapse. Internal collapsing could have, and this is solely hypothetical, meant the actual collapse time was much longer, and also may have removed a great deal of resistance within the building for about 2.25 seconds. So no, my freefall statement was in no way a red herring despite the way you distorted my statement to include WTC7, which I never specified.
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/
Yes, you are
Turns out your response was a load of crap too. This time you said:
"..but there are basic legal clearances we can't bypass without proper authorization if we hope to get anything to 'prove' CD."
Nothing new there, and I resent you wasting my time to go back and read such a pointless reply.
Rewording my point for your rephrasing, proof does NOT depend on 'legal clearances we can't bypass without proper authorization'.
You obviously have no respect for science. Are you perhaps some kind of lawyer?
Red herring, whatever. I can't be bothered anymore.
And due to similar time wasting, bone headed discussions with your prolific mate Jon Gold, I've decided to 'delete Blogger'.
So you can have the last word.
Good luck!
You obviously have no idea
You obviously have no idea what I was saying. I wasn't saying that this was a legal matter. The act of OBTAINING proof will be impossible without legal clearances. I have every bit of respect for science, which is why, unlike you and so many others here, I actually understand what science is. For some reason, you people seem to not only be content with your ignorance, but outright boastful about it.
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/