9/11 Truth: The Fight Stage - Don't Get Hit by the Sucker Punch!
In my view the three most powerful Main Stream Media mantra's used against the 9/11 Truth Movement have been;
1. We support the Jews/Israel did it theory.
2. We support the no planes were used or were swapped theory.
3. We are paranoid conspiracy theorists who hate our country and seek to create violence in our communities.
WE MUST if we are to prevail over these presstitutes in the MSM be resistant to speaking in public for these two theories in any way shape or form. If we do speak in support of these theories we better make sure we can back up our accusations in the real world with hard evidence.
Being patriotic and absolutely peaceful in word, deed and voice will see us stronger by the day.
This is the "fight stage" and I plan to win!
Kind regards John
- John Bursill's blog
- Login to post comments
False Dichotomies/Choices.
Those are the two they would rather have you choose between. I'd suggest leaning towards the more reputable ones that haven't even got a chance to be on Paula Zahn. Like TomT says below...
Excellent blog John
You really know how to drive the crowd wild!
I like putting my shoulder behind AE911Truth.org
www.AE911Truth.org is a wonderful rally point and they throw weight in the direction of important campaigns like "BuildingWhat.org" and http://stj911.org/
A primary objective is an 9/11 investigation (with integrity). http://buildingwhat.org/ makes this a strong possibility.
People can help forward 9/11 Truth by supporting these organizations.
In 30 seconds Richard Gage says it well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piJs6e7K3Io#t=21s
Sidenote: The CONSOLIDATED rubble pile of Bldg 7
Building 7 was huge and meshed with steel.
See this pic and notice the Post Office in the lower right as a landmark bearing... http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/4/f/a/highres_18009466.jpeg
Imagine the skill that it took to bring Bldg 7 down into its own footprint.
Look at this massive rubble pile!! (Click to enlarge photo) http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/8/6/highres_18010374.jpeg
In the lower left of this aerial 9-15-01 photo you can recognize the CONSOLIDATED rubble pile... http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/html/wtc_manhattan_9_15_01_03.htm
It becomes a silly notion to believe that Bldg 7 accidently fell symetrically into its own footprint.
Building 7 is the smoking gun towards a true 9/11 investigation.
Photos
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/a/0/highres_18010400.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/a/4/highres_18010404.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/a/1/highres_18010401.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/a/2/highres_18010402.jpeg
http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/8/7/highres_18010375.jpeg
http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/8/9/highres_18010377.jpeg
http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/8/1/highres_18010369.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/7/f/highres_18010367.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/7/e/highres_18010366.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/7/d/highres_18010365.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/8/7/c/highres_18010364.jpeg
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/8/0/0/7/highres_15452775.jpeg
TAKE A LOOK AT THE PHOTOS!
TAKE A LOOK AT THE PHOTOS!
Everything in the interior is cut and exploded while the exterior is left intact to hide it.
A perfect controlled demolition.
Tom, will you ask Richard Gage to rescind his endorsement?
Even though Richard does not endorse flyover, his endorsement of CIT gives CIT/NSA credibility it does not deserve. Adam Syed touts this endorsement at every opportunity.
On Kevin Barrett's radio show he promotes CIT/NSA, bashes Blogger, touts DRG and RG's "glowing endorsements" and ends with questioning the Holocaust. This is psy-ops IMO. Word association works. Adam and Kevin are tying the TM, DRG and RG to "Mossad did it" and Revisionism.
http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20100601-kevin-barrett-adam-syed-adam-ruf...
This was followed by Barry Zwicker endorsing CIT/NSA and boldly stating that anyone who criticizes CIT/NSA must be an agent. This is a well orchestrated campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc
[ Chris - Please do not state or imply that someone is an agent unless you have credible evidence (a pay stub works). This is against site rules. I have contacted Barrie Zwicker about his statement regarding critics of CIT and am seeking clarification from him. I don't think he fully considered how easy it would be for some people to twist his intentionally ambiguous choice of words and I am hopeful that he will clarify his statement sometime soon. - LW ]
I have been trying for nine months to get Richard rescind his endorsement of CIT/NSA but to no avail. I now ask you and all AE supporters to let him know his endorsement is hurting his credibility.
what is CIT/NSA stand for?
is this a government agency?
CIT
maybe means Citizen Investigation Team
maybe we need a new movement decoding the movement so people can understand !
NSA - im not sure . it cant be National Security Agency - that wouldnt make sense
acronyms!
as LL Cool J said when dissing MC's that use acronyms:
the A the B the C the D the E the F the G the H the I the J the K the L the M the N the O the P the Q the R the S the T the U the V ... W X Y Z ! It's bulltish to me!
(James Todd Smith; It Gets No Rougher)
LW
10-4 on the warning
but
Barry is a professional writer and phrased it carefully, but there is nothing ambiguous about this:
"To me, two most important questions now . . . . First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? And I say "attempts" because careful examination of the arguments of CIT's tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable.
So, twin tasks lie ahead for honest citizens of all countries. . . . . Second, to learn more about -- and unmask for all to see who are willing to see -- the cadre of disinformation agents who are in the business of attempting to mislead and confuse honest authentic people everywhere about 9/11."
He just called me a tricky, unreliable disinformation agent. I've got two word for this guy and they are not disinfo agent. ;-)
Chris -
As long as you don't call anyone a disinfo agent without credible evidence you should be fine.
If you're not a disinfo agent (and I have no reason to think you are), then why take the bait?
I would also suggest that being vicious, tricky and/or unreliable is not the best way to promote the truth, but I think you already know that. ;)
911blogger will always support people who engage in civil dialogue and critical analysis of evidence and issues related to the events of 9/11/01.
We really are closing in on the tipping point, brothers and sisters, let's not derail ourselves.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Why take the bait?
If these attacks are not challenged, many people who don't know the background of what he is talking about will believe him. That's why 'they" do it.
Very clever double talk and salesmanship has gotten a lot of people to believe and endorse a theory that's absurd on it's face. This fraud too well orchestrated and financed to be anything other than a professional disinformation campaign IMnsHO.
The CBC hit piece featured Craig and his "flyover theory". They did not have to go into details, they just noted what it was. Try to look at it as someone who believes the OCT would look at it. Flying a plane into DC and then flying over the Pentagon rather than into it sounds ridiculous because it is.
Frank and I are on the same side if not the same page. There is a lot of disagreement among those who say CIT/NSA is a fraud. That is to be expected. The difference between sincere people disagreeing and disinfo/disruptors is; sincere people disagree without insulting each other.
You will know them by their deeds - unless you are willfully blind to it.
ETA: CIT/NSA is a derailer and will bite those who endorse it in the ass, you just hide and watch. ;-)
the only difference
There is only one difference between me and Chris. He lists a group of people who were interviewed and say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I list a different group of interviewed people who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
There is a particularly vulnerable piece in the case made by CIT that the plane flew over, which we should all make ourselves familiar with. CIT says that all the witnesses to the impact were deceived by an explosion which hid the departing plane. Jim Hoffman has already made that seem pretty silly by pointing out that hundreds of people were in traffic jams round the Pentagon and would have seen the flyover from the side, unimpeded by the explosion cloud. CIT dismisses this on the grounds that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, though it is powerful as an indicator of probability.
What CIT cannot dismiss is this. A great many of the witnesses to the impact say they saw the plane on its way into the Pentagon. They did not just look round when they heard the explosion - they were following the plane with their eyes. Thus they saw the whole thing before the explosion happened. The "deception" had not yet occurred!
Double standards
I have long said this. P4T go out of their way to prove how unfeasible the official approach is w.r.t. a 757's structural integrity, yet they don't apply the same scrutiny to a 'pull up' from the position below the roof line as described by many witnesses (including CIT's own) before the explosion. Nor do they apply the same scrutiny to the turn described by Roosevelt Roberts.
Cherrypicking, special pleading, double standards are terms and descriptions that come to mind.
Once again, just so my main point is clear:
911blogger will always support people who engage in civil dialogue and critical analysis of evidence and issues related to the events of 9/11/01.
I think a civil dialogue regarding every aspect of the events of 9/11/01 is always in order, especially when some people present shaky evidence as absolute proof. We in the truth movement are obliged to critique everything as objectively as possible.
The real problem arises when people who honestly disagree start calling each other names (e.g. disinfo agent) and stop trying to persuade the other solely on the physics, facts and logic.
Personally, I think every time we in the movement fully critique something, it makes us all stronger critical thinkers and thus better able to educate the general public.
Trust me when I say that I am the last one who would suggest that something (anything) go unchallenged. I've been questioning everything around me since I was eleven years old.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Thank you John
I'll try to choose my words more carefully.
There is another side to the CIT problem. I know it is extremely difficult to decide what to ban/censor and what to allow but I now suggest that the moderators consider banning "Israel did it" and "Mossad did it". To say there is evidence of Israeli involvement is one thing but stating "Israel/Mossad did it" is unjustified and a poison pill for the TM.
There seems to be a lot more of this lately. These people fall into the "Might as well be" category IMO, as they are giving MSM exactly what they need to paint us as anti-Israel/Jew.
BTW: I don't use the misnomer "anti-Semitic". The Palestinians, Jordanians, Iraqis and the Syrians are Semitic.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/sterms/g/semitic.htm
Actually, I would like to see a bit more latitude, not less
in the discussion threads.
I think the site and the movement are better served with a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, as long as they are civil and are based on credible evidence, sound logic and a reasonable understanding of the scientific method. When subjects or issues becomes taboo, they tend to gain a power with some that they would not otherwise, were they exposed to the light and fully examined out in the open. Some subjects need to be examined repeatedly and in great detail before a general consensus is agreed upon.
I agree that at this point it is quite ridiculous and certainly counter-productive for anyone to claim that any one entity or organization was responsible for the 9/11 false flag operation.
We will really only know what actually happened and who the responsible parties are after we have a full, complete and transparent investigation.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Maybe this isn't infiltration and division....
but the results are the same.
This feud should be moved to another venue. It is not helping anything.
Exposing disinfo is a worthy
Exposing disinfo is a worthy goal no matter what thread, topic, place, time, or who directed at.
Carry on Chris Sarns! Way to go brother!
This reminds me of Bush when he said...
You are either with us, or with the terrorists.
It is a false dichotomy.
What is the goal here? What would make you stop this?
The goal is to clean out the deadwood
Do you think the Truth Movement should endorse and embrace baseless theories?
Have you read this Analysis of CIT/NSA?
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com
ETA:
If the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon and flew over the building, what caused the physical damage ?
C.R.: We feel that the only logical conclusion based on the evidence is that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives.
http://faitsdivers.blog4ever.com/blog/lire-article-287239-1668578-interv...
Their only "proof" is:
"A plane on this flight path cannot . . . cause the directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole."
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
[the plane could miss the light poles and still hit the Pentagon]
If, as Craig says, the directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by explosives, then it has nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon and it is not proof the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Baseless: Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded.
I don't know what happened at the Pentagon.
I have my suspicions and beliefs, which I had before I was exposed to the CIT video. I was asked to say I endorsed the CIT video and agreed to do so, on Facebook, partially to be nice and encouraging to a fellow truth seeker, partially because I was flattered, and partially because I didn't disagree with their hypothesis. I wasn't as confident about the fly over part as I felt about the size of the hole, the amount of damage, and the lack of debris. I don't have the level of confidence to say that this is what I know happened. It is just what I currently suspect. Had I known what a divisive and intense hornets nest I was being recruited into, I would reconsider. I don't want to be on either side of this thing. I don't feel that strongly about it. You guys can grind this out without me. I think we need a new investigation. Until then, I have my suspicions, but that is all they are. When I signed up for 911truthnews it was just because I wanted to be supportive of a new venture for 911truth. I have only visited there a few times and I think I have visited the other demolition site a couple of times also. I usually just come here. I don't like to see the fractures.
I am not a scientist or engineer. I am not an architect or lawyer. I am not an air traffic controller. I am not a pilot. I am not former or current military. I am an average guy who is mad about 911 and many other injustices. I am here to share with like minded people. I am here to learn and exchange ideas. I am here to encourage. I am here to give my opinion. I am here to contribute to the cause. My positions on certain aspects of 911 are not unchangeable.
I am not infallible.
I do not have a black belt in 911 Truth.
Thanks for letting me be a part of this.
I love the way you express things Rob.
"...I don't want to be on either side of this thing. I don't feel that strongly about it. You guys can grind this out without me. I think we need a new investigation... ...I don't like to see the fractures."
"I am not a scientist or engineer. I am not an architect or lawyer. I am not an air traffic controller. I am not a pilot. I am not former or current military. I am an average guy who is mad about 911 and many other injustices. I am here to share with like minded people. I am here to learn and exchange ideas. I am here to encourage. I am here to give my opinion. I am here to contribute to the cause. My positions on certain aspects of 911 are not unchangeable."
"I am not infallible."
"I do not have a black belt in 911 Truth."
"Thanks for letting me be a part of this."
rethinking the impact
Hi Chris, it is great to see you calling for some prominent 9/11 people to back away, or back away more clearly, from CIT. I had a go at persuading Barrie Zwicker that the overfly theory did not hold water, but without success.
I wonder however if you should rethink your argument about the impact. You say that the north path theory does not prove that the plane flew over the Pentagon because, given the CIT theory that explosives were used for the linear damage, the plane could have come from another angle and still hit.
Here are what I believe to be the relevant points:
1. Some people who had a very good view said the plane flew straight, thus ruling out the bank required in the CIT theory for it to go round the Citgo station and turn toward the impact point, eg Albert Hemphill, looking out a window on the fifth floor of the Navy Annex: "I saw one plane and I saw it hit. It didn't pull up. It didn't turn left. It didn't turn right. It went right into the Pentagon." As he also said it came from over his right shoulder it would have needed a pretty steep bank to get round the Citgo.
2. The plane was travelling at a very high speed. It had enormous momentum. If it had curved round the Citgo and hit the Pentagon it would inevitably have broken through the wall and created damage in the direction of travel. There was no damage in that direction. So even though there is the argument that explosives caused the damage, the damage was in the wrong direction, so an impact from the north path did not happen.
3. We now have the new decoding of the FDR file which clearly shows the plane descending smoothly near the VDOT antenna, without excessive g-force, starting to level off before it hits the first light pole, levelling further as it hits the light poles, and then hits the Pentagon close to ground level.
4. Hundreds of people were in a position to see an overfly. No plausible reports of an overfly appeared.
1 and 2 rule out north path impact, hence leaving overfly as an option. 1, 3 and 4 rule out overfly.
I think it is better to simply say that the plane came in straight, could not have climbed over the Pentagon, and hit it fair and square, as so many people say. In other words, keep it simple.
Thank you for your response
It is not a question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon, it's the FACT that NSA is a complete and utter FRAUD.
They claim to have "proof" of flyover and they do not.
They lied about the witnesses being unanimous in confirming the NoC flight path, they were not.
They misrepresented the witness statements, leaving out the part where they said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. Had they been honest and included that part of the witness statements, we would not be having this conversation because those statements blow the "flyover theory" out of the water.
I cannot understand why so many people ignore this simple conclusive fact.
Anyone supporting this obvious fraud will get creamed in the court of public opinion. That is what I am trying to prevent.
FWIW
The speed of the plane is in doubt. It could have been blown to bits as it entered the building. We don't know. That was not the argument given in NSA. The "proof" was: A plane on the NoC flight path could not cause the directional damage claimed by the official report.
physics must be the basis
Thanks Chris.
You appear to suggest that if the plane had been blown to bits it could have come in from a different angle and not damaged the building in the direction of its travel. If it was blown up it must have happened at, or very close to, impact. It would still have had the same mass, the same average velocity, and hence the same momentum. It would have done virtually the same damage. The only difference is that the impact marks would have been somewhat blurred.
I conclude that the directional damage is evidence that the plane did not hit from a different direction, whether blown up or not.
So if it didn't come in and hit from a different direction, and didn't fly over, does that not mean that it came in straight as Albert Hemphill describes? From his right shoulder, over the overpass and straight in at a low level? If so, why introduce the complexity that it may have come in at a different angle? Why not keep it simple for the public?
I do think explosives may have been used for two reasons: There is a brilliant white flash before the red fireball from burning fuel, and there is debris thrown all the way to the boom gate, where it bounces across the road. Only explosives can produce a temperature high enough to produce white light. If explosives were used it would of course be proof of an inside job. By itself this is grounds for a new real investigation.
You are arguing the arguable
And ignoring the statements that disprove Flyover.
All 5 witnesses who could see the Pentagon said they SAW the plane hit the pentagon.
Boger - Lagasse - Brooks - Wheelhouse - Hemphill
Do you agree?
You said "Keep it simple for the public." What could be more simple?
Arguing which flight path and what damage would have been done on the NoC flight path is subjective and NOT simple.
Let's be perfectly clear
Yes, there is no plausible evidence for a flyover and plenty of evidence for a direct hit along the path past the VDOT tower, over the bridge, through the light poles. It is that simple.
So that is why I wonder why you bother to discuss an alternative direction of approach. Its a complication and it is not needed.
I am discussing the witness statements that disprove flyover
Please respond to my point.
All 5 witnesses who could see the Pentagon said they SAW the plane hit the pentagon.
Boger - Lagasse - Brooks - Wheelhouse - Hemphill
Do you agree? Doesn't this disprove the flyover theory?
what are you driving at?
Do I have to go and review all those five testimonies before you will be friendly? I have repeatedly referred to Hemphill as an amazingly clear description of the path of the plane into the Pentagon. I have read Lagasse's statement that the plane hit the Pentagon. I am not familiar with the others. Does it matter?
Indeed, it matters
You don't have to go anywhere.
Sean Boger - Official interview 11-14-01
"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299
NSA Supplemental
37:56 Craig: Were you able to literally visu - or actually see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon which is currently located over there...directly.
42:38 Sgt Lagasse: And it flew into the building with very slight control movements. Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html
9:36 Wheelhouse ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760#
Hemphill "He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level." [@~7 min]
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/Albert-Hemphill-5-24-2010.mp3
All five witnesses that CIT interviewed [as if that gives them more credibility ;-) ] that could see the Pentagon, said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.
That blows the flyover theory out of the water.
Hi Chris....
Look Chris the plane hit the Pentagon and hit the poles on the south side of the station. Who cares about the north side witnesses as their story is not supported by any other evidence.
You and Frank are on the same page.
Regards John
???
I don't give a tinkers damn about the flight path or the light poles.
I don't know what happened and I don't care.
My point is about the CIT claim that NoC = flyover.
It does not!
Their own witnesses say the plane hit the building. That alone blows the flyover theory out of the water.
It must be the chem-trails. Everyone has gone stark raving mad. %-)
New Decoding of FDR?
Frank, I had thought that the FDR had ended with the plane at too high an altitude. Am I mistaken, or is this 'new decoding' you mention giving different data? Have you posted this new data somewhere?
As you describe it, that is one hell of an approach. If you have such detailed info, maybe you can judge if it is the flight-control actions of a human pilot, or a pre-programmed flight path.
With all due respect
This is what the Pentagon disinformation is intended to do. Waste our time in endless debate on the intentionally planted conflicting information.
We do NOT know what happened at the Pentagon and endlessly arguing about the details is a total waste of time.
You too are totally ignoring the 5 witnesses who said the plane hit the Pentagon. This blows the "flyover theory" out of the water.
Do you agree?
Endless debate
I agree that the debate on what happened at the Pentagon has so far been endless. All my work on the Pentagon has been in the hope that we 9/11 Truth seekers would stop the debate and get on with publicizing the controlled demolition, about which we have the facts.
There are many more than 5 witnesses to the impact of the plane with the Pentagon. Some of them have been interviewed and are therefore in the same category of evidence weight as the north path interviewed witnesses, and cannot be set aside.
Your efforts have had the opposite effect
And you sidestepped the point again.
All five witnesses I listed have been interviewed by CIT.
As you say, they cannot be set aside
These statements ALONE disprove the flyover theory.
sidetracking
Chris, my decision to comment on your post earlier was because I believed you were sidetracking the essential debate about the flyover by repeatedly bringing up the argument that the north path does not preclude impact. You have argued this very intelligently yet many people did not understand it. Of course if explosives were used, as CIT claims, the plane could have come in from the north and hit the building.
However, just because it could have done it, does not mean it did. To talk about it is a sidetrack. The real essential issue is whether the plane did the observed damage or explosives did it, together with overfly.
You clearly believe there was no overfly so you must believe the plane came in straight, as Hemphill says, and hit the building. Why talk about the alternative direction of approach? Why not keep it simple?
I'm talking about CIT's claim
I do not "believe" anything. I do not know what happened.
I'm quoting CIT/NSA and my point is: NoC does not prove flyover as CIT claims.
Their so called "proof" is double talk IMnsHO.
Furthermore, their belated back-up "there's no directional damage consistent with the NoC approach" is speculation, not proof.
And then there's the five witnesses that CIT interviewed who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. See above.
New decoding
In the past some people pointed out that it looked as though there was data missing from the end of the FDR file. John Farmer was one. He apparently fell out with Pilots for 9/11 Truth but I have never looked into the question of why they fell out.
Now there has been a new decoding, done by Warren Stutt which shows the rest of the data. The plane follows the officially described course right down to the level of the light poles and into the Pentagon near ground level. There will be a paper on this shortly.
The question of whether the path of the plane suggests a human or a machine is a totally different issue and will not be touched on in this paper, which is just a rigid scientific analysis of the last few seconds of flight, as set out in the file. If we could prove it was a machine of course it would be prima facie evidence of an inside job. I have not seen anything in the data yet which proves it was a machine.
The paper will not claim that AA77 hit the Pentagon. It will claim that the FDR data file released by the NTSB corresponds with the officially described impact with the Pentagon.
Thank you
for your explanation, Frank, and your rational approach to the data analysis.
I am very tired of the so-called 'debate' about the Pentagon, and the way it has divided us. I refuse to participate in that.
But simply getting an analysis of the complete FDR data is very important and interesting. Thanks for your efforts and for your forthcoming paper.
Thanks
>>There will be a paper on this shortly.
Glad to hear it!
>>Now there has been a new decoding, done by Warren Stutt which shows the rest of the data
Q: Who is Warren Stutt and how did he acquire or extract data that the Pilots group apparently could not? And does that refute, or make less meaningful, the letter in the Journal from the Pilots group?
Warren Stutt
You will find information about Warren on his site:
http://www.warrenstutt.com/index.html
The paper has now been submitted.
I am curious about the letter from Pilots. Could you provide a link?
Very good points and well stated.
Thank you.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Not so fast
>>Bollyn also highlighted something many years ago that nobody in the entire truth movement has bothered to research or follow up, when he pointed to a bright spot on a corner of WTC2, and declared matter-of-factly , "that's thermite!"
And if Hitler himself had said, "that's thermite!", should we bow down to him in thanks and add his name to all our websites?
Bollyn made lot's of other claims too, like suggesting that none of the crash sites involved planes and that nuclear material was used.
As it turns out, it's not unusual to find that the hardcore hoax advocates may also provide valuable or unique evidence. Does this mean we should ignore the nonsense or racism they also are engaged in and have a reputation for? Hardly. In fact, If those claiming that cartoons hit the WTC had nothing REAL to offer us, their usefulness would be zero and everyone would ignore them.
That's why separating out the meaningful stuff from the swamp that some surround themselves with -- be it holograms, pods, racists or whatever -- is a necessary task in exposing and handling evidence in a political cover-up that attracts disruptors, racists, etc., and is likely already full of infiltrators and provocateurs.
The fact is, it was most likely only a matter of time before such details were found. Bollyn was never necessary for Steven Jones to do his work and reach the conclusions he did -- Jones was initially very interested in B7's collapse, and via the study of the dust, he would have quickly discovered thermite on his own, even if had NO ONE ever suggested it before. If you understand the dust paper, you'd understand why that is.
>>Neither Barret nor Bollyn are members here, and discussing them seems like an excellent formula for soliciting polarized views and rounds of eviction-voting, BigBrother style.
Actually it's a great way to educate readers on the destructiveness of some of their behaviors. If you see it as "Big Brother" that the majority will call out the stuff both of these people were engaged in and reject it, I would suggest you are mistaken. I call it a good opportunity for education.
Anything involving racism will draw out the racists. That doesn't make it Big Brother to vote down the racists, that makes it exposing racism and taking it apart, despite the minority who insist that whites are superior.
I must interject
Victoria didn't claim argument Y is erroneous because person X claimed it. Therefore, she didn't commit a logical fallacy.
BTW, I'm sure you're also familiar with the fallacy fallacy.
The discussion is not about whether or not argument Y is valid or invalid because it was put forth by person or group X, the discussion is about allowing the guilt by association fallacy to be exploited against us by the mainstream media. If there are alternative, credible sources available for which such attack vectors do not exist, they are preferred.
None of us can force perception of the 9/11 truth movement to be based solely on sound logical reasoning. Which is why this site has rules, which include topics which are disallowed.
By the way, can you date/source Bollyn's first observation of thermite as you claimed? I believe you are right, but I prefer verifiability.
The idiot Paula Zahn has gone
The idiot Paula Zahn has gone out of her way to lump together any and all theories (not including of course, evidence based research) regarding 9/11 and characterize the entire movement as not only a conspiracy theory, but an "ugly" one. This on CNN. Does anyone here believe for a second that our best and brightest will ever get a fair airing on a show like that? Fat chance. I would just amend your observation John to say that we in the movement have always been at war with the lies and distortions and excuses for mass murder that the official 9/11 fantasy has spawned.
The MSM is losing ground. More people are catching on to its empty and corrupt nature. So, if we're going to fight and keep fighting, then we have to express that in the most effective ways we can muster. That means more targeted lawsuits, unrelenting campaigns to raise more money, protest actions at the homes of all NIST 9/11 team members, the enlistment of more high visibility actors and media personalities, putting pressure on major religious figures to become educated by our best 9/11 science and then stand up for it in public, unrelenting guerrilla media events and savage rebuttal to any and all disinfo campaigns launched from within our movement, and more.
I take your point...
We gain more ground when the reality of what people know from their own experience in comparison to the story told in the media is greatly different.
We must make sure to clearly define ourselves as rational, non-racist, peace loving and patriotic!
I know they will say these thing regardless, but the more hollow the rhetoric the better.
Regards John
good point
perhaps caution is the better part of valor...who knows?
agreed
perhaps you are right, John...
muddling of terminology is offensive
"Jews/Israel". Paleeeze. Why does this even need mentioning? Jews do not equal Israel. Many many Jews do not support the zionist agenda.
Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a socio/politico phenomenon that has often included the most brutal and conscienceless tactics imaginable. Their history is plain and they are tearing themselves apart in front of our very eyes.
Antisemitism is an old ploy....the word is meaningless.
More and more people realize this now. Semites are a genetic strain that includes the Palestinians and not the khazaars.
Many Jews are tired of thugs hiding behind this term and behind their "religion".
All the facts need to come out. Including the WHO and the WHY.... are we going to be censored here so the people at CNN won't say a nasty about us?
Yes it is an old ploy...agreed...
Should we just not care about our appearence because you deem it meaningless?
Why do you think we are winning...because we resemble the media version of us?
Regards John
I am not refering to any person...
...but as you mentioned KB, he is ruined but he still has a voice, a radio program and an agenda so he will continue no doubt to be exposed as dangerous.
Regards John
Largely agree BUT...
I agree with the main points of your article, that concentrating public outreach on the proveable and more likely to find broad areas of agreement (e.g., don't talk too much about Israel) is important, but I have a few points of possible disagreement..
First, and this point is not directed at you but the forum, I think the "vote-down" feature, while it has some good points, has some flaws. It seems to me that the "hide-comments-when-there-are-too-many-negative-votes" feature should be used more sparingly and be used only for highly offensive or for far too long and off topic comments (two cases where I think it's really useful and valuable) and not just because a certain number of people don't like or agree with the comment. I realize it would be difficult to achieve this because the existing method works automatically and does not require a human arbitrator. Still, I think it has the negative effect of censorship when there is really no need for it in the cases I gave above.
Second point, which IS directed to you, is a question. If this forum is not an appropriate place to talk about topics like the shunning of Barrett or anyone who has anything to do with him, where is the appropriate place? I realize that you, yourself, do not actually block discussion, but, with the "enough-votes-and-the-comment-disappears" feature, it works out in practice that such topics cannot really be discussed here. And where should topics like the possible participation of Israel in 9/11 be discussed, if not here? Is there some "less public" place where it might "safely" take place?
I really like your (John's) blog, agree with most of your positions, but, in my humble opinion, think there has to be room for open discussion, if not here then somewhere else.
Point 2: that's not something I can facilitate?
I am available to discuss anything you like;
E-mail johnbursill@gmail.com
Skype: johnbursill911
Phone: +61 414878499
Otherwise I am always willing to go public with a position, this is the truth movement.
Mind you a have agreed with the banning of people like Syed, CIT (Aldo and Ranke) and other spammers. To see a thread smashed time and time again with the same info and pictures by fringe theory advocates while they make absolutely no concessions means they are problem for all here and the public. Even if that consensus is to disagree that would be fine unfortunately they are so unreasonable that is even impossible.
I have many CIT supporters for friends but they all can agree to me believing their theory is weak and not our best argument.
Kind regards John
We Are Too Agile, Not Gonna Happen!
I actually think the truth movement has managed to quite successfully avoid being tainted with the most outrageous claims. Even the majority of hit pieces, when citing such claims must concede that only a fringe subscribe. When newspapers allow open comments on the topic, attempts to promote nonsense are typically dwarfed by those on our side expressing disdain.
You can see my few words that eliminated space weapons from an argument a few years ago, here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=7444&hl=&view=findpost&...
There is, John Bursill, a significant body of convergent circumstantial evidence supporting a case for Israeli involvement, including declarations from Bibi Netanyahu pertaining to that old question "cui bono."
Those details should not be rendered taboo here, or anywhere, on the grounds of a "Jews did it" strawman repeated ad nauseum.
The CNN hit-piece video you posted cites US taxpayer funded but Israeli operated MEMRITV, which has a notoriously selective and deceptive memory.
From the outset the hit-piece repeatedly conflates jews with zionists, beats up on the favorite "4000 Jews didn't go to work" strawman, while professionally neglecting to mention those 5 jubilant and explosive tainted Urban Moving Systems men reportedly found with "maps linking them to the bombing plot."
The hit-piece strives throughout to instill an atmosphere in which the only kind of person who might do some research on the topic of 911 and Israel would have to be a Nazi.
Thanks for bringing to my attention one of the most well-poisoned and nauseating hit pieces yet.
I know several vocal Jews, including a close personal friend, who are not only passionately opposed to Zionism, but strongly suspect Israeli involvement in the events on 911.
Shalom/Salaam
He claims an israeli element he doesn't blame israel
for the attacks. It's CNN that is trying to spin the facts.
Most objective people in the 911truth movement would agree that "Israeli elements" were probably involved in the attacks and specific circumstances need to be investigated. Obviously, this crime is beyond the capabilities of the mossad without the help of other nations including most likely the primary player the US.
In the end if more Americans indirectly start taking a closer look at the Zionist policies of Israel and it's influence and utimate risk to America is that a bad thing? What if enough US citizens knew more about the dancing israeli videographers and Silversteins "pull it" comments regarding WTC7 which are FACTS then maybe it would help collapse the whole house of cards.
If citizens knew that dual citizenship with Israel was the only dual relationship permitted for State Department officials would they start questioning our Government's positions more carefully?
I would expect most people on this site will want to limit discussion of Israeli involvement with respect to 911, claiming it will only sabotage our chances for respect etc. However the continued discussion of all matters relating to questions around 911 results in the possible collapse of the official theory among the masses. Yes, the MSM is trying to sidetrack the truth but only a year ago they didn't even have to talk about 911. The big picture is that they are more concerned than ever and are scrambling to suppress the truth.
Yes so lets keep on doing what is working!
I put this up as a preemptive piece.
This is the fight stage, be ready and make sure your position is defendable.
Regards John
I take your point...
I am as nearly all in the 9/11 Truth Movement opposed to the powerful influence of Israel and it's governments/lobby groups over the US congress and the media.
Zionism in the form we know it today is racist and the Palestinian situation is disgusting period.
Is it likely that Mossad Israel had a hand in the 9/11 events and the cover up, yes. Is it a talking point I would use in an interview, no.
If you don't play their game they can not win!
Kind regards John
Comfort zones...
Good points, John. We all know, too well by now the Goebbels-like, manipulative nature of the US (and international) corporate media, and how they deliberately take advantage of the public's mass ignorance by linking any criticism of Israeli/Zionist policy, with "anti-semitism", racism or other forms of bigotry, in order to defame, in this instance, the 9/11 Truth Movement.
We all have to be very careful not to fall for this type of cheap bear-baiting tactic, but at the same time, not to close our eyes to possibilities which fall outside of our largely self-imposed comfort zone, for example, that there *might* have been an element of involvement with Mossad, re. 9/11.
5 of their members have already admitted, publicly, that they were "in NYC to document the event". This admission is the clearest evidence of foreknowledge, or "accessory before the fact" to the murder of 3000 people, that we have, yet many people *allegedly* in the 9/11 Truth Movement would prefer to squash, or suppress this material, or shout people down who mention it.
Agreed!
That goes without saying and maybe that's what I'm trying to say;)
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful post....
Regards John
On Bollyn
An example of someone who has one foot in the White Supremacy movement and one in 9/11 is Christopher Bollyn. He can be heard in an interview with David Duke decrying the idea that black men be allowed to date white women. He takes his many years of experience in Israel and he uses it to create a false legitimacy for himself as an opponent of Zionism but his real beliefs -- racism, that whites are superior while all other races are not, that whites are in danger from mixing with other races, etc -- are only rarely actually seen in interviews like this --
DAVID DUKE: But she talks about how she had this great love affair with this black person -- they didn't show any of it on the screen, thank God -- but again it was teaching all of the young blonde girls and white girls in the audience, basically, and the white guys, that it's perfectly OK, that it's just fine, and if you're a pretty white girl it's absolutely normal for you to have a love affair with a black person.
CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN: Yeah, this kind of intermarriage and interracial dating seems to have become very popular, not popular, but it's been accepted in countries like Sweden, Scandinavian countries and in Holland. You see it more and more and it's almost like these rather naïve European girls, they accept what they're being told on MTV, and they flock to these boys, many of whom, in Europe, are not, they're not even European, in the sense that they haven't grown up there. They're often immigrants from Africa and the cultural difference between these European girls and these African boys is so great that it can't make for a very good relationship in any way. But like you say, this has been forced on Europeans and Americans by MTV . . .
http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradiobollyn30april05.mp3
What's worse, amongst the real and credible points about the 9/11 attacks, a veiled white supremacist will typically make ridiculous claims like this, discrediting the movement --
"The plane that struck the South Tower, for example, had shapes, bulges, and holes which have led many analysts to believe it was a Boeing 767-300 refueling tanker that had been disguised as a 767-200 United Airlines passenger jet."
http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10708
If I imagine your voice it easier to read:)
Hello Robin,
My view is we don't know what happened at the Pentagon so until we do I am now supporting a 757-200 did based on the recent analysis of the raw DFDR data that is consistent with the official story.
What I would love to see from you Robin is a paper outlining what sort of air vehicle it was and why you believe hit the Pentagon?
We need as you say keep opened minds, but we must remain focused on winning the day.
Please lets get your ideas in the form of a paper that we can all peer review?
Victoria is doing this movement a great service and should be praised for her efforts exposing weak theories and people. Continually accusing her of defending Israel is bizarre at best.
Kind regards John
PS - I'd say you'll be getting close to banned for this comment...
RIGHT ON
John you are right. Those three point are so quickly and easily used to completely discredit merely looking into the attacks at all. Trying to convince some one of Israeli involvement SOUNDS ANTI-SEMITIC. EVEN IF IT'S NOT! Focusing in on these confusing minute aspects of 9/11 will continue to make the idea of looking into the attack seem RACIST! John's points are important!!! Here is what it made me think of:
ETIQUETTE is EVERYTHING in the MODERN 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT. If we get caught up in SPECULATION and THEORIZING we will always lose our argument. We NEED NOT THEORIZE or flamboyantly display that 'WE' (the self-righteous 9/11 truthers) KNOW what happened. Convincing someone that you KNOW something they do not in this way (ie yelling "9/11 was an inside job" ZOMBIE!) will far more likely turn them away from anything you as a truther have to say. In effective activism Etiquette is the ONLY winner! If you set a well behaved, reserved, and critical standard you will always be well received and as a bonus, you will easily separate yourself from fringe elements of 9/11 truth which are a waste of your time to focus in on when taking part a fresh discussion.
I will also note that John's point is very important because we must denounce bizarre untruthful speculation in our TRUTH MOVEMENT. Theorizing can be fun for people, but when it comes to facts and opening peoples minds to a BRAND NEW idea, the 9/11 truth movement should be THE MOST critical of itself and it's presentation!
THINK OF IT LIKE THIS:::
It doesn't matter if I've shown you lots of great ideas or said lots of great things....if I start behaving in a violent, or racist, or flamboyant manner, I should be called out for behaving in such an audacious, uncivilized or illogical fashion.
mmmm I not sure how to take that?
It is definitely possible the planes were swapped! I reference to Northwoods all the time, that does not mean I need to make a claim about the planes on 9/11...that is made a "question" by the reference...yes??
This is not the point, unlike people like Balsamo (P4T) and Ranke(CIT) or even Barrett to a degree I think it boosts our position and creditability greatly to support any element of the OCT that we cannot prove to be false.
Actually making the argument that Legge has, that now the evidence is supporting that it's more likely a 757-200 hit the Pentagon on 9/11 is good for us. For me that is true now so I believe we should support that a 757 did hit the Pentagon until something changes. That would be a coupe for the 9/11 Truth Movement......more focused and less divided?
Food for thought...
Regards John
You are incorrect!
CIT and Pilot's put forward baseless claims as if fact!
This is of no help period!
This my last for this thread...
Kind regards John
What a bunch of whores ----
What a bunch of whores ---- they can say whatever they want, they're losing creditability every day.
And by being careful and truthful we build ours...
...everyday!
By the way the term is "presstitutes" no offence meant to the hard working girls out there:)
Regards John
Presstitutes are loosing ground
as people are getting informed of the grand 9/11-hoax :)
I am speaking out regarding the obvious controlled demolitions! let there be a new investigation.
Cointelpro
let spin the CIT/Kevin Barrett wheel until the whole thread forgets mention of Israel and the role it played in the 911 Hoax. This site is immune from infiltration?
I don't think so. And keep unpopular opinions below the threshold so that it becomes less significant to the potential dissenters. You think you know what happened at the Pentagon and what the evidence is?
I doubt it folks.
What do you mean "Cointelpro"?
Are you trying to say that people who are posting stuff you don't like are Cointelpro? I know the feeling, but it really doesn't help to start vaguely throwing that word around. Next thing you know, everyone's calling everyone else an agent. I've been called an agent about 500 times this week and I'm still not getting paid.
Israel was only one of several topics introduced by John's blog, which I'm pretty sure he posted to spark a community discussion. It seems like that worked well and I don't see anyone off topic here.
BTW, there's a new film called COINTELPRO 101.
Do you feel ripped off?
Because I do. If I have to suffer through all the accusations of agent/infiltrator/provocateur/cointelpro, then I want the salary to go with it.
I'm still not getting paid either. At least you're handling it with a sense of humor.
Kevin Ryan commenting on an interview I did with him...
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-17/visibility911-welcomes-kevin-ryan-...
Kevin Ryan wrote:
What seems to have triggered this particular group of chat room bozos is their pre-determined conclusion that Israel orchestrated 9/11. But like I said in the interview, the evidence for that has not been presented.
Netanyahu and the Likuds are genicidal creeps, no doubt. As for Zionists, I'm sure there are things for me to learn about that political phenomenon. But Unger and others have reported that some of the leading neocons (Kristol, etc) were originally Trotskyists, and I'm not sure what this miltaristic communist philosophy might have to do with Zionism. It is, however, interesting that these neocons were communists whose intellectual offspring became leaders of the US Republican party. That is, they are people for whom politics and ideology are easily interchanged but for whom militarism is constant. Other neocons and top suspects are clearly anti-semitic (like the Bush family).
I've run across some interesting Israelis, and I'm learning more about others through Robert Parry and a book I just got by Samuel Segev. One 9/11 connection to Israel was Lev Zetlin, who founded LZA Thornton-Tomasetti, the company that NYC hired to make decisions (like recycling the steel) at GZ. Zetlin was once the head of the Israeli Air Force, many years before the WTC buildings were built. He came to NYC to be an engineer and started this company to investigate engineering failures. If I write anything about him, Bollyn will launch another article pinning the whole thing on Zetlin (who died in 1992), much like he did with Frank Lampl when I mentioned his being the founder of Bovis Lend Lease.
Maybe it's not popular but I'm convinced, as I said in the interview, that 9/11 was an operation conducted by a consortium of international criminal organizations (Moyers' secret government, various mafia groups, corporate cartels, etc) that does not recognize nations let alone fight for them. I'm reaching this conclusion through learning about building and technology access, and historic events like the October (and April) suprises, Iran/Contra, the raping of Central and South America, the Savings & Loan scandal, the assassination of many national leaders (including Rabin), The Opium Wars, BCCI and BNL, and many more things.
As I told John, I think that many powerful groups have an interest in 9/11 truth, and how it plays out.
--END--
Kevin ain't no fool and neither am I, saying Israel did 9/11 is as silly as saying US Government did it.
It's a cabal of criminals not whole governments or countries....elements of Governments yes.
Regards John
Comfort zones... again.
Lets just add this question? Out of the two options re. suspects, what is easier one for 99% of the population to accept:
(a) a small cadre of Muslim extremists, or
(b) a small cadre of Zionist extremists?
Considering the facts that Americans have been indoctrinated for decades by the corporate media into the "perception" that Muslims are all terrorists or potential terrorists, and Hollywood has brainwashed Americans with the notion that Arabs are "bad people" or "inferior", it was a very easy sell for the Bush Administration and corporate media to blame 9/11 on a group of pre-vilified, dark-skinned people from foreign lands whose customs, appearance, dress code, religious faith and spoken language(s) did not map onto mainstream middle America.
Then consider the fact that the neoconservative element in DC, which stacked the 2001 Bush Administration, and had been clamoring for the current "endless war" agenda (and the event to trigger it), are,amongst other factors:
(a) sympathetic to the Zionist aim of establishing a "Greater Israel" in the Middle East: It has even been admitted by former VP Cheney that the aim was "to redraw the map of the middle east".
(b) dual citizens of both Israel and the US, and lets not forget that an Israeli citizen's first loyalty is always towards Israel.
(c) many have been most unsubtle regarding their opinions of Arabs and Muslims... with public sentiments which range from mere disdain, all the way to outright hatred. (The mind boggles re. what they might talk about in private on this subject..)
And (d) the influence of the Israel lobby,especially re. formulating foreign policy, in DC is vastly disproportionate when considering Israel's size, GNP, distance from the US, etc etc.
And (e) Lets also not forget that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's motto is "By deception we shall do war"...
And (f) Lets not forget that Israeli not only invented modern day terrorist techniques (via Irgun, the Stern Gang etc), whose membership in the 1950s included a number of future leading Israeli politicians, but also were very well versed in false flag operations, for example the bombing of the King David Hotel, where *Arabs* were blamed.
Assigning the blame to "al qaeda" and "Islamic extremists" was something that most American people easily accepted, probably with relief. "Its them again... lets wreak bloody revenge". Now that facts are showing up that places the blame elsewhere, our collective comfort zones are being invaded and violated to the point of inducing the same reaction of pathological denial amongst the general public, the "left" (?!?) media, and evencertain people with the 9/11 Truth
Movement, who,IMHO, should know better.
Just my 2c... and call me antisemitic if you must.
YES
Exactly, if you wanna shop talk this subject to death and study it that is fine. As far as activism and public relations, convincing people they don't know what happened at the pentagon is a huge waste of time, mainly because MOST people in America agree with this! Simply because they haven't seen but the two vids that were released. It is such an easily provable fact that the MSM has been HAPPY to cover it in the past and show the newly released grainy unclear vid. This is because proving that we don't know what happened at the pentagon doesn't point a finger at anyone who is likely guilty of this crime. I have found all of my "pentagon question" discussions to lead to not much besides amazing speculative theories about what "might have happened" on those confiscated videos.
Theorizing is not for the activists in this movement who are trying to open up peoples minds (especially nowadays!). This is because the new idea being heavily pushed in the MSM and by the way this is also something I see as a general technique of disinformation and cover-up once things can't just be denied anymore:
Convince everyone that 'they have "heard it all" about 9/11 theories or truth or whatever.'
I've now heard this response very often especially as of the last 3 + years as the subject has continued to grow, from a lot my intellectual friends and some bigger radio hosts I've called who are usually open-minded people. They have been convinced "they have heard it all" so if THEY "have heard it all," then MOST people have "heard it all," therefore if there were something to it ( what those 9/11 people are saying or trying to show me) then IT would have been blown up by the media and there would be a huge uproar from they and the public. So let us keep this new technique of disinformation in mind when we choose what ideas to spread in order to open up our friends and like minded individuals eyes to the truth (especially the first conversations on the subject). It is amazing that we now live in a society where most folks at the very least have heard the phrase 9/11 Truth. They just simply have been convinced "they have heard it all" so I don't need to read into what this person is trying to show me or tell me about.
So, have most folks heard it all about what might have happened at the Pentagon? I would argue yes. The "Pentagon Mystery" stuff is actually the point most repeated to me by people who don't know much about the subject but are trying to begin relating to me by bringing up a "9/11 Truth" question. So like I said earlier, when it comes to activism, I have found it a constant waste of time to get this Pentagon question idea into peoples heads because most people already know and share the same opinion on the subject. Bringing up the Pentagon doesn't POINT ANY FINGER AT ANY GUILTY PARTIES. This is because all that most people can deal with proving about the subject is that we don't really know what happened, as in 'we can't seem to watch it on video', but we pretty much know what happened so this doesn't spark my (the newly approached skeptic) interest in getting deeper into 9/11 study.
This (above) was meant as a reply to the Pentagon discussion
that went on earlier in the thread, but also relates generally to the thread as well.
I think the pentagon is mostly a dead end
however I do like to bring up Mineta's comments and question why it was not in the report.
Your comment regarding "convincing everyone they have heard it all " is very relevant. No doubt this is one of the major tactics in surpressing the truth presently.
The smoking gun is surely building 7 at this point. I simply say to folks who maintain they have heard it all before something like " you seem like a smart person how do you think buiding 7 collapsed like it did? " This usually results in a clear opening to educate someone that they don't really know what they think they know. At the very least it's checkmate in 3 or 4 more comments.
I have clearly stated that this job was beyong the mossad's or Israel's capability even factoring in extensive insiders within the US Govt. But partners in the crime no doubt about it. Unless you think Osama could get an Israeli camera crew to film his handiwork.
While I generally avoid the Pentagon when educating the public,
it comes up quite often none-the-less. I have learned to take three approaches when discussing the Pentagon with members of the general public:
1) It is the headquarters of the single largest military in the world and thus must be one of the most heavily defended buildings in the world, so how is it that anything could happen there?
2) Why is it that with a reported 80+ videos of the Pentagon, only a few have been released and we still don't have any clear images of what happened?
3) Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on CSPAN.
I avoid speculating about the Pentagon or anything else related to 9/11 when doing public activism, but if a member of the public begins speculating I use that as an opportunity to interject more facts that either dispel or reinforce whatever their position may be. This usually increases my credibility in their eyes and allows me to steer the conversation to more solid ground, such as the destruction at the WTC site.
The most recent thing I've noticed online is that critics of 9/11 truth don't try to defend NIST, they just put forward their own explanation as to why the towers and WTC 7 fell, based on a lot of misinformation that has been put out to the public by Popular Mechanics and other non-peer reviewed publications.
All we can do is to keep doing what we have been doing, which is to educate the public one on one on this most important issue and be very critical whenever anyone produces "new" evidence of information regarding the events of 9/11/01.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
I find it really outrageous
that Dr Steven Jones, Dr Neils Harrit , Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan are never invited onto these programs ?
We don't know who did 9/11, we're pretty sure the materials they used ( highly technical explosives) weren't
manufactured overseas as they bear the hallmarks of domestic technology. Lastly the amount of time to set these up INSIDE THE BUILDINGS meant someone on the inside was aware. The elevator renovations going on in the towers were a good opportunity...on and on....The PNAC group did say "We need a new pearl harbor"
and on and on...For anyone not enmeshed in a brainwash has to believe there is something really wrong with
the official story. This by the mainstream is truly disgusting.
What is wrong with this web site?
When I click Tracker I see several new comments have been made. When I scroll through the comments I find one new comment on the first page but no more. Careful study of the next page reveals a new comment unmarked, so I know there is one new comment and there must be more that are too hard to find. Where are the rest of the "New" marks?
Yes not always but sometimes I have seen the same Frank?
Regards John
missing "New"
Thanks John. Your post came up without the New tag. Excellent example.